[velcrovan]

This is something I might otherwise consider, but Gwern being an advisor gives me pause. Awhile back I shared a blog design on Twitter in response to someone doing a “show me your cool stuff” kind of thing, someone replied and tagged gwern and then he replied with a bunch of very unconstructive crap-on criticism. I had looked up to him before that. Maybe he’s different in person but based on that interaction I have no desire to find out.

Edit: if someone can explain why this was instantly downvoted I would genuinely appreciate knowing where I went wrong here

[dang]

> if someone can explain why this was instantly downvoted I would genuinely appreciate knowing where I went wrong here

It seems unduly personal.

[gwern]

> Edit: if someone can explain why this was instantly downvoted I would genuinely appreciate knowing where I went wrong here

Alluding to some conversation which supposedly demonstrates my unsuitability for such a role, while pointedly refusing to link it or describe it any detail which could be judged (to the point where I, the person in question, have no idea what misdeeds you are talking about), is not credible and reeks of, one might say, 'very unconstructive crap-on criticism', and people might be understandably reluctant to upvote it.

If you think my criticisms were that bad, then link the tweets in question - and, since my account is currently locked, I will happily copy them all out here so everyone can read them and judge for themselves. I am not afraid.

[velcrovan]

Since you offered: https://x.com/gwern/status/1235977354918404096 — though it seems like the intermediate commenter I mentioned has also either locked or deleted their tweets.

…But responding as though this is an attack to be countered and defeated further illustrates why I had doubts about your suitability as a creative advisor. It may be the only way you _know how_ to interpret any reference to yourself or anything anyone might compare to your work. It doesn't mean you're a bad person. You just may not have the tools to draw out the best of other people’s creative skill. And then again, maybe you do, and I just caught you on two separate really bad days five years apart.

[gjm11]

"Cet animal est très méchant, Quand on l'attaque il se défend."

Saying in public that someone "replied with a bunch of very unconstructive crap-on criticism" and "[m]aybe he's different in person but based on that interaction I have no desire to find out" is, by any reasonable standards, an attack on that person, and if that person doubts your description it is perfectly reasonable for them to object.

(That doesn't mean you're in the wrong and gwern's in the right, of course. It could well be that your account of things is entirely correct and gwern was gratuitously dickish to you, in which case it's fair enough to point it out. Something can be fair and correct and also a personal attack that it's reasonable to respond to by trying to counter it.)

[voidhorse]

> by any reasonable standards, an attack on that person

huh? If I said "gwern is a worthless hack" or if I said "gwern is just too stupid to give anybody advice" without any presentations of evidence toward this, I could reasonably consider those attacks. The stuff you quoted doesn't read as an "attack" to me. Rather, it is a claim that someone did something which may or may not be true, and, under the presumption that it is true , a claim about how the person on the receiving end felt. I don't see how that constitutes an "attack"—maybe an accusation, but certainly not an attack.

I have little more than a passing knowledge of gwern, but I would say that the response in this thread does in fact give me doubt that they are really prepared to stand in an advisory role toward hopeful strangers. If we are too focused on our own fragile egos we can't muster the focus that truly recognizing the distinct potential in others and championing them requires.

Often the right thing to do when facing feedback in an advisory role is not to be immediately defensive and demand evidence, even if you feel the claims may be illegitimate. Instead you need to approach with an open posture, hear the persons concerns, show willingness to do better in case you were in fact in the wrong, and only then, if necessary, voice your objection to try and reach a point of re-established harmony.

But this just goes to show you the problems entailed when you elect participants not on relevant experience but merely on popularity. I assume gwern is probably a fantastic blogger, but being a fantastic blogger and being a fantastic advisor for would-be-bloggers are two different things. Maybe gwern has experience doing this sort of thing, I don't know, but I wouldn't assume so given the response in this thread. A more seasoned bearer of fame would know it would be best not to even respond in this particular case, probably (as you are about to enter an environment in which people need to feel psychologically safe with you and seeing immediate defensiveness in response to direct critique or disagreement does not send the right signal).

[gjm11]

If you prefer "accusation" to "attack", that's fine with me. I take it that the actual meaning in this context is "something it's reasonable to respond to by defending oneself", since velcrovan was claiming it was somehow bad for gwern to do that.

I agree that if you are "facing feedback in an advisory role" then it's likely best to avoid being defensive. But gwern isn't in an advisory role here, and he wasn't facing feedback. Feedback is when someone talks to you and tells you what they think; this was velcrovan making a public statement about bad things gwern has allegedly done in the past and their implications for whether he's likely to do this future thing well.

(For the avoidance of doubt: I have no opinion, or at least none that anyone should care about, as to whether gwern will do well as an adviser or mentor to would-be once-a-day bloggers.)

[gwern]

The initial tweet, 2020-03-05: https://x.com/joeld/status/1235652084264886272

> "I have been working on a reimagining of the blog idea for a few years, and it includes an idea (“series”) that is quite similar to blogchains. See this section of the design docs https://thelocalyarn.com/code/uv/scribbled/Basic_Notions.htm... and partial screen shot. It’s almost ready!"

My original response, in full:

> "One thought on the docs: if there's always a well-defined 'next', why not overload Space/PgDwn to proceed to the next node, GNU Info-like? At the very least, there should be a 'next' link at the bottom, not solely hidden away at the top.

> (Also, no one likes those silly 'st' ligatures.)

> As far as the current theyarn design goes: I like the use of typographic ornaments as a theme, but the colors are confusing. (What does orange vs red vs green denote?) And the pilcrow? Sometimes it's at the beginning of articles (redundant with the hr), sometimes not?

> Hrs seem overused in general, like the (busy) footer. Appending notes chronologically is interesting but confusing, both date/where they begin/end. Are the caps deliberately not small caps? Full-width images would be useful for photos. Be interested to see the new one finished."

I consider these criticisms reasonable, accurate, and constructive, milquetoast even, and stand by them. I see no difference from the many other site critiques I have made over the years (eg https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Nq2BtFidsnhfLuNAx/announcing... ), which are usually received positively, and I think this is a 'you' problem, especially after reading your other comments. And I will point out that you made no reply to my many concrete points until you decided to write this HN comment 5 years later.

(I have taken the liberty of adding a link to your top-level comment to the end of the existing thread, for context/updating.)

> But responding as though this is an attack to be countered and defeated further illustrates why I had doubts about your suitability as a creative advisor.

This is a remarkable way to characterize this conversation.

[velcrovan]

I’m still baffled that you thought (and still think) it was reasonable or desirable to swoop in and nitpick like this, in this exchange. Why would I have responded to this unsolicited criticism, in a context where I was simply sharing about a fun spare time project with someone else?

If you had butted in to a street conversation to tell me “by the way no one likes those silly glasses” I would have non-responded in the same way. But I would still be well within my rights to think you were kind of a jerk, and even to mention it to others.

What do you believe your role will be as an “advisor” at this residency?

[gwern]

The mountain gave birth to a mouse.

[h0p3]

I can appreciate your defending yourself here, and you should. You're obviously suitable for the role, and I think folks will be incredibly lucky to learn from you. I'm not saying your criticisms are that bad (far from it), but I can't say I think you're always as careful as you should be in that role (which I also suggest you're sometimes too quick to assign yourself) either, sir. If you're asking for bug reports, this is one.

[adiabatty]

I’ve helped friends with their writing.

If _I_ got this bit of feedback I wouldn’t know what to make of it.

[velcrovan]

Sometimes, when the nature of someone's problem is such that it also prevents them from even seeing or understanding it, the best you can do is signal to them that a problem exists and see whether they care enough to try and understand it further.

[h0p3]

Thank you for telling me.

[throwanem]

It's just that you come off as a high-handed, unbearable jerk even by my standards, which is saying a really enormous amount. Everyone thinks you're an asshole because you act like an asshole, and some people are afraid of you because of that and the social power they understand you to have, ie the ability to effectively blacklist people from a weird, unpleasant, mostly pointless, but highly remunerative niche labor market providing an expedited path to US citizenship which is still probably a few years out from its inevitable collapse in value. (You're not really special in this, of course; your pal Scott also has it, for example. So do lots of others.)

I suppose you have some justification for all of that, but I wouldn't really know; without the aid of either preternatural patience or some sort of pharmaceutical support that Shulgin would have no doubt highly favored, I've always found you so needlessly and interminably self-indulgent in prose as to consider it must be really fortunate for your sake you had firmly established your reputation before the advent of true conversational AI. Certainly I don't expect you to change your whole personality at this late date. I doubt you can even very reliably restrain yourself from indulging it.

[gjm11]

> the ability to effectively blacklist people from a weird, unpleasant, mostly pointless, but highly remunerative niche labor market providing an expedited path to US citizenship

Huh?