From: M. Taylor Saotome-Westlake Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2023 06:12:18 +0000 (-0800) Subject: memoir: "always a complicated person" X-Git-Url: http://unremediatedgender.space/source?a=commitdiff_plain;h=27b6435cb402c80a44c86b591b0c1b1f851eb3dd;p=Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git memoir: "always a complicated person" Separately from getting caught up in fighting on Less Wrong, I think I've been self-deceiving about fitting in time to finish this §? (Because it hurts to confront the part where I'm fighting Big Yud.) The fact that I wrote committed this today is a good sign that I'm facing the reality (even if a lot of the day's wordcount isn't "real" because it's Discord blockquotes, and even part of the text that isn't, is edited from Discord logs with Scott). --- diff --git a/content/drafts/standing-under-the-same-sky.md b/content/drafts/standing-under-the-same-sky.md index 8107a09..e82d186 100644 --- a/content/drafts/standing-under-the-same-sky.md +++ b/content/drafts/standing-under-the-same-sky.md @@ -719,6 +719,82 @@ And so, yeah, insofar as fiction about dath ilan functioned as marketing materia It was great for ajvermillion to notice this! It _would_ be bad if my brain were configured to come up with dath-ilan-negative literary criticism, and for me to _simultaneously_ present myself as an authority on dath ilan whom you should trust. But if dath-ilan-negative literary criticism was undersupplied for structural reasons (because people who like a story are selected for not seeing things the story is doing that are Actually Bad), and my brain was configured to generate it anyway (because I disliked the person Yudkowsky had become, in contrast to the person he was in 2008), it seemed pro-social for me to post it, for other people to take or leave according to their own judgement? +Yudkowsky soon entered the thread again, initially replying to someone else. (I remarked parenthetically that his appearance made me think I should stop wasting time snarking in his fiction server and just finish my memoir already.) We had a brief back-and-forth: + +> **Eliezer** — 11/29/2022 10:33 PM +> the main thing I'd observe contrary to Zack's take here, is that Keltham thought that not learning about masochists he can never have, was obviously in retrospect what he'd have wanted Civilization to do, or do unless and until Keltham became rich enough to afford a masochist and then he could be told +> in other words, Keltham thought he was obviously being treated the way that counterfactual fully-informed Keltham would have paid Governance to treat not-yet-informed Keltham +> that this obeys the social contract that Keltham thought he had, is part of why Keltham is confident that the logic of this particular explanation holds together +> **zackmdavis** — 11/29/2022 10:35 PM +> the level of service that Keltham is expecting is not the thing I learned from Robin Hanson's blog in 2008 +> **Eliezer** — 11/29/2022 10:36 PM +> I am sorry that some of the insane people I attracted got together and made each other more insane and then extensively meta-gaslit you into believing that everyone generally and me personally was engaging in some kind of weird out-in-the-open gaslighting that you could believe in if you attached least-charitable explanations to everything we were doing + +It was pretty annoying that Yudkowsky was still attributing my greviances to Michael's malign influence—as if the gender identity revolution was something I would otherwise have just _taken lying down_. In the counterfactual where Michael had died in 2015, I think something like my February 2017 breakdown would have likely happened anyway. (Between August 2016 and January 2017, I sent Michael 14 emails, met with him once, and watched 60% of South Park season 19 at his suggestion, so he was _an_ influence on my thinking during that period, but not a disproportionately large one compared to everything else I was doing at the time.) How would I have later reacted to the November 2018 "hill of meaning" Tweets (assuming they weren't butterfly-effected away in this counterfactual)? It's hard to say. Maybe, if that world's analogue of my February 2017 breakdown had gone sufficiently badly (with no Michael to visit me in the psych ward or help me make sense of things afterwards), I would have already been a broken man, and not even sent Yudkowsky an email. In any case, I feel very confident that my understanding of the behavior of "everyone generally and [Yudkowsky] personally" would not have been _better_ without Michael _et al._'s influence. + +> [cont'd] +> you may recall that this blog included something called the "Bayesian Conspiracy" +> they won't tell you about it, because it interferes with the story they were trying to drive you insaner with, but it's so +> **zackmdavis** — 11/29/2022 10:37 PM +> it's true that the things I don't like about modern Yudkowsky were still there in Sequences-era Yudkowsky, but I think they've gotten worse +> **Eliezer** — 11/29/2022 10:39 PM +> well, if your story is that I was always a complicated person, and you selected some of my posts and liked the simpler message you extracted from those, and over time I've shifted in my emphases in a way you don't like, while still having posts like Meta-Honesty and so on... then that's a pretty different story than the one you were telling in this Discord channel, like, just now. today. + +Is it, though? The "always a complicated person [who has] shifted in [his] emphases in a way [I] don't like" story was true, of course, but it elided the substantive reasons _why_ I didn't like the new emphases, which could presumably be evaluated on their own merits. + +It's interesting that Yudkowsky listed "still having posts like Meta-Honesty" as an exculpatory factor here. The thing is, I [wrote a _critique_ of Meta-Honesty](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MN4NRkMw7ggt9587K/firming-up-not-lying-around-its-edge-cases-is-less-broadly). It was well-received. I don't think I could have written a similarly impassioned critique of anything from the Sequences era, because the stuff from the Sequences era mostly looked _correct_ to me. To me, "Meta-Honesty" was evidence _for_ Yudkowsky having relinquished his Art and lost his powers, not evidence that his powers were still intact. + +I didn't have that response thought through in real time. At the time, I just agreed: + +> **zackmdavis** — 11/29/2022 10:39 PM +> It is! +> I'm not done working through the hate-warp +> **Eliezer** — 11/29/2022 10:40 PM +> so one thing hasn't changed: the message that you, yourself, should always be trying to infer the true truth, off the information you already have. +> if you know you've got a hate-warp I don't know why you're running it and not trying to correct for it +> are you in fact also explicitly aware that the people who talk to you a lot about "gaslighting" are, like, insane? +> **zackmdavis** — 11/29/2022 10:42 PM +> I'm not really part of Vassar's clique anymore, if that's what you mean +> **Eliezer** — 11/29/2022 10:44 PM +> it looks from outside here like they stomped really heavy footprints all over your brain that have not healed or been filled in +> **zackmdavis** — 11/29/2022 10:49 PM +> it looks from inside here that the thing I'm not healed from is the thing where, as Oliver Habryka put it, I "should expect that depending on the circumstances community leaders might make up sophisticated stories for why pretty obviously true things are false" (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/juZ8ugdNqMrbX7x2J/challenges-to-yudkowsky-s-pronoun-reform-proposal?commentId=he8dztSuBBuxNRMSY), and Michael and Ben and Jessica were really helpful for orienting me to that particular problem, even if I disagree with them about a lot of other things and they seem crazy in other ways +> (rule thinkers in, not out) + +I was pleased to get the link to Habryka's comment in front of Yudkowsky, if he hadn't already seen it. + +> **Eliezer** — 11/29/2022 10:55 PM +> the most harm they did you was to teach you to see malice where you should have seen mortality +> noninnocent error is meaningfully different from innocent error; and noninnocent error is meaningfully different from malice +> Keltham deduced the lack of masochists in dath ilan by asking the question, "Why would Civilization have kept this information from me?", ruling out or actually not even thinking of such ridiculous hypotheses as "Because it was fun", and settling on the obvious explanation that explained why Keltham would have wanted Civilization to do that for him - masochists not existing or being incredibly rare and unaffordable to him. You looked at this and saw malice everywhere; you couldn't even see the fictional world the author was trying to give you direct description about. You didn't say that you disbelieved in the world; you could not see what was being described. +> +> Hate-warp like this is bad for truth-perception; my understanding of the situation is that it's harm done to you by the group you say you left. I would read this as being a noninnocent error of that group; that they couldn't get what they wanted from people who still had friends outside their own small microculture, and noninnocently then decided that this outer culture was bad and people needed to be pried loose from it. They tried telling some people that this outer culture was gaslighting them and maliciously lying to them and had to be understood in wholly adversarial terms to break free of the gaslighting; that worked on somebody, and made a new friend for them; so their brain noninnocently learned that it ought to use arguments like that again, so they must be true. +> This is a sort of thing I super did not do because I understood it as a failure mode and Laid My Go Stones Against Ever Actually Being A Cult; I armed people with weapons against it, or tried to, but I was optimistic in my hopes about how much could actually be taught. +> **zackmdavis** — 11/29/2022 11:20 PM +> Without particularly defending Vassar et al. or my bad literary criticism (sorry), modeling the adversarial component of non-innocent errors (as contrasted to "had to be understood in wholly adversarial terms") seems very important. (Maybe lying is "worse" than rationalizing, but if you can't hold people culpable for rationalization, you end up with a world that's bad for broadly the same reasons that a world full of liars is bad: we can't steer the world to good states if everyone's map is full of falsehoods that locally benefitted someone.) +> **Eliezer** — 11/29/2022 11:22 PM +> Rationalization sure is a huge thing! That's why I considered important to discourse upon the science of it, as was then known; and to warn people that there were more complicated tangles than that, which no simple experiment had shown yet. +> **zackmdavis** — 11/29/2022 11:22 PM +> yeah +> **Eliezer** — 11/29/2022 11:23 PM +> It remains something that mortals do, and if you cut off anybody who's ever done that, you'll be left with nobody. And also importantly, people making noninnocent errors, if you accuse them of malice, will look inside themselves and correctly see that this is not how they work, and they'll stop listening to the (motivated) lies you're telling them about themselves. +> This also holds true if you make up overly simplistic stories about 'ah yes well you're doing that because you're part of $woke-concept-of-society' etc. +> **zackmdavis** — 11/29/2022 11:24 PM +> I think there's also a frequent problem where you try to accuse people of non-innocent errors, and they motivatedly interpret you as accusing malice +> **Eliezer** — 11/29/2022 11:25 PM +> Then invent new terminology. I do that all the time when existing terminology fails me. +> Like I literally invented the term 'noninnocent error' right in this conversation. +> **zackmdavis** — 11/29/2022 11:27 PM +> I've tried this, but maybe it wasn't good enough, or I haven't been using it consistently enough: [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sXHQ9R5tahiaXEZhR/algorithmic-intent-a-hansonian-generalized-anti-zombie](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sXHQ9R5tahiaXEZhR/algorithmic-intent-a-hansonian-generalized-anti-zombie) +> I should get ready for bed +> I will endeavor to edit out the hate-warp from my memoir before publishing, and probably not talk in this server +> **Eliezer** — 11/29/2022 11:31 PM +> I think you should worry first about editing the hate-warp out of yourself, but editing the memoir might be useful practice for it. Good night. + +It turned out that I was lying about probably not talking in the server anymore. (Hedging the word "probably" didn't make the claim true, and of course I wasn't _consciously_ lying, but that hardly seems exculpatory.) + +The thread went on. + [TODO: regrets and wasted time * Do I have regrets about this Whole Dumb Story? A lot, surely—it's been a lot of wasted time. But it's also hard to say what I should have done differently; I could have listened to Ben more and lost faith Yudkowsky earlier, but he had earned a lot of benefit of the doubt? * less drama (in my youth, I would have been proud that at least this vice was a feminine trait; now, I prefer to be good even if that means being a good man) diff --git a/notes/memoir-sections.md b/notes/memoir-sections.md index 37ba39e..a68fdc3 100644 --- a/notes/memoir-sections.md +++ b/notes/memoir-sections.md @@ -48,11 +48,12 @@ _ the story of my Feb./Apr. 2017 recent madness [pt. 2] it was actually "wander onto the AGI mailing list wanting to build a really big semantic net" (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9HGR5qatMGoz4GhKj/above-average-ai-scientists) With internet available— +_ Meta-Honesty critique well-received: cite 2019 review guide _ https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/2Ses9aB8jSDZtyRnW/duncan-sabien-on-moderating-lesswrong#comment-aoqWNe6aHcDiDh8dr _ https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/trvFowBfiKiYi7spb/open-thread-july-2019#comment-RYhKrKAxiQxY3FcHa _ correct italics in quoted Eliezerfic back-and-forth _ lc on elves and Sparashki -_ Nate would later admit that this was a mistake +_ Nate would later admit that this was a mistake (or ask Jessica where) _ Michael Bailey's new AGP in women study _ "gene drive" terminology _ double-check "All rates" language