http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/FanFic/HarryPotterAndTheMethodsOfRationality

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21667155)

How much of his own page on there do you think he wrote himself?

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21667334)

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21667398)

seriously though, it's kinda cool that he's reaching people that way. I've always thought that he or some other lesswrong person should write a cracked.com article to further bring the rationality gospel to the masses.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21667480)

ITT: 180 sci-fi story

people are really giving him a hard time ITT when the truth is he could out-poast all of us.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21667592)

http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/images/august/santaclara.JPG

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21666625)

b) lolno

c) probably not, but I can live with that

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21667028)

http://lesswrong.com/lw/ua/the_level_above_mine/

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21666657)

diegocaleiro 08 August 2011 08:13:20AM 3 points [-]

You are the brightest person I know. And I know Dan Dennett, Max Tegmark, Robert Trivers, Marcello, Minsky, Pinker and Omohundro.

Unfortunately, those are non-math geniuses, so that speaks for only some sub-areas of cognition which, less strictly categorizable than the clearly scalable domain of math, are not subject to your proposed rule of "one standard deviation above you they blurr"

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21666695)

this genius dude, in the article, is talking with a math grad student at stanford, and putnam honorable mention

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21666710)

He's definitely intelligent, but his level of obsession suggests the sort of (possibly unconscious) insecurity that comes from being smart, but not *quite* the super-genius he seems to fancy himself to be.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21666832)

STEM bros (i.e. math and physics) are always comparing themselves to others, whether through competitions or subjective evaluations. you have no idea now stfu.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21666840)

Edit: I've met three fields medalists and countless other brilliant mathematicians and none of them were nearly as douchey as this douche.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21667059)

and terence tao's blog has got clouds and rainbows on it - and he's #1 so why should he feel insecure about anything?

why dont you read steve hsu's blog you little bitch?

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21667249)

You obviously don't know anything about math. And yes, I have met three fields medalists and they don't (as someone posted above about EY) go around asking if they're the smartest person in the room.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21667313)

oooh wow you got me - big difference!

"And yes, I have met three fields medalists and they don't (as someone posted above about EY) go around asking if they're the smartest person in the room."

this guy asked a good friend in private and then posted about it. at least steve hsu has expressed similar sentiments about intelligence and comparisons on his blog, and we know steven hsu's no idiot.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21667348)

Uh, yes? There are lots of other mathematicians doing work in fields outside of analysis.

> at least steve hsu has expressed similar sentiments about intelligence and comparisons on his blog, and we know steven hsu's no idiot.

I read Steve Hsu's blog and it's obvious that he's very smart. On the other hand, this guy seems obsessed with IQ and has very few other accomplishments. I never made the argument that being obsessed with IQ implies you're unintelligent, just that most really brilliant people spend their time thinking about more substantive shit.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21667410)

This.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21667423)

I used to really like the guy until I found out he was a polyamorist; lol at that.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21666823)

to be fair I really don't know anything about the guy's personal life other than that he once used the word "polyamorist" to describe himself; if he called himself a "swinger" or something it'd be a lot different. swingers are just hedonists, polyamorists are sadsacks who remind me of furries in that they consider themselves part of a "community" with their own nausea-inducing jargon and base way too much of their identity on their lifestyle.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21666932)

Or sadder: Maybe I just wasted too much time on setting up the resources to support me, instead of studying math full-time through my whole youth; or I wasted too much youth on non-mathy ideas. And this choice, my past, is irrevocable. I'll hit a brick wall at 40, and there won't be anything left but to pass on the resources to another mind with the potential I wasted, still young enough to learn. So to save them time, I should leave a trail to my successes, and post warning signs on my mistakes.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21666878)

I thought ppl hit the brick wall at 30.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21674165)

this is the difference between verbal/ non-verbal intelligence.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21667113)

and reminder: the guy is a verified genius

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21667172)

"Most intelligent people I've met" is not informative, we need to give quantitative estimates. My estimate is calibrated based on knowing people who passed various screenings, such as math, physics and programming contests (including at international level), test results on screening exams to top universities, performance in hard university courses, people starting to grasp research and programming, etc. Based on population of regions covered by various screenings, and taking age, gender and different background into account, I can approximately rate these people on the "1 in XXX" scale. I'd say that you need to be at a level of 1 in 300 or so to be able to deeply understand any technical field of human knowledge given reasonable effort, and 1 in 100 to be a competent technical specialist. There is a significant difference (which can cash out as, say, 3x speedup at obtaining given level of aptitude) between people who are 1 in 1000 and 1 in 10000. I know too few people beyond 1 in 10000 (about top 30 in a contest over population of 20 million within a 3-year age interval, given average lifespan of 60 and background selection of 1 in 3 top people to enter the contest) to say whether there is a general enough advantage of being there, or if the performance levels off and more rarely occurring extraordinary ability only presents itself on very narrow task, like blasting through programming contests.

People at all levels are stupid at unknown domains, it takes much effort to start demonstrating "raw intelligence" at anything (although in many things skills partially translate between domains). You can't learn to be creative enough if you don't pass a necessary threshold, but on the other hand if you are past it, sufficient effort will make you able to solve any problem other people can solve, although it'll take more time to attain that level and to solve problems once you did that.

The main problem for getting results is that it's very hard to port smart people on a new field of expertise, to convince them to start thinking about something or to actively work on improving their performance in a given domain. So, it seems that the main problem with seeing (or finding) enough brilliant people in any given field or group is not in the rarity of talent, but in the roads they all took, too few of which lead where you look.

People won't risk working on hard important problems or even think too much about exploring which problems could be important, they choose convenient, safe or enjoyable paths, they choose intellectual dynamic, the process, rather than proper understanding of results or appearance. People you hear from are not the smartest there are in a given subject.

I estimate myself to be around 1 in 1000, more specifically a somewhat blinder, slower and faulty-memory version of 1 in 5000 (as I understand, it's not how many other people perceive their limitations). I clearly see the advantages that people with clearer minds get, but as far as I can tell I'm still able to excel at anything if I devote enough attention to it, given enough time. Extraordinary intellectual productivity is a result of taking the right road, which may depend on happenstance beyond your control. Digging yourself from the pit of blind stupidity (relatively), of seeing only a surface level and stopping the investigation there, is the most important thing (which is what the art of rationality is about, not being stupid, using what you've got, while it falls short of understanding intelligence deeper).

From what I've read, I think that Eliezer is somewhere at 1 in 5000 on this scale, given time he devoted to the study of the subjects and results he produced. He stands out in comparison mainly because too few smart enough people engage in the questions he addresses from the same side, and of those who do hardly anybody devoted much serious thought to them and at the same time didn't get lost on a false road. You don't see the absence of talent, but the initial stupidity in unfamiliar domain or entrenched mistakes where there isn't a solid body of knowledge and authority to force them out.

So, I think that his estimate of 1 in 10000-100000 is too high. The problem is more of convincing the right people to work on the problem and pointing them to the right path, rather than of finding the right people at all. Having an introductory text showing the path is a huge asset, so the decision to compose this book might be a fruitful one.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21667492)

im 1/150, and u?

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21667968)

Eliezer,

what's with the ego?

In other words - why are you so driven?

I gather from your posts that you have metaphysical views which make you believe that solving the FAI problem is the most important thing you should be doing.

But is it really that important that you are the one to bring this work to fruition?

Do you think your life will have been unfulfilled, or your opportunity wasted, if you don't finish this, and finish it as soon as you can?

Would building an exceptional foundation, which future exceptional people can improve on, not be achievement enough?

What does it matter how smart you are, if you are doing what you love, and giving it your best effort?

Perhaps it is the fear of being too late that is causing you distress. Perhaps you fear that humanity is going to be destroyed because you didn't build an FAI soon enough. Perhaps you fear that your life will end some 10,000 years sooner than you'd like.

But it is not your responsibility to save the world. It can be fun if you contribute to the effort. But planets are a dime a dozen, and lives are even cheaper than that. We are not really that important. No one is. In the grand scheme of things, our dramas and concerns are lightweight fun.

One of the problems of always being the top banana is that you never learn to realize that you don't have to be the top banana to be fulfilled in your life.

There's no need to worry so much about being on Jaynes's or Conway's level. Do what you do best, and do it because it's fun. If you've been given what it takes, then this is the fastest way to become the master of your field. And even if you didn't have what it takes - which in your case is unlikely - you would still be making a contribution and having fun.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21673280)

While Conway has a huge jump on you in mathematical ability, and I'm pretty sure you're not going to catch up to him, rest assured that you are not strictly dumber than Conway in every respect.

You should bear in mind how the statement "Maybe anything more than around one standard deviation above you starts to blur together, though that's just a cool-sounding wild guess" might apply to me. If your guess is literally true, then, because math is my strong-suit, high mathematical ability is the smartest kind of smart that I can detect at all. For me, philosophical ability and the like would blur into "go to college"-land sooner.

In terms of philosophical intuition, you are head and shoulders above Conway. Remember Conway's "Free will theorem" (a brilliant piece of math to be sure, but very misleadingly named.) Yet, you report never having been confused about free will. My sense of awe at your philosophical intuition has only increased after reading the overcoming bias posts. It's doubly impressive to me, because I keep realizing that you are making explicit more of the helpful little nudges you gave me over the course of our work together, and I am impressed at how helpful some of these things were in practice, and your ability to communicate things which seemed so elusive so clearly. I'm not sure how much of that was native intelligence and how much was starting with a good ideas in your mental toolbox, but I could ask the same thing about Conway.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21673360)

Since this is now kinda on-topic... I don't think Eliezer Yudkowsky is considerably more intelligent that I am. I'm aware of Dunning-Kruger effect, but the interesting part is that I simply don't find any way to overcome this. I'm fairly intelligent, but since people around here regard my barely-MENSA(probably not even that) -level of IQ a minium requirement to even read this blog, the situation I'm in is fairly interesting. I see repeated claims of super-intelligence, but I can see just someone who has had few more years to hone his skills and who has wasted less years on doing pointless things.

So, I'm kinda curious: What's it with Elizer Yudkowsky that makes everyone look up to him? I see some fairly interesting all-around posts, but is it that you see something more? I think there is a possibility here that the reason you admire Yudkowsky and I don't is partially because he Seems Deep(in the sense that he makes sense immediatly but seems novel), while I spent my earlier life discovering much the same stuff alone. It lacks novelty(to me), but adds details and strengths which I attribute to experience, and thus I judge Eliezer less "deep", and, consequently, less superhuman? This possibility gains some credibility from the fact that in my own little circles, I have pretty much the same sort of reputation as Eliezer has here(and, I think this is surprisingly much about personality, and thus I assume it's surprisingly rare for people here to be have that reputation), and before I knew of Eliezer, I had plans of becoming something much like he is now.

I presented two possibilites: Should I accept that I'm just incapable of distinguishing the level so much above my own, or should I defy the public opinion and regard Eliezer as "not that smart", because it's more about personality and "seeming deep" than about real difference in mental machinery. However, third option exists: I haven't read the stuff that makes everyone admire Eliezer so.

I'm really interested in manifestations of intelligence, so this issue is of a great importance to me. Especially if it is about Dunning-Kruger, I wanna understand how to overcome that. Maybe it's just that I pass those "technical-seeming" parts that actually demonstrate amazing intellectual stunts, and I should make a better mental notes every time I'm forced to skip some phrase without completely grasping the meaning.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#21673981)

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#25199163)

I wonder if yudkowsky has an ED page?

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#25204945)

I've never felt so good about not being a 145 IQ genius bro before, tyft

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2063088&forum_id=2#25199765)