> I think it’s that people tend to build up “logical” conclusions where they think each step is a watertight necessity that follows inevitably from its antecedents, but actually each step is a little bit leaky, leading to runaway growth in false confidence.

Yeah, this is a pattern I've seen a lot of recently—especially in discussions about LLMs and the supposed inevitability of AGI (and the Singularity). This is a good description of it.

▲

kergonath 8 days ago | parent | next [-]

Another annoying one is the simulation theory group. They know just enough about Physics to build sophisticated mental constructs without understanding how flimsy the foundations are or how their logical steps are actually unproven hypotheses.

▲

JohnMakin 8 days ago | parent [-]

Agreed. This one is especially annoying to me and dear to my heart, because I enjoy discussing the philosophy behind this, but it devolves into weird discussions and conclusions fairly quickly without much effort at all. I particularly enjoy the tenets of certain sects of buddhism and how they view these things, but you'll get a lot of people that are doing a really pseudo-intellectual version of the Matrix where they are the main character.

	▲	BaseBaal 7 days ago \| parent [-]
		Which sects of Buddhism? Just curious to read further about them.

▲

spopejoy 7 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You might have just explained the phenomenon of AI doomsayers overlapping with ea/rat types, which I otherwise found inexplicable. EA/Rs seem kind of appalingly positivist otherwise.

	▲	danaris 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		I mean, that's also because of their mutual association with Eliezer Yudkowski, who is (AIUI) a believer in the Singularity, as well as being one of the main wellsprings of "Rationalist" philosophy.