> John Holmes <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Forgive me, but that seems a bit silly. Why is it so important to you to
> verify that he is 19 years old? I've sat back and read this list for some
> time and it doesn't really seem to me that age should have any bearing on
> the discussions.
Absolutely! I don't care if he is 19 or 99 (it is the quality of the posts which decides my merit rating).
The vast majority of what you discuss is not about life
> experience, but about hopeful visions of the future. Granted, some of the
> issues involve a sort of enlightenment that may or may not only come with
> age, but can you not simply read Eliezer's posts and decide for yourself
> whether he has any wisdom?
Again true. That he has wisdom is probably non-arguable.
What really comes up is the perspective that some people find it difficult to believe that he might be only 19.
The question comes down to "expert opinions", whether we are willing to "belive" people like Eric Drexler, Robert Freitas, Eliezer, etc. as being "well informed" or whether we will differentiate between them on some basis.
Are you more willing to believe the prognostications of Eric on Nanotech or Robert on Nanomedicine or Eliezer on AI?
If you have differing truth-assesments, why is that the case?
Bottom line -- how do you assess the truthfullness of any presentation? (email/news/conference/publication/etc.)