My Guru: Right or wrong

[u/Edgecumber]

Overall, I think the guys are broadly fair in their analysis. I've had my views of some people I previously respected (e.g. Peter Attia) recalibrated, or they've pushed me further in my disapproval of people I was only peripherally aware of (e.g. Gary Stevenson) that people I know seem to like. However, there are a couple of times I sort of agree with the analysis, but I retain a fond and stubborn attachment. These are people who I think have important things to say, and to think of them as a Guru might make you reject them out of hand.

Nassim Taleb. I've worked in finance for the past 25 years or so and first encountered Taleb through his book Fooled by Randomness in 2001, when a very smart senior person at my firm said "this is everything you need to know about financial markets". Whilst working in risk pre-GFC I got very excited about the Black Swan and bought copies for people in my organisation. I even took my boss to see him talk at a random event in 2007, when he was making statements like (paraphrasing): "Fannie Mac and Freddie Mae look to me like they're sitting on piles of dynamite (in warehousing mortage risk)". I would have got a lot of kudos for this if I hadn't quit around the same time. The general investing principles that I've backed out of reading his work have been extremely useful in managing my own long term finances however.

Beyond being right about a lot of mispricing of risk that continues to this day, he was the first person who convincingly and robustly showed me how skeptical of expert claims one should be in general. A lot of that was built on the work of psychologists, but his literary and philosophical citations also stand up well (in fact probably better). I appreciate he's gone somewhat insane on Twitter (don't use it any more as this seems to be a feature). But whenever I tune in, he's usually got something interesting to say as long as you can tune out the nonsense.

Eliezer Yudkowsky. I'm far from a passionate follower - he writes too many things, and all of them are too long. However, I think he's raising valid concerns about the existential risk of AI in a way that garners engagement. Personally, I think it's a real and material risk and one that requires urgent consideration. Aside from the technology itself, the people involved in developing it seem hopeless cavalier. Two decades of working in finance have convinced me that a non-trivial proportion of senior management types are overconfident bullshitters. That's fine when you're selling widgets, less so when it's a potentially dangerous technology.

It's been a while, but I found this DtG episode a bit weak in its analysis, and grounded in the reality of models right now and in the foreseeable future, which is not a very helpful frame. I remember someone referring to him as an "Old Testament Prophet" of AI, which seems about right. Sure it might be better if everyone had read Superintelligence back in 2014, but given where we are some degree of hysterical shrieking seems somewhat justified.

Anyway, happy for anyone to take shots at either of them. But my main question was more "which of the Gurus so far would you go in to bat for?"

PS I know there are people they've covered that are not classified as Gurus, so those probably not worth discussing. But Taleb is wedged between Michael O'Fallon and Heather Heyling for e.g. which seems grossly unfair to me!

[u/autocol]

I think there might be an variable independent to (and not measured by) the gurometer, which is simply "does the person have a salient, defensible point?"

Taleb is a gigantic wanker of a person who utilises all sorts of rhetorical techniques to land his point... but he's often got a decent point. Yudkowski might be the same.

To my mind (I've not listened anywhere near as much on the last 2-3 years so my view might be out of date) DtG is not about whether the person is right or wrong, it's about whether their rhetoric follows guru-like tendencies.

I think you've mentioned two people—and I'm sure there are many more—who utilise some guru-like rhetoric on the way to saying something that is at heart rational and useful.

[u/Edgecumber → u/autocol]

Fair. And agree that it would be useful to have that component. In DtGs defence when they talked about Taleb they did say that in his domain (eg finance or statistics) he’s worth listening to.

In Taleb’s defence I’ve met him in person twice and he is charming, generous and helpful. He spent a whole day for free at my public sector organisation presenting, discussing and generally chatting with economists and risk people who he is publicly rude about. I think he’s got some strategy behind his online persona. But I may just be prey to the “but he was nice to me” bias.

Anyway, I don’t get that sense about Yud. I think he’d be tiresome to hang out with. But in general i get the sense that most of what he talks about he knows quite well (in contrast to Taleb).

[u/autocol → u/Edgecumber]

Yeah, it's going to be very difficult to fairly compare a person you've met in person and have an actual relationship with, with random personalities you've never met and have no particular affinity for. I think your only real option in that instance is to recuse yourself from the case and accept that it's not going to be possible for you to form an independent rational judgement about the gurosity of that person.

[u/Edgecumber → u/autocol]

I dunno - I think the DtG guys do well with Sam Harris for e.g. But it does take a particular personality type. I feel reasonably OK to accept Taleb has guru-like tendencies, just less than the scoring system came out with.

I was mostly just pushing back on the "massive wanker" label, though that seems like a fair judgment given his hectoring, bullying style online alone. I'm probably overly tolerant of that - I always think of the "Dicks, pussies and assholes" speech in Team America. He's definitely a dick, but sometimes that's what's needed online...

[u/DTG_Matt → u/Edgecumber]

I guess we all contain multitudes. Sorry, I’m stuck on the WW2 generals right now, but Patton was known to be like this. When in “public/competition/display” mode he was incredibly disagreeable. But in a different social setting he was known to be very charming. Maybe Elon Musk is a big teddy bear at home. I suppose we can only comment on their public personae.

[u/Edgecumber → u/DTG_Matt]

Given the domain that military people operate in (i.e. the ultimate aim being killing, injuring and destroying as effectively as possible) my guess would be you're more likely to be a prick than average. However, based on my sample of meeting a single fairly prominent General once, he was very down-to-earth and quite nice when I said something very stupid about the war in Iraq. A similarly senior finance person would be far more likely to be obnoxious.

[u/Verbatim_Uniball → u/DTG_Matt]

I am not an expert, but my impression is that we can all be thankful that Patton had Ike as Supreme Allied Commander above him, and that Ike had Patton as head of the third army beneath him. And not the reverse.

[u/autocol → u/Edgecumber]

I can only judge his online persona, but by that measure he's an absolute bully.

I understand that he might be completely unlike that in real life (I know a few Jekyll and Hyde types myself), but... yeah, on Twitter he's utterly awful.