Does Bayes' theorem show MWI of quantum mechanics to be correct?

[Humes fork]

At least this this guy claims so (warning: very many blogposts, have only skimmed a few of them).

Are his writings accurate or not? Is there anything to this at all, or is it just crackpottery?

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

At least this this guy claims so (warning: very many blogposts, have only skimmed a few of them).

Are his writings accurate or not? Is there anything to this at all, or is it just crackpottery?

You've never heard of Yudkowsky? Crackpot? Yes. Bayes' Theorem proves some interpretation of QM? No.

Yudkowsky also thinks, for some unfathomable reason, that Bayes' Theorem is somehow superior to science, as if the two can even be compared, which suggests that Yudkowsky doesn't understand science, Bayes' Theorem, or both.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by jt512

You've never heard of Yudkowsky?

Oh, that guy. Yeah.

Quote:

Bayes' Theorem proves some interpretation of QM? No.

Right. All interpretations of QM are mathematically identical, so there's nothing on which Bayes' Theorem can act to differentiate them.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by jt512

You've never heard of Yudkowsky?

I have heard of him actually. He seems rather rarely featured in the skeptisphere. I occassionally lurk Massimo Pigliucci's blog and while Pigliucci seems ambivalent at best to Yudkowsky, his co-bloggers Julia Galef and Ian Pollock are huge fans of him, and refer to him or his site in almost every of their blogposts. I also know that Michael Shermer and James Randi tend to be at the Singularity Summit hosted by his organization.

I don't believe in the silly-larity (unlike Randi who seems to actually endorse it), but thought it could be useful to see if (any of) Yudkowsky's other claims hold water.

Originally Posted by jt512

Yudkowsky also thinks, for some unfathomable reason, that Bayes' Theorem is somehow superior to science, as if the two can even be compared, which suggests that Yudkowsky doesn't understand science, Bayes' Theorem, or both.

I don't really know much about Bayes' theorem, or of math generally. But on the face of it pitting science and math against each other seems bizarre. But then again, I don't know much about the theorem. How does it relate to science, if at all?

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Right. All interpretations of QM are mathematically identical, so there's nothing on which Bayes' Theorem can act to differentiate them.

I see. So the idea is hot air then? How did he get it? Those physicists who agree with MWI, do they do so for other reasons than those Yudkowsky gave?

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

I have heard of him actually. He seems rather rarely featured in the skeptisphere. I occassionally lurk Massimo Pigliucci's blog and while Pigliucci seems ambivalent at best to Yudkowsky, his co-bloggers Julia Galef and Ian Pollock are huge fans of him...

That explains why the only post of Ian Pollak's I ever read sounded like it was written by Yudkowsky. Ugh, philosophers of statistics. We statisticians need them about as much as birds need ornithologists.

Quote:

I don't really know much about Bayes' theorem, or of math generally. But on the face of it pitting science and math against each other seems bizarre.

Yes, pitting math against science would be bizarre enough on its own, but pitting a mathematical concept that is crucial to scientific inference, as Bayes' Theorem is, against science is...well...I don't know what it is.

Quote:

But then again, I don't know much about the theorem. How does it relate to science, if at all?

I've spent the last 15 hours on trains, planes, automobiles, and buses, so I don't know how coherent I'm going to be right now, but here goes:

In general, Bayes' Theorem explains the relationship between (1) the probability that some event, call it "A," is true, given that some other event, call it "B," is true, and (2) the converse of that—that is, the probability that "B" is true, given that "A" is true. If it isn't clear that (1) and (2) are completely different, consider this example: what would the probability be that a person is pregnant, given that the person is female, vs the probability that a person is female, given that the person is pregnant?

So, how does this relate to science? Results of scientific studies are usually reported as a "p-value," which essentially is the probability of the data that were observed, given that the null hypothesis* is true. However, what we want to know is the converse of that, namely, the probability that the null hypothesis is true given the data that were observed. To get the latter from the former requires Bayes' Theorem.

Quote:

So the idea is hot air then? How did he get it?

Yudkowsky's wikipedia page says that he never attended high school. Apparently, since he has no formal education in probability or physics, he can just make up whatever theories about one, the other, or the relationship between them that he can think up.

Quote:

Those physicists who agree with MWI, do they do so for other reasons than those Yudkowsky gave?

Since there is no data (as far as I am aware) to support any interpretation of quantum mechanics over any other, Bayes' Theorem is inapplicable to the question; therefore, any scientist who actually understands Bayes' Theorem would know that he could not use it as the basis for preferring any particular interpretation. However, you'd have to ask a physicist about why they believe as they do.

Jay

*The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that there is no effect; for example, "The Higgs boson does not exist" or "Homeopathy has no effect greater than that of a placebo." If the null hypothesis is false, then the alternative hypothesis ("The Higgs boson does exist" or "Homeopathy works better than placebo") is true.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by jt512

So, how does this relate to science? Results of scientific studies are usually reported as a "p-value," which essentially is the probability of the data that were observed, given that the null hypothesis* is true. However, what we want to know is the converse of that, namely, the probability that the null hypothesis is true given the data that were observed. To get the latter from the former requires Bayes' Theorem.

I've heard it claimed that Bayesian statisticians think science is a special case of Bayesianism. Is that true?

Originally Posted by jt512

Yudkowsky's wikipedia page says that he never attended high school. Apparently, since he has no formal education in probability or physics, he can just make up whatever theories about one, the other, or the relationship between them that he can think up.

It is claimed that he has autodidacted, but since there has (so far I know) never been any outside examination of how sound it is, it's hard to know.

Otherwise, thanks for your general explanation. Though how come there has (to my knowledge) been no skeptical examination of his ideas? His site is pretty well-visited, and he makes plenty of (possibly dubious) claims that can be scientifically examined. Shermer and Randi frequent the Singularity Summit hosted by his organization.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

I see. So the idea is hot air then?

Yep. Speaking as not-a-physicist (there are working physicists on the forum, so perhaps one of them will chime in) any time someone says they can show that this or that interpretation is the correct one, they're talking hot air. (Though we have ruled out some earlier interpretations, such as local hidden variable theories.)

Quote:

How did he get it? Those physicists who agree with MWI, do they do so for other reasons than those Yudkowsky gave?

Mainly because it makes thinking about questions in QM easier. (Though different physicists prefer different interpretations for precisely the same reason.)

MWI is an elegant solution to what the equations mean. Elegance is a good reason to prefer it, but no reason to believe it is more correct than other interpretations.

[TubbaBlubba]

Isn't this just the old essentialism/operationalism waltz? You can make up all sort of esoteric ideas of what the QM equations "really mean", but at the end of the day what matters is what you can predict and the results of experiments.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

I've heard it claimed that Bayesian statisticians think science is a special case of Bayesianism. Is that true?

Beats me. I have no idea what "Bayesianism" is supposed to mean.

Quote:

Otherwise, thanks for your general explanation. Though how come there has (to my knowledge) been no skeptical examination of his ideas? His site is pretty well-visited, and he makes plenty of (possibly dubious) claims that can be scientifically examined. Shermer and Randi frequent the Singularity Summit hosted by his organization.

No skeptical examination by whom? AFAIK, everyone who has ever visited his website is skeptical of his ideas, except for his small band of groupies.

You might find this interesting.

Jay

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

MWI is an elegant solution to what the equations mean. Elegance is a good reason to prefer it, but no reason to believe it is more correct than other interpretations.

Perhaps I'm putting out my neck here, but until any particular interpretation can be verified, shouldn't one refuse to make a commitment? Mind you, Yudkowsky seems pretty upset with that MWI is not as dominant as he thinks it should be.

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

Isn't this just the old essentialism/operationalism waltz? You can make up all sort of esoteric ideas of what the QM equations "really mean", but at the end of the day what matters is what you can predict and the results of experiments.

I'm not sure about that. As I said, Yudkowsky is upset about scientists not agreeing with him, and he clearly stated he prefer Bayes' theorem over science.

They differentiate between what they call "traditional rationality" and "x-rationality" (their stuff), often being negative about the former.

Originally Posted by jt512

Beats me. I have no idea what "Bayesianism" is supposed to mean.

Googling it suggests that it is an established term for Bayesian probability and/or epistemology. Though I don't know if academic Bayesian statisticians view it the way Yudkowsky does, pitting it against science and treating it as a personal philosophy.

Originally Posted by jt512

No skeptical examination by whom? AFAIK, everyone who has ever visited his website is skeptical of his ideas, except for his small band of groupies.

Thanks for the link, though it did contain quite a lot of praise (and also much criticism, it looks a little contradictory). Their link to poe news was decidedly more brutal. What I mean by "skeptical examination" would be a look at their particular claims (Bayes vs science, singularitarianism etc) by, for example, Skeptics Dictionary.

It seems the site is pretty much unknown in cyberspace, though it has a relatively large cluster of, uhm, groupies. His Harry Potter fanfic (which I'll never read, am not a fan of Harry Potter) seems pretty well-known though (for an Internet fanfic that is).

[TubbaBlubba]

Well I have z-rationality, and it tells me Yudkowsky is wrong.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Oh, that guy. Yeah.

Right. All interpretations of QM are mathematically identical, so there's nothing on which Bayes' Theorem can act to differentiate them.

Exactly.

Yudkowski really ought to stick to rationalist tracts aimed at laypersons and Harry Potter fanfiction. So far as I can tell he's done nothing of significance in mathematics, computer science or AI, the fields he tries to position himself as a self-taught expert in.

I think he's currently trying to reposition himself as a rationality teacher and moving away from the singularity-cult thing anyway, which might reflect him realising this.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Perhaps I'm putting out my neck here, but until any particular interpretation can be verified, shouldn't one refuse to make a commitment?

Commitment, sure. But a preference is fine.

Quote:

They differentiate between what they call "traditional rationality" and "x-rationality" (their stuff), often being negative about the former.

That's a big flashing neon sign saying "CRANK".

Quote:

Thanks for the link, though it did contain quite a lot of praise (and also much criticism, it looks a little contradictory).

Not contradictory, merely complex.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

Well I have z-rationality, and it tells me Yudkowsky is wrong.

I think they put "x" for "extreme". Yudkowsky says he switched to "extreme rationality" which apparently means Bayes' theorem as well as the findings of Kahneman and others. Seems a bit odd, since I doubt Kahneman rejects the scientific method (which accotrding to him is run on "traditional rationality"). Granted, it's possible I guess.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

I think he's currently trying to reposition himself as a rationality teacher and moving away from the singularity-cult thing anyway, which might reflect him realising this.

I don't think so at all. From what I understand he teaches his brand of rationalism in order to help people think clearly about the singularity (and presumably donate money to his organization).

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Commitment, sure. But a preference is fine.

Sure, though my preference would be to shut up and calculate. Until empirical evidence comes up.

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

That's a big flashing neon sign saying "CRANK".

Oh, you can find worse:

"I am tempted to say that a doctorate in AI would be negatively useful, but I am not one to hold someone’s reckless youth against them – just because you acquired a doctorate in AI doesn’t mean you should be permanently disqualified."

[TubbaBlubba]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Oh, you can find worse:

"I am tempted to say that a doctorate in AI would be negatively useful, but I am not one to hold someone’s reckless youth against them – just because you acquired a doctorate in AI doesn’t mean you should be permanently disqualified."

[Toontown]

deleted

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

At least this this guy claims so (warning: very many blogposts, have only skimmed a few of them).

Are his writings accurate or not? Is there anything to this at all, or is it just crackpottery?

Where does "this guy" show how Bayes theorem proves MWI? I didn't see it, but I haven't read most of the blogs. The one I did read wasn't crazy (by QM standards).

This FAQ is a good verbal explanation of the strength of the "no-collapse" (MWI) interpretation of QM.

http://www.anthropic-principle.com/p...anyworlds.html

[LashL]

I've split the discussion of measuring intelligence and varying IQs to its own thread here.

Posted By:LashL

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by Toontown

Where does "this guy" show how Bayes theorem proves MWI?

Can't find an exact quote (unless you count the heading), but here is a series where he states that MWI wins.

Here he states that science and Bayes' theorem are in opposition due to this.

Originally Posted by Toontown

I didn't see it, but I haven't read most of the blogs. The one I did read wasn't crazy (by QM standards).

I see. Do you think his writings make for a good introduction to quantum physics?

Originally Posted by Toontown

This FAQ is a good verbal explanation of the strength of the "no-collapse" (MWI) interpretation of QM.

http://www.anthropic-principle.com/p...anyworlds.html

Thanks, I'll have to check that out later.

[edd]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Here he states that science and Bayes' theorem are in opposition due to this.

It's pretty poor as an argument. Science hasn't ever been that clearly frequentist. Arguably it's been Bayesian longer, and the frequentists are upstarts that are getting put back in their place lately.

Pretty much as soon as Bayesian reasoning was starting to form it was being used by scientists. Laplace is the classic early example.

It's absurd to say they're in opposition. He's built a straw man argument that couldn't be more wrong.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by edd

It's pretty poor as an argument. Science hasn't ever been that clearly frequentist. Arguably it's been Bayesian longer, and the frequentists are upstarts that are getting put back in their place lately.

Pretty much as soon as Bayesian reasoning was starting to form it was being used by scientists. Laplace is the classic early example.

It's absurd to say they're in opposition. He's built a straw man argument that couldn't be more wrong.

Cult mentalities work better when you tell people they're part of a persecuted, enlightened minority, even if it's nonsense. I think the LWers like to believe that Bayesians are persecuted by dastardly frequentists in science, but the scientists I've talked to are completely unaware of any such rivalry between statistical schools.

[edd]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Cult mentalities work better when you tell people they're part of a persecuted, enlightened minority, even if it's nonsense. I think the LWers like to believe that Bayesians are persecuted by dastardly frequentists in science, but the scientists I've talked to are completely unaware of any such rivalry between statistical schools.

There's a bit of a rivalry, but it's more of a friendly argument. Like most scientific discussion perhaps?

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Can't find an exact quote (unless you count the heading), but here is a series where he states that MWI wins.


Here he states that science and Bayes' theorem are in opposition due to this.

I saw those. Those were just statements. I didn't see any application of Bayes theorem in them.

Originally Posted by Humes fork

I see. Do you think his writings make for a good introduction to quantum physics?

I wouldn't know. I only skimmed over a few things looking for the advertized Baynesian proof. Most of what I saw was metaphysical interpretation and philosophy. At any rate, I have zero interest in being drawn into a hyena attack defending someone else's ideas. If I did agree with a word he said, I wouldn't admit to it.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Yudkowski really ought to stick to rationalist tracts aimed at laypersons and Harry Potter fanfiction.

Please no .

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Please no .

He writes a very popular HP fanfic. (Shrug). I think it's fair to say he's contributed more to HP fanfiction than he has to serious AI research, as far as all AI researchers other than himself think.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

I think it's fair to say he's contributed more to HP fanfiction than he has to serious AI research, as far as all AI researchers other than himself think.

You might be interested in the debate between one of his acolytes and AGI researcher Pei Wang. Comes across like "I'm trying to be reasonable, but you guys are crackpots" from the view of Wang.

Digging a little of the history of the site, it was apparently seeded from a libertarian transhumanist mailing list from the early 2000s run by Yudkowsky.

[AvalonXQ]

I actually started a thread about his fanfic without realizing this thread was here.

His fanfic is excellent.

His beliefs about MWI, I'm not as big a fan of.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I actually started a thread about his fanfic without realizing this thread was here.

His fanfic is excellent.

His beliefs about MWI, I'm not as big a fan of.

I see. I've never been a big fan of Harry Potter, so I'd be hard-pressed to read a fanfic of it. Futher, the stuff I've heard about it makes it seem it seem odd (I mean seriously, a rape fanfic?). From what I understand it is still a work in progress, so please give a shout if it goes upon quantum physics. I wouldn't be suprised if it eventually does, since from what I understand Harry Potter is simply his mouthpiece in the story, intended to convey his philosophy.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

I see. I've never been a big fan of Harry Potter, so I'd be hard-pressed to read a fanfic of it. Futher, the stuff I've heard about it makes it seem it seem odd (I mean seriously, a rape fanfic?). From what I understand it is still a work in progress, so please give a shout if it goes upon quantum physics. I wouldn't be suprised if it eventually does, since from what I understand Harry Potter is simply his mouthpiece in the story, intended to convey his philosophy.

Say what rape now? Are you sure you aren't getting it mixed up with Forty Shades of Gray or whatever it is?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

I see. I've never been a big fan of Harry Potter, so I'd be hard-pressed to read a fanfic of it.

If you didn't like the Harry Potter books, I wouldn't bother.

Quote:

Futher, the stuff I've heard about it makes it seem it seem odd (I mean seriously, a rape fanfic?).

It's not a "rape fanfic." The word "rape" occurs in one specific passage, as follows:

Originally Posted by HP:MoR

"Hey, Draco, you know what I bet is even better for becoming friends than exchanging secrets? Committing murder."
"I have a tutor who says that," Draco allowed. He reached inside his robes and scratched himself with an easy, natural motion. "Who've you got in mind?"
Harry slammed The Quibbler down hard on the picnic table. "The guy who came up with this headline."
Draco groaned. "Not a guy. A girl. A ten-year-old girl, can you believe it? She went nuts after her mother died and her father, who owns this newspaper, is convinced that she's a seer, so when he doesn't know he asks Luna Lovegood and believes anything she says."
Not really thinking about it, Harry pulled the ring on his next can of Comed-Tea and prepared to drink. "Are you kidding me? That's even worse than Muggle journalism, which I would have thought was physically impossible."
Draco snarled. "She has some sort of perverse obsession about the Malfoys, too, and her father is politically opposed to us so he prints every word. As soon as I'm old enough I'm going to rape her."
Green liquid spurted out of Harry's nostrils, soaking into the scarf still covering that area. Comed-Tea and lungs did not mix, and Harry spent the next few seconds frantically coughing.
Draco looked at him sharply. "Something wrong?"
It was at this point that Harry came to the sudden realisation that (a) the sounds coming from the rest of the train platform had turned into more of a blurred white noise at around the same time Draco had reached inside his robes, and (b) when he had discussed committing murder as a bonding method, there had been exactly one person in the conversation who'd thought they were joking.

... the purpose being to show how Draco was raised with essentially zero ethical restrictions regarding his enemies. There has been some discussion about changing this exchange because it single-handedly makes the chapter less content-friendly for children.

Quote:

From what I understand it is still a work in progress, so please give a shout if it goes upon quantum physics. I wouldn't be suprised if it eventually does, since from what I understand Harry Potter is simply his mouthpiece in the story, intended to convey his philosophy.

To be honest, there's way too much invested in telling a good story and delving deeply into the characters for me to accept that it's "simply his mouthpiece." It is, in my opinion, quite a good fanfic independent of any message it's trying to convey.

I'll post here if further chapters get into quantum physics at all.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by Toontown

I saw those. Those were just statements. I didn't see any application of Bayes theorem in them.



I wouldn't know. I only skimmed over a few things looking for the advertized Baynesian proof. Most of what I saw was metaphysical interpretation and philosophy. At any rate, I have zero interest in being drawn into a hyena attack defending someone else's ideas. If I did agree with a word he said, I wouldn't admit to it.

I see.

Thinking about the scientific method(s), as we know it haschanged a bit during the centuries. Isn't it the case that if someone found a method that beats the (current) scientific method at its own game, it would be adopted by scientists?

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Say what rape now? Are you sure you aren't getting it mixed up with Forty Shades of Gray or whatever it is?

No, see the post straight below.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

To be honest, there's way too much invested in telling a good story and delving deeply into the characters for me to accept that it's "simply his mouthpiece." It is, in my opinion, quite a good fanfic independent of any message it's trying to convey.

It might well be a good story. But the basic goal is still to raise the "sanity water line" or whatever it is, which they expect will translate into donating money to their organization in order to save the world.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'll post here if further chapters get into quantum physics at all.

Please do!

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

No, see the post straight below.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree with regard to what a reasonable person regards as "a rape fanfic". Maybe I'm showing my ignorance of the fanfic scene here, but never having read anything I'd call "a rape fanfic" I'm imagining something in which there's at least one detailed description of sexual assault, and probably lots of them. A story mentioning rape once in what would have to be hundreds of thousands of words doesn't remotely qualify in my mind.

Given that the original stories have people being tortured to death and/or murdered far more often than the topic of sexual assault comes up in Yudowkski's fanfic, if you're going to be consistent you should be calling the entire Harry Potter series "torture porn" if the mention of rape cited earlier qualifies Yudkowski's entire fanfic as "rape fanfic".

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree with regard to what a reasonable person regards as "a rape fanfic". Maybe I'm showing my ignorance of the fanfic scene here, but never having read anything I'd call "a rape fanfic" I'm imagining something in which there's at least one detailed description of sexual assault, and probably lots of them. A story mentioning rape once in what would have to be hundreds of thousands of words doesn't remotely qualify in my mind.

Given that the original stories have people being tortured to death and/or murdered far more often than the topic of sexual assault comes up in Yudowkski's fanfic, if you're going to be consistent you should be calling the entire Harry Potter series "torture porn" if the mention of rape cited earlier qualifies Yudkowski's entire fanfic as "rape fanfic".

Fair enough. I guess I just find the inclusion of rape in the story so odd.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Fair enough. I guess I just find the inclusion of rape in the story so odd.

Please stop saying things like that; they're very misleading and rather pejorative.

The story does not include rape. The concept of rape is mentioned off-hand within the dialog. There is neither on-screen nor off-screen rape in this fanfic. Talking about "the inclusion of rape in the story" maligns the story unnecessarily.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Please stop saying things like that; they're very misleading and rather pejorative.

The story does not include rape. The concept of rape is mentioned off-hand within the dialog. There is neither on-screen nor off-screen rape in this fanfic. Talking about "the inclusion of rape in the story" maligns the story unnecessarily.

Okay fair enough, but it's still strange.

A general question: His community seems to be based on the "sequences", on which the parts about quantum mechanics and Bayes vs science are just parts. Have anyone here read them (they are reportedly longer than the entire LoTR triology)? I have seen different judgements on them, from "changed my life!" to being mostly second-hand scholarship.

I agree this guy has certain crackpot attributes, but at the same time Randi and Shermer are regular speakers at his conferences.

[AvalonXQ]

Yeah, the sequences just seem to be him blogging about science and stuff. I've not read very much of them.

[TubbaBlubba]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

I agree this guy has certain crackpot attributes, but at the same time Randi and Shermer are regular speakers at his conferences.

I dunno about Randi's motivations, but I'm sure lots of people there would buy Shermer's latest book.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Okay fair enough, but it's still strange.

A general question: His community seems to be based on the "sequences", on which the parts about quantum mechanics and Bayes vs science are just parts. Have anyone here read them (they are reportedly longer than the entire LoTR triology)? I have seen different judgements on them, from "changed my life!" to being mostly second-hand scholarship.

I agree this guy has certain crackpot attributes, but at the same time Randi and Shermer are regular speakers at his conferences.

The "sequences" aren't going to change your life if you were well-read on the topics of critical thinking, probabilistic reasoning and cognitive bias beforehand. "Mostly second-hand scholarship" is exactly right but also kind of unfair, because Yudkowski isn't positioning himself as a researcher, just a synthesiser of existing ideas. It's not new but it's mostly sensible, approachable and enthusiastically written. Apart from his crank-like writing on quantum physics I wouldn't try to steer anyone away from any of it that I've looked at, but I haven't looked at all of it because a lot of it looks very much like stuff I already know.

(Yudkowksi tries to position himself as an AI researcher, but not so much with the critical thinking stuff).

Overall since critical thinking, probabilistic reasoning and cognitive bias are really important things for intelligent people to know about, I think it's a very good thing that someone's put a few books worth of content about them up on the net for free. If you haven't already read a few books on those topics already then I think it would be a good investment of your time to read some or most of the "sequences". Just filter out the Yudkowski Cult nonsense, because nothing in there is really very novel, it's just presented as if it were.