But if you think the only hope for there _being_ a future flows through maintaining influence over what large tech companies are doing as they build transformative AI, declining to contradict the state religion makes more sense—if you don't have _time_ to win a culture war, because you need to grab hold of the Singularity (or perform a [pivotal act](https://arbital.com/p/pivotal/) to prevent it) _now_. If the progressive machine marks you as a transphobic bigot, the machine's functionaries at OpenAI or Meta AI Research are less likely to listen to you when you explain why [their safety plan](https://openai.com/blog/our-approach-to-alignment-research/) won't work, or why they should have a safety plan at all.
-(I remarked to "Wilhelm" in June 2022 that DeepMind [changing its Twitter avatar to a rainbow variant of their logo for Pride month](https://web.archive.org/web/20220607123748/https://twitter.com/DeepMind) was a bad sign.)
+(I remarked to "Wilhelm" in mid-2022 that DeepMind [changing its Twitter avatar to a rainbow variant of their logo for Pride month](https://web.archive.org/web/20220607123748/https://twitter.com/DeepMind) was a bad sign.)
So isn't there a story here where I'm the villain, willfully damaging humanity's chances of survival by picking unimportant culture-war fights in the xrisk-reduction social sphere, when _I know_ that the sphere needs to keep its nose clean in the eyes of the progressive egregore? _That's_ why Yudkowsky said the arguably-technically-misleading things he said about my Something to Protect: he _had_ to, to keep our collective nose clean. The people paying attention to contemporary politics don't know what I know, and can't usefully be told. Isn't it better for humanity if my meager talents are allocated to making AI go well? Don't I have a responsibility to fall in line and take one for the team—if the world is at stake?
I can think of two reasons why the naïve objection might fail. (And who can say but that a neutral expert witness on decision theory wouldn't think of more?)
-First, the true decision theory is subtler than "defy anything that you can commonsensically pattern-match as looking like 'extortion'"; the case for resisting extortion specifically rests on there existing a subjunctive dependence between your decision and the extortionist's decision (they threaten _because_ you'll give in, or won't bother _because_ you won't), and the relevant subjunctive dependence doesn't obviously pertain in the real-life science intellectual _vs._ social justice mob match-up. If the mob has been trained from past experience to predict that their targets will give in, should you defy them now in order to somehow make your current situation "less real"? Depending on the correct theory of logical counterfactuals, the right stance might be ["We don't negotiate with terrorists, but we do appease bears"](/2019/Dec/political-science-epigrams/) (because the bear's response isn't calculated based on our response), and the forces of political orthodoxy might be relevantly bear-like.
+First, the true decision theory is subtler than "defy anything that you can commonsensically pattern-match as looking like 'extortion'"; the case for resisting extortion specifically rests on there existing a subjunctive dependence between your decision and the extortionist's decision (they threaten _because_ you'll give in, or don't bother _because_ you won't), and the relevant subjunctive dependence doesn't obviously pertain in the real-life science intellectual _vs._ social justice mob match-up. If the mob has been trained from past experience to predict that their targets will give in, should you defy them now in order to somehow make your current situation "less real"?[^emerson] Depending on the correct theory of logical counterfactuals, the right stance might be ["We don't negotiate with terrorists, but we do appease bears"](/2019/Dec/political-science-epigrams/) (because the bear's response isn't calculated based on our response), and the forces of political orthodoxy might be relevantly bear-like.
-On the other hand, the relevant subjunctive dependence doesn't obviously _not_ pertain, either! Parsing social justice as an agentic "threat" rather than a non-agentic obstacle like an avalanche, does seem to line up with the fact that people punish heretics, who dissent from an ideological group, more than infidels, who were never part of the group to begin with—_because_ heretics are more extortable—more vulnerable to social punishment from the original group.
+[^emerson]: I remember back in 'aught-nine, Tyler Emerson was caught embezzling funds from the Singularity Institute, and SingInst made a point of prosecuting him on decision-theoretic grounds, when a lot of other nonprofits would have quietly covered it up to spare themselves the embarrassment.
-Which brings me to the second reason the naïve anti-extortion argument might fail: what counts as "extortion" depends on the relevant "property rights", what the "default" action is. If having free speech is the default, being excluded from the coalition for defying the orthodoxy could be construed as extortion. But if _being excluded from the coalition_ is the default, maybe toeing the line of orthodoxy is the price you need to pay in order to be included.
+On the other hand, the relevant subjunctive dependence doesn't obviously _not_ pertain, either! Parsing social justice as an agentic "threat" rather than a non-agentic obstacle like an avalanche, does seem to line up with the fact that people punish heretics (who dissent from an ideological group) more than infidels (who were never part of the group to begin with), _because_ heretics are more extortable—more vulnerable to social punishment from the original group.
+
+Which brings me to the second reason the naïve anti-extortion argument might fail: [what counts as "extortion" depends on the relevant "property rights", what the "default" action is](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Qjaaux3XnLBwomuNK/countess-and-baron-attempt-to-define-blackmail-fail). If having free speech is the default, being excluded from the coalition for defying the orthodoxy could be construed as extortion. But if _being excluded from the coalition_ is the default, maybe toeing the line of orthodoxy is the price you need to pay in order to be included.
[TODO: defying threats, cont'd—
- * Yudkowsky does seemingly back commonsensical interpretations, re voting, or how, back in 'aught-nine, SingInst had made a point of prosecuting Tyler Emerson, citing decision theory
+ * Yudkowsky has an algorithm for bargaining between agents with different notions of "fairness": you'd prefer a fair split on the Pareto boundary, but you should be willing to except an unfair split, as long as the other guy also does worse—all the way to the Nash equilibrium https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/z2YwmzuT7nWx62Kfh/cooperating-with-agents-with-different-ideas-of-fairness
+ * How does this map on to the present situation, though? Does he think he's playing Nash, or does he think he's getting gains-from-trade? (Either figure this out, or write some smart sentences about my confusion)
+
+ * I asked him why he changed his mind about voting
+ * "Vote when you're part of a decision-theoretic logical cohort large enough to change things, or when you're worried about your reputation and want to be honest about whether you voted."
+ * So maybe he doesn't think he's part of a decision-theoretic logical cohort large enough to resist the egregore, and he's also not worried about his reputation for resisting the egregore
+ * If his reptuation in the eyes of people like me just isn't that valuable, I guess I can't argue with that
+
+Curtis Yarvin [likes to compare](/2020/Aug/yarvin-on-less-wrong/) Yudkowsky to [Sabbatai Zevi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatai_Zevi#Conversion_to_Islam), the Jewish religious leader who was purported to be the Messiah, who converted to Islam under coercion from the Ottomans. "I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that in the same position, Eliezer Yudkowsky would also convert to Islam," said Yarvin.
- * Curtis Yarvin has compared Yudkowsky to Sabbatai Zevi (/2020/Aug/yarvin-on-less-wrong/), and I've got to say the comparison is dead-on. Sabbatai Zevi was facing much harsher coercion: his choices were to convert to Islam or be impaled https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatai_Zevi#Conversion_to_Islam
+ * But this isn't necessarily crazy. Zevi was facing some very harsh coercion: convert or be impaled.
+ * My real question is, in the same position, would Sabbatai Zevi declare that 30% of the ones with penises are actually women?
]
Notwithstanding that Rittaen can be Watsonianly assumed to have detailed neuroscience skills that the author Doylistically doesn't know how to write, I am entirely unimpressed by the assertion that this idea is somehow _dangerous_, a secret that only Keepers can bear, rather than something _Merrin herself should be clued into_. "It's not [Rittaen's] place to meddle just because he knows Merrin better than Merrin does," we're told.
-In the same story, an agent from Exception Handling [tells Merrin that the bureau's Fake Conspiracy section is running an operation to plant evidence that Sparashki (the fictional alien Merrin happens to be dressed up as) are real](https://glowfic.com/replies/1860952#reply-1860952), and asks Merrin not to contradict this, and Merrin just ... goes along with it. (Elsewhere in the text, we're told that claiming to be a Sparashki isn't "lying", because no one would _expect_ someone to tell the truth in that situation.) It's in-character for Merrin to go along with it, because she's a pushover. My question is, why is it okay that Exception Handling has a Fake Conspiracies section, any more than it would have been if FTX or Enron explicitly had a Fake Accounting department? (Because dath ilan are the designated good guys? Well, so was FTX.)
+In the same story, an agent from Exception Handling [tells Merrin that the bureau's Fake Conspiracy section is running an operation to plant evidence that Sparashki (the fictional alien Merrin happens to be dressed up as) are real](https://glowfic.com/replies/1860952#reply-1860952), and asks Merrin not to contradict this, and Merrin just ... goes along with it. It's in-character for Merrin to go along with it, because she's a pushover. My question is, why is it okay that Exception Handling has a Fake Conspiracies section, any more than it would have been if FTX or Enron explicitly had a Fake Accounting department? (Because dath ilan are the designated good guys? Well, so was FTX.)
As another notable example of dath ilan hiding information for the alleged greater good, in Golarion, Keltham discovers that he's a sexual sadist, and deduces that Civilization has deliberately prevented him from realizing this, because there aren't enough corresponding masochists to go around in dath ilan. Having concepts for "sadism" and "masochism" as variations in human psychology would make sadists like Keltham sad about the desirable sexual experiences they'll never get to have, so Civilization arranges for them to _not be exposed to knowledge that would make them sad, because it would make them sad_ (!!).
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff