15 Comments

Who is the 21st century’s most influential philosopher, so far?

Expand full comment
author

Neither his fans nor his detractors will like this, but the answer is Yudkowsky.

Expand full comment

That's surprising, but I get it. His ideas are taken seriously by everyone from bloggers, to CEOs and the White House.

History might classify him as the proponent of a currently undefined new discipline instead of a philosopher-philosopher, like Adam Smith

Expand full comment

Honestly, I think history will remember him as the great promoter of Bayesian epistemology, as well as possibly for the elaborate multiverse-based metaphysics his school developed, frequently invoked by future mystics despite Yudkowsky's own opposition to mysticism. Specialist historians might also note his ultimately discredited pronouncements on contemporary technological matters.

Expand full comment

> Bayesian epidemiology

epistemology?

Expand full comment

Spot on.

Expand full comment
Apr 24·edited Apr 24

With physics (speaking as someone in the field) I'd argue something else is going on. After table-top experiments and university-scale research programs were exhausted, physics has had to rely on larger and ever more specialized technology to learn one useful thing about the universe. Compare the rutherford scattering experiment to the LHC! So we really do need hordes of PhDs, engineers, and technicians to do anything and we actually still do not have enough people! The number of people that can do what Einstein did - path integrals and tensor algebra - is enormous but the next generation of mathematics must use that as a starting point for a decade of mathematical specialization.

Still academia has similar challenges with the new reality of physics research. What happens when the length of time to build the experiment is longer than the PhD? What happens when an experiment needs decades of experience in a minor technique and then that technique becomes obsolete? What happens when the science machine becomes so complicated that scientists end doing empirical analysis much like an economist or epidemiologist would? What happens is that academia publishes papers and funds grants that would not pass muster in yesteryears even when the amount of effort and competition that goes into them far exceeds traditional expectations.

Expand full comment

Is there a particular obscure primary text you wish to see translated? I’d like to take a gander at it

Expand full comment
author

I wouldn't say it's *obscure*, but I would love to read what the official dynastic histories say about the An Lushan rebellion. A friend recently translated much of the relevant chapter from the Old Book of Tang for me. When I can, I'd like to read the New Book of Tang's take on it as well.

If there are any surviving primary sources about the rebellion, I don't know about them and would be thrilled to read them in translation.

Expand full comment

Thanks. GPT seems to be able to translate, but I need a source of ground truth to judge its accuracy. Would you be able to share some translated sections that you know to be correct, or point me to somewhere it exists?

Expand full comment
author

When I tried that, it made too many errors and failed a good chunk of my crosschecks against e.g. biographies of major figures.

https://twitter.com/benlandautaylor/status/1767994063071096998

I'll see about posting Austin's amateur translation somewhere.

Expand full comment

Filtering the quality scientists in each field and helping them aggregate seems worthwhile.

How would you go about it - maybe if you find one you can ask him for a few names, then pay a few of them for part-time checking of others' work in the field?

Expand full comment

A good piece that expands on (approximately) this thesis from 1995! is Odlyzko's http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/decline.txt

Expand full comment

Too many thoughts on this ...

Expand full comment