I will look into Farnham Street&#x27;s Blog, thanks.<p>&gt; <i>What he&#x27;s preaching isn&#x27;t science.</i><p>I don&#x27;t buy into the necessity that everything has to be peer-reviewed in the old fashioned way. There is peer-review happening in the comments to some extent. I don&#x27;t take a fancy to dismissing any radical ideas as pseudoscience. It&#x27;s just the outer fringe of hypotheses that need to be tested against reality, and as long they are approximately humanist, enlightened and don&#x27;t contradict existing physics without depending on mathematics (or disclaimers), I cannot see anything wrong with it. As a naturalist, I pretty much agree with everything I&#x27;ve read on LW so far, except for the parts I cannot judge (like hypotheses about physics), which I allocate a weaker priors for and a few unconvincing pieces.<p>&gt; <i>Not to mention, and this is a bit of a pet peeve, I find that most LW people are too self-absorbed, I&#x27;ve literally seen a blog where the person who runs it &quot;warns&quot; the readers that what he writes is too complicated for people to follow.</i><p>I have not yet experienced that, but there are also a lot of people on reddit and HN that I don&#x27;t like, yet I differentiate within these communities between what is valuable and what is not.<p>&gt; <i>Most of what Yudkowsky says is extremely sci-fi, no real basis in scientific fact, but stretching the current technological progress to the point where his opinions on things (stuff like transhumanism, singularity) can be justified.</i><p>At the risk of seeming indoctrinated to you, this is what I believe with high certainty: If Moore&#x27;s law continues another one or two decades, I think the singularity is a very real possibility. The human brain seems to be nothing more than a learning and prediction machine, nothing what transcends what we can understand in principle. Evolution did come up with complex organisms, but the complexity is limited by biochemical mechanisms and availability of energy. In addition, nature often approximates very simple things in overly complicated ways because evolution is based on incremental changes, not on an ultimate goal that prescribes a design of low complexity. I also think that AI will very likely be superintelligent and that poses a tremendous risk in the 10-40 years to come (on the order of atomic warfare and runaway climate change). By the time someone implements an approximately human-level intelligence, we better have a good idea about how to control such a machine.