“I'm basically giving myself a permanent vacation from being BDFL”

I don't know if it's just me, but if you read the forums and bug reports related to open source projects, it feels like programmers today are a really entitled lot.

The tone that people take when filing bug reports for what is basically free software is reprehensible. People are doing work for FREE to benefit you, and you take a tone with them like you are a prince and they are your royal goblet holders? Who taught these human beings their manners?

I totally understand the frustration when you write a large system in Python and then the Python committee makes a breaking change that makes your life very difficult. However, you didn't pay for Python! These sorts of changes should be expected, and if you didn't expect it, you are the fool. And in any case, you aren't paying these people a cent, so speak politely to them. You are basically a charity case from their perspective.

One person who understands and writes extremely well about this dynamic is Eliezer Yudkowsky. From the incomparable Harry potter and the Methods of Rationality: [0]

""I was going to be a hero, once," said Professor Quirrell, still looking upward. "Can you believe that, Miss Granger?"

"No."

"Thank you again, Miss Granger. It is true nonetheless... I was not naive, Miss Granger, I did not expect the power-holders to align themselves with me so quickly - not without something in it for themselves. But their power, too, was threatened; and so I was shocked how they seemed content to step back, and leave to that man all burdens of responsibility. They sneered at his performance, remarking among themselves how they would do better in his place, though they did not condescend to step forward...Perhaps, by taking on himself the curse of action, that man removed it from all others?...

"So -" Hermione's voice sounded strange in the night. "You left your friends behind where they'd be safe, and tried to attack the Dark Wizard all by yourself?"

"Why, no," said Professor Quirrell. "I stopped trying to be a hero, and went off to do something else I found more pleasant.""

This might be hard to grok without reading the preceding 83 chapters but it is the first thing that came to mind when I see how people treat open source contributors.

[0] http://www.hpmor.com/chapter/84

It is worth mentioning that Eliezer Yudkowsky doesn't believe in the scientific method, and thinks it can be replaced with pure Bayesian reasoning, without, as far as I can tell, any data collection.

The 'scientific method' is not something that can be reduced to formal reasoning. Bayesian inference is a type of formal reasoning for making predictions, and as such, is a mathematical 'toy model' that doesn't correspond to the real universe.

Yudkowsky worships pure mathematics, but he always had it 'arse backwards'. It's not pure mathematics that's the ideal, it's numerical and iterated methods and heuristics (cognition). Pure math can only be applied to idealized situations, whereas numerical methods and heuristics apply everywhere. So in fact, it's numerical methods that are fundamental, and pure math that's the imperfect idealization!

Yudkowsky read too much Tegmark in his youth and was sucked in by the idea that 'everything is mathematics' (or 'everything is information'). But to repeat, this is all 'arse backwards'. Thank goodness that I read some Sean Carroll and debated with a friend of Sean's on his forum; that's what finally talked me out of all that Tegmark multiverse/'reality is a simulation' nonsense.

It's the physical world that's fundamental, cognition is next level of abstraction up, and pure mathematics is a top-level abstraction (it's not fundamental). As Bayesian inference (and all formal methods) are part of the domain of pure math, they can't serve as a foundation for rationality. Cognition is more fundamental than math (because it's closer to the base level of reality - physics).

As I commented recently to Scott Aaronson on his blog, what distinguishes cognition from pure math, is that pure math is about fixed equations, whereas cognition is about heuristics , iteration and numerical methods. But in fact, P≠NP implies that cognition is the more fundamental. See:

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3875#comments

So for instance, AIXI (a much touted mathematical model of general intelligence), is the 'fake' (imperfect) solution, whereas a workable heuristic implementation would be the correct (perfect) one. This is the complete reverse of what Yudkowsky thinks.

I'd like to assure anyone reading this that the above commenter has no idea what Eliezer Yudkowsky thinks. I, with my considerably greater knowledge of that subject, can testify that among Yudkowsky's beliefs is "Bounded agents are more impressive than unbounded agents."

(In general, you would be very very wise not to believe someone who claims that I believe a thing, until you have seen the original text, in its original location, in full context, written by me under my own account, plainly and unambiguously saying that I believe that thing. Even then I've been known to change my mind later, as is a sane person's right. But most of what I'm wildly rumored to believe is more completely made up out of thin air than anything I've changed my mind about.)