check in

diff --git a/content/drafts/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md b/content/drafts/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md
index 75e6733..5ce62c5 100644 (file)
--- a/content/drafts/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md
+++ b/content/drafts/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md
@@ -323,12 +323,31 @@ So, because at this point I still trusted people in my robot cult to be intellec
 
 At this point, I was _disappointed_ with my impact, but not to the point of bearing much hostility to "the community". People had made their arguments, and I had made mine; I didn't think I was _entitled_ to anything more than that.
 
-... and, really, that _should_ have been the end of the story, if I hadn't been further provoked. Not really much of a story at all.
+... and, really, that _should_ have been the end of the story. Not much of a story at all. If I hadn't been further provoked, I would have still kept up this blog, and I still would have ended up arguing about gender with people occasionally, but my personal obsession wouldn't have been the occasion of a full-on religious civil war.
+
+[TODO: I was at the company offsite browsing Twitter (which I had recently joined with fantasies of self-cancelling) when I saw the "Hill of Validity in Defense of Meaning"]
+
+This is the moment where I _flipped the fuck out_.
+
+[TODO: the rats not getting AGP was excusable, the rats not getting the category boundary thing was extremely disappointing but not a causis belli; Eliezer Yudkowsky not getting the category boundary thing was an emergency]
+
+[TODO: careful breakdown of exactly what's wrong with the thread (pull from "I still owe you money; and, discourse on categories and the fourth virtue")]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
 
 
 ... 
 
-[TODO: I was at the company offsite browsing Twitter (which I had recently joined with fantasies of self-cancelling) when I saw the "Hill of Validity in Defense of Meaning", and I _flipped the fuck out_—exhaustive breakdown of exactly what's wrong ; I trusted Yudkowsky and I _did_ think I was entitled to more]
+
+
+
+—exhaustive breakdown of exactly what's wrong ; I trusted Yudkowsky and I _did_ think I was entitled to more]
 
 [TODO: getting support from Michael + Ben + Sarah, harrassing Scott and Eliezer]
 

diff --git a/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md b/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md
index 841b5c1..b624162 100644 (file)
--- a/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md
+++ b/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md
@@ -977,3 +977,13 @@ https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ax695frGJEzGxFBK4/biology-inspired-agi-timelines
 
 Lightwavers on Twitter (who Yudkowsky knew from /r/rational) dissed Charles Murray on Twitter
 
+https://www.glowfic.com/replies/1817422#reply-1817422
+> Strength is an externally visible and measurable quality that determines who you want in your army; you don't need to go by the presence of penises.
+
+I'm skeptical that the "But the government can't have different laws for different groups" is something that would exist in dath ilan; it makes sense that we have this hangup in our world, but if you live in a Bayesian utopia in the first place, (a) you wouldn't have a taboo about using demographic categories for decisionmaking, and (b) you wouldn't have a special taboo about the _government_ doing so (that's dictating that the government is not allowed to be Bayesian because it's the government?!); it makes sense for evolutionarily novel things like dentists, but conscription is _the worst_ example
+
+"Different rules for different groups" is a solution to a social design problem; if you rule that out, you're ruling out a lot of the design space. This is still true even if you protest, "But you have to let people _leave_ the group if they don't want to be there; it's unjust to trap them there"
+
+It makes sense for Keltham to disapprove of the status of women in Osiron, but I'd expect the objection to be _concrete_ (women in particular deserve property rights in particular) rather than "principled" (the government can't pass laws based on sex), because the principle is Earth-craziness
+
+so, what I meant was, when you enshrine a principle, "The law can't treat you differently because you're a halfling" (that is, the law can only refer to low-dimensional traits; it's not allowed to use the covariance in the big salient clusters in thick subspaces of configuration space that correspond to "protected classes"), that's decreasing the expressive power of the law, restricting the ontology that the law is about to reason about: effectively saying that Governance has to be _less_ Bayesian _because it's Governance_. That's a totally natural thing to want _if you're a 21st century American_, but seems wildly out-of-character for everything else we know about dath ilan and its cultural assumptions about Bayesian reasoning and the assumption of good-faith governance

diff --git a/notes/notes.txt b/notes/notes.txt
index 17e17c7..5bef835 100644 (file)
--- a/notes/notes.txt
+++ b/notes/notes.txt
@@ -3134,4 +3134,8 @@ It looks to me like the emergent strategy people are implicitly using is, "Syste
 
 It will probably work. Maybe it's even the right thing to do, in some coldly Machiavellian utilitarian calculus. But I'm sick of being lied to.
 
-I [want credit](https://arbital.com/p/6yv/) for calling it. [I can't see where this link goes while my network is out]
+I [want credit](https://arbital.com/p/6yv/) for calling it.
+> Correct credit-tracking is very important if we want our community to generate new good ideas.
+
+> It's not only a highly unethical journalism, but also a banal and boring one. Why should anyone care if someone is transgender or not? In most cases it's completely irrelevant. In particular, why should anyone be surprised if a woman in AI and EA is transgender. It's the default.
+https://twitter.com/OttoMller12/status/1533722820232060930