Eliezer is dead (not really)
post by Miller · 2011-01-20T09:08:05.761Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 15 commentsedit: Getting bombed and going on a rant on Less Wrong seemed like a good idea at the time.. I've placed a line in this post below which the value of the content decays rapidly.
I bet he spends less than 4 hours a day on his book. Where is he?
These communities decay without obvious leadership, and it doesn't exist here. Let's acknowledge this fact about human collaboration that it requires denoted leadership. If I had an insanely, objectively awesome idea about how to modify this site it would be an uphill battle to convert that to implementation. Robin Hanson was happy to go solo on his site because it is the strength of the man at the top that matters not the strength of his commenting readership. He wouldn't give two shits about particular people dropping off his readership including Eliezer apparently (which is indeed a loss, but recoverable.)
Let's acknowledge the value of aristocracy. Where is Eliezer? Should we appoint some leadership and declare him dead? Can we?
Web 2.0 circa 2004-now is all about entrepreneurs generating value from the donated efforts of others. I don't plan on being one of those slaves.
edit: the first vote was negative. I clearly expect that as a superficial response. I am quite adaptable to argument, give me reasons please.
15 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by Jack · 2011-01-20T14:42:19.354Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Eighteen months ago Eliezer Yudkowsky died while leading a strike force to take out a possible uFAI built with laptops and vacuum tubes in a Gaza strip tent city. Fearing panic and a dangerous dip in fund-raising SIAI commissioned Dr. Eldon Tyrell to build a robot simulacrum of Eliezer to give speeches, appear at public functions, and write Harry Potter fan-fiction. Less Wrong is now run by a shadowy cabal of necromancers who, some say, have an affinity for frequentism.
Replies from: Miller, jaimeastorga2000↑ comment by jaimeastorga2000 · 2011-01-24T06:10:40.449Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
So THAT's why the sequences stopped back in 2009... it all makes sense now.
comment by Costanza · 2011-01-20T19:02:30.036Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't plan on being one of those slaves.
I really don't understand why you would go to the trouble of posting this rather than just leaving this site and browsing elsewhere. It's a big internet with lots of fun distracting content. I'm reliably informed the real world may have its attractions as well.
What claim do you have on E.Y. or anybody else? If anything, I suppose the donors to SIAI have some moral right to ask that he spend his time on the stated goals of that organization. But Less Wrong is free! It's a gift!
I see that this post has already been downvoted a fair amount. I am motivated to respond only to express my continuing appreciation not only to E.Y., but to all the self-selected people who volunteer to Make Stuff Happen. In the context of this site, one example would be to the people who arrange for the regional LW meetups. That's awesome! We, the passive majority who are the beneficiaries of this altruism, have at least the duty of gratitude.
comment by Barry_Cotter · 2011-01-20T10:11:27.211Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Get a grip. There's a non-promoted post with 70 comments since I looked at LW about 12 hours ago. The community isn't dying. Hell, look at how much lukeprog has posted in the last while. Those have all been good to excellent substantive posts.
I have no idea what the potential audience size for LW is, but it seems to be growing without massive continuing daily support from Eliezer. Also, look at the recent comments feed. Relatively often somnolent discussions are re-opened.
[Asks for traffic statistics]
Replies from: None, Normal_Anomaly↑ comment by Normal_Anomaly · 2011-01-20T13:00:30.089Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Around 8,000 visits a day is pretty active, even if they aren't unique visitors. I don't think we need more leadership than we have.
comment by MichaelHoward · 2011-01-20T13:01:59.284Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Eliezer is quite busy trying to protect, among other things, the long-term survival of this community. Your post is made of electrons that can be used to make paperclips.
comment by CronoDAS · 2011-01-21T13:44:45.461Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Wow, this has gotten more downvotes than the spam posts did...
Replies from: Jack, Alicorn↑ comment by Jack · 2011-01-21T23:17:25.323Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yeah, I'd say it's time for a little karmic rehabilitation. The poster seems like an earnest fellow who had one too many and clicked submit (see his edit). Reminds me of the time I got drunk and went on Prediction Book...
-24 is pretty extreme. Plus the post provided an opportunity for me to write that enjoyable paragraph above.
Replies from: ArisKatsaris, Miller↑ comment by ArisKatsaris · 2011-01-22T16:00:18.988Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I downvoted for the title alone. Even with the parenthesis that says "not really", it's a trollish title that's meant just to catch attention, not actually indicate what the content of the post is about.
Replies from: Miller↑ comment by Miller · 2011-01-26T23:26:08.266Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
My vague intention at the time was to paraphrase Nietszche of course. Even in the state I was in I was acutely aware of the inappropriateness of leaving it without the parenthesis. It definately oversells the value of the content either way.
↑ comment by Miller · 2011-01-26T23:23:13.817Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I was gonna say something about this at least providing the opportunity for some indignation which can always have some fun utility. I'm actually quite pleased with both the comments and the negative karma I received. All very appropriate..