Author Credibility Debate

That guy is wrong on many topics more often than he is right. You should not take him too seriously.

That is highly unlikely. However, if you find nothing he writes inspiring/thought-provoking, then I think you are prejudiced against him based on reading a few things you didn't find worthy. People rarely become famous by being complete hacks: this guy has sensible and valuable things to say. Now I don't read his stuff anymore because there isn't enough of value in it for me, but YMMV.

Please. I expect better from you of all people. It sucks being young and seeing two opposing intellectual heroes or sides at each other, yeah sure he is not on the side(or my side in the end) of the LW/OB crowd of AI/Modification etc etc, but it's not true, he's not like that.What's worse is that at times I actually wondered "I wonder what gwern thinks of Taleb's xyz, or Hanson of Nassim's abc." Your post only further contributes to my melancholy.

He's on his soap box, again. Apparently, he's an expert in absolutely everything under the sun. Therefore we must listen to him, err, or something like that.Treat it like a plain blog. Take it with a grain of salt as it's just one way, one person's opinion. If you like it, great. If not, move along... Just because he's got good advice on certain topics, doesn't mean we should listen to him on everything else. Classic intelligentsia syndrome.

That is a very superficial critique, lacking in actual arguments and references. While I generally don't agree with the guy, he makes sense. His articles are coherent and insightful, if sometimes unpleasant and generally long-winded.If anyone's interested, here's a summary of his writing[1] with links to most important articles. His posts are also a goldmine of one-liners[2].BTW He used to have an account here[3] but was banned, unfortunately.[1] <a href="http://moldbuggery.blogspot.com

As a long time reader, I don't feel like he asserts things from a tone of authority, but usually makes self contained well reasoned arguments, and cites his sources.He is a practicing clinical psychiatrist, and also knows a lot about AI, but I find him to be hilariously naive and almost always wrong when he talks about relationships, sex, or social dynamics- almost like an alien trying to understand humans with no firsthand experience.Overall, I would also say he is an extremely intel

I'd be fine with him being an asshole if the quality of his thought were higher. His perspectives are rarely original and often poorly explained, especially if the topic is technical. Unfortunately people get the impression that he's some kind of genius because he's an intellectual celebrity who's bad at explaining his technical ideas (so they must be super deep).He's at his best with "black swan" and "skin in the game" type stuff - aphoristic, lyr

Here is the author's CV:https://www.amherst.edu/people/facstaff/aguttmannIt's pretty impressive.It seems unlikely to me that he is ignorant and has no desire for understanding.It's possible he is wrong--lots of people are about lots of topics. This is his specialty, but I (and likely no one else around) am in no position to evaluate his claim

I like to hear what he has to say about anything because he’s a thoughtful essayist and has generally interesting things to say.Its not cult worship. I feel that way about other people as well (who aren't wealthy well known venture capitalists)

Saw him give a talk promoting his latest book last month, was heavily disappointed. Ideas are presented in a way to fit nicely together, but ultimately lack any depth or critical insights. I recall someone calling it "creationism for people with an IQ over 140"; it's a fair description.It's a shame, he's brought many great contributions to our field, but I fear he has jumped the shark a while ago. Maybe going to Google will force him to work on solutions to problems of which the correctness c