[godelski]

Yeah he abuses a lot of phrases... He does provide a master class on psuedointellectualism though. Drops enough vernacular that layman think he's smart and even enough that experts might think they're in good company if they don't pay too close attention. But I think the biggest clue that it's fake is how dismissive he is of nuance and detail. It's such a classic defense from psuedointellectuals because they know if they venture into depth then the gig is up. Meanwhile, look at any two nerds arguing. It's always nuanced and over minute things that they'll always insist are very important (because often it is, but only at that level).

[naasking]

> Meanwhile, look at any two nerds arguing. It's always nuanced and over minute things that they'll always insist are very important (because often it is, but only at that level).

Sorry, but no, nerds are huge bikeshedders, and often miss the forest for the trees. I think this also explains how dismissive you are of experts who have actually worked with Musk and don't seem to share your low opinion of his expertise in certain areas. Often the importance of nuance is overblown, as it typically only has third or fourth order effects that can be ignored in favour of focusing on the first and second order factors that dominate.

[godelski]

  > nerds are huge bikeshedders

How can you judge if it is bikeshedding or actual warranted issues if you don't have expertise?

Think about it this way, every big problem can be broken down into a bunch of much smaller problems, right? That's generally how we solve things. So obviously small problems come together to create big problems. The main difference between an expert and a novice is the ability to see how these small things interact. So, how do you, as a non-expert, know if the nuance is unimportant or important?

  > how dismissive you are of experts who have actually worked with Musk and don't seem to share your low opinion of his expertise in certain areas.

Experts currently working with him or experts who used to work with him? I think you're using a really weird bias. People that are paid by him are suckups? Why is that surprising? Especially when he's known for firing people who are critical of him. Did you forget that whole thing when he bought twitter[0]? Not to mention the other founders of Tesla talking about how he was not an actual founder or SpaceX employees saying he doesn't understand rockets, or AI people saying he doesn't understand AI. But of course he doesn't, he's been promising fully autonomous self-driving cars "next year" since like 2014. No sane ML expert will tell you such a thing is possible, even now. Sure, your Reddit Armchair expert will make the claim, but who cares, they don't actually know anything.

[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-twitter-fire-staff...

[naasking]

> How can you judge if it is bikeshedding or actual warranted issues if you don't have expertise?

First and second order effects dominate almost everything. Always insisting on nuance therefore is statistically more likely to be bikeshedding than not.

> Experts currently working with him or experts who used to work with him?

Both, and also experts who haven't worked with him in an official capacity but have had extended conversations with him. I have zero interest in retracing all of the old arguments about Musk's competence, save to say that those who dismiss him seem to exhibit just as much deluded confirmation bias about his competence as his fanboys.

[MangoToupe]

> I think this also explains how dismissive you are of experts who have actually worked with Musk and don't seem to share your low opinion of his expertise in certain areas.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

---

I think there's also something of a "gell-mann amnesia" effect going on here. I could buy him being a manufacturing genius or whatever for a while because I know nothing about car or rocket manufacturing. But as soon as he bought twitter, I realized he was an absolute moron who had never built or successfully software himself in his life (or perhaps his brain had simply severely atrophied since his time at PayPal to the point he should be aware), but wanted to sling buzzwords as if he were a coder.

[naasking]

> But as soon as he bought twitter, I realized he was an absolute moron who had never built or successfully software himself in his life

So making one bad investment, whatever his reasons, means he's a moron?

> but wanted to sling buzzwords as if he were a coder.

Yes, he has a habit of trying to build excitement around his endeavours, and part of that is intentionally projecting an image of technical competence because that's his "brand".

I would agree that software is not one of his strong suits, probably because it was never a specific interest of his, unlike electric vehicles and rockets. Is it your opinion that Musk is not aware of his lack of technical competence with software, or are you saying that his lack of technical competence in this domain combined with the fact that he intentionally tried to project competence means he's also not competent in those other domains?

[godelski]

I think it is more that he fires people who criticize him. That happened when he bought Twitter, so I'm not surprised people are cautious.

Good use of Gell-Mann Amnesia too. I have started using it as a litmus test of sorts. When I encounter a new source I'll go look for something I have domain expertise in. If it seems accurate enough, I'll tend to trust domains I don't have expertise in. If it is inaccurate, I just don't trust them. Actually this is also a strategy I suggest people use with chatbots, as sometimes small details can be critical while other times they are inconsequential. Since the chatbots are not great at nuances this tends to be a good check, but the difficulty is ensuring you prompt as naively as you would in a subject you're less knowledgeable in.