"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote:
> PLONK? You spend four years flaming me for being insufficiently
> experienced and not having gone direct to implementation, and then Ben
As you might have noticed, I haven't started criticizing (not flaming,
I have yet never flamed anybody on this list, not even come close) you
immediately -- only after I've seen other people reacting positively
to your proposal, sufficiently so that I become worried.
You're opinionated and eloquent, but a troll you're not. Occasionally,
you cruise too high on testosterone, but I did much worse, and at a
later age, so I don't have any right to criticize you on that. (The
good thing, it will pass).
I think however, that you're wasting your time, which you at a later
time you may come to regret (recall the staged windows of opportunity,
as created by other people's expectations of you, and age artifacts),
and other people's. In my curmugeonly, unasked-for way I tried
sundry smiles, soap and railway shares, until I ran into
diminishing ROI. Fine. It's yours and other people's time and
effort, not mine. Moreover, I should be less ambivalent about this,
and be glad that you're poking around in the area which is so totally
barren.
> Goertzel comes along and you KILLFILE him? Well, I'm glad to see the
Ben "Webmind" Goertzel? He didn't have any brownie points in my book, and
he ran out of the default issue stock in record time, which is quite
an accomplishment. I can be aggravating, and at times I'm being deliberately
so, but his response pattern was 24 ct genuine troll (or a brilliant
imitation thereof), and a troll of the more crude, warty variety.
Almost no technical points, several red herrings, thinly veiled
statements "you no good. you suck so badly you're not worth arguing with".
Okay, so let's remove the cause (but not the symptoms).
> reaction I could have expected from you if I'd actually gone along with
> your recommendations!
Huh?
> I guess this just confirms my original take on your proposal; the people
> who currently flame me for not having a doctorate or not having source
I personally don't care a fig about a doctorate. One of the most
brilliant persons I've personally known has never been in an
university programme. A Ph.D. can be very easily bought, obtained
by nepotism, or by sheer bottom of your pants. God knows I've
seen enough braindead Ph.Ds.
However, letters are world's way of measuring prestige. They're your
attached accomplishment track, however crude and biased, and if you
want to work with people who don't know you from Adam It Really Helps.
In many fields a Ph.D. with honours from a good school and a few
publications is just an entry ticket to get an interview with a
top-notch PI.
> code are the same people who would be flaming me just as virulently for
By riling you about not having a functional prototype I was attempting
two goals: 1) less Eliezer in my mailbox 2) Eliezer cutting his teeth
on the diamond boulder, and going for something with a brighter success
outlook. Which, of course, is inconsistent. I don't want my day ruined,
no sir. Better Eliezer saying "a heap of straw" than a ruined day.
> not having twenty years experience if I did spend five years getting a
> doctorate, or who'll be flaming me for having the wrong source code in a
> couple of years.
As I rule, and a means of last resort before ceasing communication
I only flame people I consider effectively evil. Right now that
badge of dubious honour belongs to Robert Ettinger alone. May he rot in peace.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:02 MDT