16 Jan: Ben to me/Anna on old thread: esotericism is less of a problem if flagged
18 Jan: gender refugees, moral patiency, and BBL
29 Jan: me to Kay Brown: have you noticed LGBTQ/queer culture getting worse?
+7 Feb: Messenger with "Wilhelm" about Rust All-Hands
8 Feb: me to Katie about Rust All-Hands
8 Feb: me to Ben and Michael about social competence
20 Feb: impulsive email to Scott (subject: a howl of despair which is nameless)
3 Mar: more draft, more thanks for social proof
5 Mar: Scott gets back to me
5 Mar: 12 short stories about language (and, expressing regret that I only email Scott when I need something from him)
+6 Mar: to "Wilhelm" about anti-trans complaints against Anna
6 Mar: SJWs without guns doing this than you are about mostly white men with money, gavels and guns doing it? ... SJW agenda is to play by the same rules as the legal system plays by, and they do it with less support from tradition and from ritual, so it's more obvious,
6 Mar: much better draft to EY (defending against alt-right)
10 Mar: send revised draft to EY
15 Apr: me—concern about bad faith nitpicking, Jessica says I'm not
15 Apr: Jessica's comment, the lesson of Funk-tunul
15 Apr: trying to recruit Steven Kaas
+15 Apr: Signal conversation with Ben—
+I'm having some ideas on how I could write my post about disillusionment with the rationalists well still not being too hostile and not leaking info from private conversations
+
+> Yeah, I think the right target to keep in mind is people like you a few years ago who haven't yet had the experiences you've had
+> So they don't actually have to freak out to the point of being imprisoned and then demand help from community leaders and not get it, they can just learn from you
+> Like, the actual sympathetic-but-naive people
+> Not the people fucking with you
+
+[...]
+
+people also deserve credit for the help they did give me (care resources from Alicorn et al.) even if I don't think there intellectual performance was good enough to deserve the Mandate of Heaven implied by the "rationalist" brand name
+
+> Yes, but we need to keep separate accounts for _personal_ gratitude, and institutional fraud
+> Like, I think that if somehow Alicorn gets hurt by the Rationalists dissolving, and we're in a position to help her, we should try to help in any way that _doesn't_ work via continuing to validate the collective narcissistic fantasy that the Rationalists are a thing
+> Insofar as that makes things hard, we have to think of it as a hostage situations
+> But, it's not obvious that this imposes undue costs on the individuals that have helped you a lot, except maybe Anna
+[...]
+> And, _not_ doing this is imposing costs on people like Michael (and all of humanity) instead, which is a lot less fair than harming Anna's interests incidentally by breaking up a scam she's drawing power from
+
+[...]
+should I just reread you posts about EA, or is there more?
+
+> People are systematically conflating corruption, accumulation of dominance, and theft, with getting things done.
+[...]
+
+> These both seem like evidence that CFAR and MIRI see themselves as building an army, not a truth-seeking intellectual community.
+[...]
+
+> This isn't about direct benefit vs harm
+> This is about what, substantively, they're doing
+> And they claimed to be cultivating an epistemically rational community while in fact building an army of loyalists
+
+[...]
+
+last night I was up until 2 a.m. and wrote Anna two paper postscards asking for her to engage with my "... Boundaries?" post when she ahs time and to give me an estimate of when she might have time [...] I figured that spamming people with hysterical and somewhat demanding physical postcards is more polite (and funnier) than my usual habit of spamming people with hysterical and somewhat demanding emails
+
16 Apr: I feel sad and gaslighted
16 Apr: Jessica sparks engagement by appealing to anti-lying
Ben— I think a commitment to lying is always wrong just straightforwardly leads to deciding that anything power demands you say is true.
-16 Apr: If it were just a matter of my own pain, I wouldn't bother making a fuss about this. But there's a principle here that's way bigger than any of us: that's why Michael and Ben and Sarah and Zvi and Jessica are here with me.
+16 Apr: If it were just a matter of my own pain, I wouldn't bother making a fuss about this. But there's a principle here that's way bigger than any of us: that's why Michael and Ben and Sarah and [...] and Jessica are here with me.
we're in favor of Jessica's existence
17 Apr: plantiff/pawn/puppydog
17 Apr: Jessica— This person had an emotional reaction described as a sense that "Zack should have known that wouldn't work" (because of the politics involved, not because Zack wasn't right). Those who are savvy in high-corruption equilibria maintain the delusion that high corruption is common knowledge, to justify expropriating those who naively don't play along, by narratizing them as already knowing and therefore intentionally attacking people, rather than being lied to and confused.
Ben—What exactly is a scam, if it's not misinforming people systematically about what you have to offer, in a direction that moves resources towards you?
me—but the law does use mens rea, like the distinction between manslaughter and murder
me—call with Michael, the Pope surely knows that he doesn't really have a direct line to God (despite holding office based on this pretense), to how GiveWell must know that they're not really making decisions based on numbers (despite holding credibility based on this premise)
+16 Jul: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/16/against-lie-inflation/
17 Jul: Alyssa's false claim about my pseudonyms, HRT effects side note
18 Jul: my accusation of mis-citing Ozy was wrong
20 Jul: me to Anna and Steven about LW mods colluding to protect feelings; "basically uninterested in the mounting evidence that your entire life's work is a critical failure?"
20 Jul: Michael—Court language is the language that we have for "you don't have the ethical option of non-engagement with the complaints that are being made"
+> We *also* need to develop skill in the use of SJW style blamey language, like the blamey language about feelings that was being used *on* us harder and to a great extent first, while we were acting under mistake theory assumptions.
23 Jul: "epistemic defense" meeting
24-25 Jul: Michael Vassar and the theory of optimal gossip
Kelsey thinks "threatening schism is that it's fundamentally about Vassar threatening to stir shit up until people stop socially excluding him for his bad behavior"
15 Sep: Yudkowsky will say, "Whoops, I said the wrong thing" re his interaction with Glen Weyl, which seems more proportional to Weyl's power rather than the magnitude of the offense https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1164275185622507520
16 Sep: SK: "I think there's a gradient where sanity is mostly flowing from core people outward toward non-core people."
me—That's what I would have thought, too! I consider this falsified [...] twenty-thousand-word, five-month extraordinary effort [...] The gradient is running in the other direction!
+
+19/20 Sep: Signal conversation with Ben—
+> Van Nostrand mentioned that Merlin has asked you why you're a boy, an dwe're curious what you're answer was now
+... I stonewalled him because of my political incentives :'( (semi-consciously mishead the question as "Are you ab boy?" and said "Yes" after a long pause)
+I would have preferred a straightforward honest answer like, "Because I have a penis, like you", but that answer felt inappropriately "political", speech I want to avoid in that house (which is an insane situation to be in, but)
+
21 Sep: Being widely taken seriously is important if the plan is to lobby Congress to pass Safe AI regulation. Being able to add 6 + 7 is important if the plan is to make unprecedented scientific breakthroughs. Remind me what the plan is?
22 Sep: There are also forces pulling in the direction of not selling out your principles for power and popularity, if there exist valuable people who care about principles. [..] If my actions (implausibly) represent a PR risk to someone else's Singularity strategy, then they're welcome to try to persuade or negotiate with me.
24 Sep: "Heads I Win" was really successful; reasons why you might think this is good besides measuring idea quality democratically
30 Sep: the third time that someone has responded to my "help help, everyone is being stupid about the philosophy of language for transparently political reasons, and Michael Vassar's gang are the only people backing me up on this; what the fuck is going on?!" sob story with (paraphrasing), "Your philosophy hobbyhorse is OK, but Michael's gang is crazy." [...] Jessica's assessment from earlier: "Another classic political tactic: praise one member of an alliance while blaming another, to split cracks in the alliance, turning former allies against each other." / Where the three incidents seemed more coherent on the "praise Zack, diss his new friends" aspect, than on the specific content of the disses, whereas in the worlds where Michael's gang is just crazy, I would expect the content craziness allegations to correlate more
Oct: model sync with Jessica/Alyssa/Lex/Sarah
+19 Oct: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/bSmgPNS6MTJsunTzS/maybe-lying-doesn-t-exist
3 Nov: actually good criticism from Abram at MIRI!!!
Isn't the problem with bad (shortsighted, motivated) appeal-to-consequences, rather than appeal-to-consequences in general?
example: predator-avoidance
I am worried that you said you learned from Moldbug, and now Yudkowsky needs to performatively denounce him
I am worried about Yudkowsky wireheading his fiction subreddit
I see a culture that has given up on the common interest of many causes
-Vaniver mentions "sure, Eliezer doesn't post here anymore, but that's bad for Eliezer too."—look up this comment
-Sonya pointed out Scott's view of his legacy https://twitter.com/sonyasupposedly/status/1211789899260518402
-[bookmark]
-1 Jan: the red phone / state of Church leadership
+Vaniver mentions Said saying "sure, Eliezer doesn't post here anymore, but that's bad for Eliezer too."
+1 Jan 20: the red phone / state of Church leadership
+feeling more optimistic about not needing to finish the memoir—or giving it a happy ending
+"If that's all I have, then it's all I can honestly love"
+playing on a different chessboard
+he hasn't given up on his Wizard's art, but he has, after painful experience, like the Roko affair, given up on sharing it with the public
+me and Michael and Jessica were counting on him to uphold standards of discourse rather than chess
+we don't get to know the real Eliezer Yudkowsky; all we can ever know is what we can infer from the words you type—and if that's all we have, then it's all we can honestly love. If the algorithm that determines which subset of your thoughts reaches us changes—then as far as we or the rest of the world can tell, it's as if you've changed.
+2 Jan: Michael—I can't work with you if you are accepting Eliezer's schedule instead of ours. That's being political and on his side!
+my memoir as a decision-theoretic weapon
+my sense of opportunity perceives me playing a useful political role without me being unambiguously on this "side"?
+The reason I got wrapped up in this civil war was becuase of this one thing; therefore I'm now at peace with Scott
+I'm more trustworthy if I'm not perceived as Michael's pawn
+3 Jan: Michael—
+> I strongly prefer judge functions over coalition functions, so far as we can cause those to apply!!!
+> The challenge is to apply judge functions in a context where there is no recognition of a right to call the litigants into a court.
+now that Scott is legally in the clear, my recourse is polite blog posts, and not police actions like cussing him out in public
+Same thing about being complicit with psychiatry (morally suspect, but my only allowable recourse is to write polite critical blog posts).
+Jessica—being complicit with psychiatry
+I'm too submissive to psychologically maintain more than one vendetta at a time, so if I'm currently angry about the philosophy of language, then psychiatry must be OK because I don't have any anger resources left.
+4 Jan: Twitter fight with Ben
+a shouty equilibrium rather than the colluding-to-wirehead-each-other equilibrium that we see in Berkeley
+4 Jan: Ben thinks I'm no longer interested in creating clarity
+memoir is a nuke
+5 Jan: Ben—the fact that I think the memoir is an act of war, even privately (insofar as my motivation to work on it vanished when I got concessions) means I've ceded the inside of my own mind to the forces of anticlarity
+my reply: I've ceded the internal of my own mind to Eliezer Yudkowsky in particular
+5 Jan: using "central" allows mis-definition by mobs of obfuscators
+5 Jan: I am confident that finishing writing it will be clarifying and cathartic for you even if you decide not to publish, and would be an excellent use of time
+5 Jan: me—vocabulary itself is a surprisingly expensive captial investment
+5-8 Jan: baiting Steven to talk to Jessica about global warming
+9 Jan: arguing with Jessica about "developmental sex" and natural categories
+10 Jan: binary vectors
+10 Jan: "isn't meant to force you into agreement here on pains of losing face"
+15 Jan: more Twitter/email fighting about "people's philosopher"
+15 Jan: the same _interest_ is being defended whether I'm speaking up for my own order or someone else's
+16 Jan: Without you, my smartest critic is Ozy, but my self-criticism is smarter than Ozy, so it was like having no critics at all.
+16 Jan: do you think you could explain this in a way Said would find satisfying?
+18 Jan: Yudkowsky on Caplan: https://www.econlib.org/scott-alexander-on-mental-illness-a-belated-reply/#comment-237783
+21 Jan: still have this "Vassar Group vs. Corrupt Mainstream MIRI/CfAR/LW/EA rationalist civil war" framing in my head that I need to unwind, because it's the wrong frame, and it's ironically the wrong frame by our ("our") own standards. I already made the mistake of expecting a community once, but by now I should know that no Lord hath the champion, and no safe defense. There is no group; there is no community; there are just grown-ups who think for themselves (or ought to) and sometimes coordinate with their friends on those specific plans that actually require coordination.
+I indicate I might enter the Caplan-Alexander debate (I don't actually)
+25 Jan: Said thinks Jessica's political thinking is vague and under-researched
+27 Jan: Anna has to ("has to") let both me and Ziz down because big-tent coalitions require incoherence (e.g., progressives prefer not to admit out loud that trans people and Muslims have conflicting interests).
+27 Jan: Vassar's trans reversal—lame
+1 Feb: sleep disruption due to M.M.B. situation
+1 Feb: I reply to Scott on "AGP is common", and M.M.B. situation
+4 Feb: you exist in the physical sense. To whatever extent your behavior is controlled by the balance of "not wanting to fight pro-trans people" and "not wanting to fight Zack", then you don't exist decision-theoretically.
+6 Feb: me to Anna on fog of war and MMB
+(the conversation with Somni is relevant)
+12 Feb: "I'm a girl and I'm a vegetarian"
+23 Feb: connection with Iceman
+23 Feb: discussion on meaning of "zero-sum"
+25 Feb: I'm still talking about finishing writing a memoir
+28 Feb: "belief check" conversation with Jessica on origin of trans ideology
+3 Mar: Scott's new COVID-19 post is great on the "shared maps" issue! https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/02/coronavirus-links-speculation-open-thread/ in contrast to how last month he was acting like he didn't understand the problem https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/01/30/book-review-human-compatible/#comment-847143 https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/yaCwW8nPQeJknbCgf/free-speech-and-triskaidekaphobic-calculators-a-reply-to/comment/mHrHTvzg8MGNH2CwB
+4 Mar: niche skill of being able to translate between high-church Yudkowskyism and Vassarian moonspeak
+9-10 Mar: talk to Mom/Nicole about COVID prep
+22 Mar: ping Jack for social call ("You seem a lot more vicious than the sixteen-or-whatever-year-old I remember meeting at a Less Wrong meetup back in '13-or-whatever, but it looks adaptive")
+31 Mar: I'm skeptical of Eli as a mediator between me and Anna
+"Human Diversity" review published
+I've discovered that you can just stop being scared of things and then nothing bad happens. All swans are white! There are no other swans!
+24 May: Jessica on high-precision claims
+24 May: Anna seems to be regaining power of speech (Facebook post on U.S. decline)
+2 Jun: I send an email to Cade Metz, who DMed me on Twitter
+25 Jul: rubber-duck philosophy for "Unnatural Categories"!!
+4 Sep: misguided by the hideousness of our weapons?! or, theory of universal algorithmic bad faith
+runaround argument about free speech that never gets anywhere, possibly because of a bug on my end
+in principle, "What if telling the truth about X has bad consequences?" is an empirical question that could be asked in good faith and, having been asked in good faith, deserves a good-faith answer
+in principle, I don't believe people are asking it in good faith; I think it's a weapon of psychological warfare
+our most recent Less Wrong exchange. I characterized you as being on "Team Seek Power For The Greater Good". You explained why that's not a fair characterization. I explained why selectively omitting evidence is a problem. You explained that you only advocate omitting things that will make the audience respond irrationally, not omitting everything that would be inconvenient to the case.
+I don't think that thread was a good showing for me: if we apply the principle of charity to my behavior, we would say I was a bit slow on the uptake, forcing a four-comment thread to restate things that had already been covered previously.
+I'm better modeled as trying to humiliate him or waste his time
+... I still don't understand how to engage with it
+"I'm curious what evidence changed your mind" is still a counter-weapon
+13 Sep: out of patience
+13 Sep: me to Anna—focusing on my email to Yudkowsky is more important than entering the Facebook comments
+Anna asks me to be calm, high in denotation
+14 Sep: the end of the Category War
+suspect Ben will be sad that I'm "bought off", but I think not being at war makes it easier for me to do clarity-creation, in the spirit of "Here's what the thing is actually doing" rather than "flames on the side of my face"
+21 Sep: me to Don Fallis—the argument over whether merely withholding information is deception reminds me of arguments over distortion: it's not surprising that the answer takes the form "it depends on the zero point" rather than "Extoriton: Yes or No"
+25 Sep: anticipating that people are going to (not entirely inaccurately?! :'( ) round off everything I say as being backchained from my gender war, which makes the fact that Ziz totally agrees with us (about the Bay eating our culture and our people) very reassuring https://sinceriously.fyi/cached-answers/#comment-897
+still this urge to prevent the old beacon from eating people who don't know what it's doing
+maybe my razzing him about the Human Compatible review (https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/01/30/book-review-human-compatible/#comment-847143) was causal in his COVID shared maps thing—maybe this entire line of thinking is still poison: thinking about my effects on Scott in particular (as if he were special, which he's not)
+3 Oct: Do the smart-leftists feel contempt for all the retarded children, or do they just not-notice them as being worth paying attention to (the way I seamlessly don't-notice ordinary Trump voters)?
+1 Nov: knowledge boostrapping with EvN
+4 Nov: destructive creature Olympics
+25 Nov: me to Michael—I think your reputation (in the jungle growing around the ruins of what we once called the "rationalist community") has some amount of instrumental value
+25 Nov: "No reputation in the jungle" meaning that people are just going to praise or throw you to the wolves depending on the expediency of the moment's shifting alliances, rather than there being any way to gain or retain standing for being Actually Good?
+25 Nov: notes from conversation with Michael
+in lawful environments, your reputation is by default true
+in lawless environments, bad rep just means you're important enough to have enemies, which is good
+It's easy to move the conversation from what is going on to whose side are you on.
+There's a game of trying to build the largest coalition: previously, it was the European coalition, now the not-European coalition is ascendant. [ZMD's note: this reminds me of both NRx's https://spandrell.com/2017/11/14/biological-leninism/ and Ben's http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/hierarchy-wings/] We want to carve out a space for reason within the winning coalition.
+Reason is the motte and pragmatism is the bailey
+the officers vs. the enlisted; the enlisted claim to recommend the common people, the officers claim to represent the rich; both sides totally fake ideas
+Ziz is that least plausibly a girl of all trans girls, but by declaring a protected identity and having wealth, can just barely survive.
+my objection: but, but as part of the whole "Truth instead of expedient lies" part of rationality, don't we at least want Ziz to know that?!
+ I can operate for short periods in territory in which I only have the option of being a (closeted) trans woman—as an energy-minimizing play, to inhabit someone else's stereotype—but I can't live there, because that story makes no fucking sense
+Trauma is expecting coordination for evil to win, and causes you to be part of that coordination in a way that's minimally ego-dystonic.
+Surprise minimization means doing what you think that that they think that ... a free-energy constaint. If you're given a lot of "responsibility", you have to behave in a way that fulfills expectations, and eventually the only thing left is being bad in a stereotyped way that everyone knows how to expect—the type of conspiracy you can only get out of physics.
+By defying people's stereotypes, Shawanna imposes enormously large costs on cynical do-gooders, so they equalize the energy differential by imposing pragmatic costs on her.
+surpised that Ziz can't get a lawyer despite having money
+14 Dec: destructive creature Olympic, cont'd: It's great to have common knowledge of the mutual ability to interpret conditional statements literally! (Not something you can always depend on these days.)
+if Kelsey wrote her own 10,600 draft Document [...] that would be really interesting! [...] no one else seemed interested in having a theory, as opposed to leaping to institute a social convention that, when challenged, is claimed to have no particular consequences and no particular objective truth conditions, even though it's not clear why there would be moral urgency to implement this convention if it weren't for its consequences.
+I don't think the 19th-century Chinese who bound their daughters' feet, or the 18th-century Italians who castrated little boys to perserve their singing voice were innately less empathetic than us [...] How will history analyze the moral culture of 21st-century Californians?
+17 Dec: But parts of it felt like concern trolling as a cult-recruitment tactic? In caricature: "Your writing and research doesn't matter because there's no living audience out there; you can only talk to us." You can see why Dagny Taggart would perceive that as hostile?
+--- psych care disaster
+21 Dec: me to Anna—you either didn't hide it, or I noticed anyway. But if other people in the care coordination group had seized on that to turn against you and paint you (to me) as dangerous, that would have been bad for me (independently of whether or not it would have been fair to you), because the fact that you were there was vastly more helpful, than the fact that you didn't want to be there was unhelpful
+2 Jan 21: super-weird unsolicited mental/physical health email about blood sugar and sleep
+4 Jan: sleep strategy notes
+7 Jan: I've been distracted by the news (I told Anna that Wednesday was a scary news day—referring, of course, to OpenAI DALL-E
+Feb: New York Times hit piece on Scott
+18 Feb: my "incredibly shallow and transparently self-serving" reaction to Yudkowsky on Scott email leak
+22 Feb: Technically, he started it this time! I totally would have left him alone if he didn't kick the shitpile again!
+dude can't really expect to get away with pulling out the pompous-register "feelings don't get to control everybody's language protocol" in that context; that's _my_ line
+27 Feb: me to Marcus—Everyone who's read Scott's work deeply is completely unsurprised by the content of the leaked email
+28 Feb: "Are you trying to convince him, yourself or those watching?" Those watching, plus testing my acquired immunity to pompous-register Yudsplaining (which I used to psychologically vulnerable to, because in 2009, it was always right)
+28 Mar: block warning
+9 May 21: trapped priors—at home!
+ I think the effort asymmetry here is kind of hilarious, where it's not that hyperbolic to say I spent three years of my life (early 2018–early 2021) trying undo the cultural brain damage from that one post.
+when I talk to AI researchers like Abram Demski or John Wentworth, they get it instantly ...
+7 Jun: dolphin war
+https://twitter.com/zackmdavis/status/1402067999977132035
+9 Jun: I want to use the phrase "all-out nuclear war with MIRI", but that's just another expression of anger
+23 Jun: I am introduced to Slay the Spire
+28 Jun:
+> I hope you find a way to let go of your war.
+You know, this is awfully condescending! You wouldn't tell a transgender person who was transitioning, "I hope you find a way to let go of this."
+But when I, who no one even seems to doubt has the same underlying psychological condition (long story—I recently finished a 16,000-word essay explaining my thing), put in years of effort to counter what I'm claiming is disinformation about the counterintuitive true nature of underlying psychological condition, I get told to drop it. Why the double standard? If [...] feelings count, why don't mine?
+4 Jul: Independence Day party
+feeling scared about the Singularity
+6 Sep: final Twitter showdown
+2 Nov: It's a black mark, but let's be quantitative: the guy helped me a huge amount in 2017-2019 (long, separate story) for reasons that made sense to him, and he also hurt me a decently large amount in December 2020 for reasons that made sense to him. These things can both be true at the same time!
+13 Jan 22: blessing to speak freely, and privacy norms?
+---END
> When I look at the world, it looks like [Scott](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-made-for-man-not-man-for-the-categories/) and [Eliezer](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1067183500216811521) and [Kelsey](https://theunitofcaring.tumblr.com/post/171986501376/your-post-on-definition-of-gender-and-woman-and) and [Robby Bensinger](https://www.facebook.com/robbensinger/posts/10158073223040447?comment_id=10158073685825447&reply_comment_id=10158074093570447&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R2%22%7D) seem to think that some variation on ["I can define a word any way I want"]() is sufficient to end debates on transgender identity.
But have you fucking tried trying to talk about biological sex with Berkeley psuedo-rationalists? They won't fucking acknowledge it.
-I said, "I need language that asymmetrically distinguishes between the original thing that already exists without having to try, and the artificial thing that's trying to imitate it to the limits of available technology."
+I said,
+
-Kelsey said, "[T]he people getting surgery to have bodies that do 'women' more the way they want are mostly cis women [...] I don't think 'people who'd get surgery to have the ideal female body' cuts anything at the joints."
Elena said, "'the original thing that already exists without having to try' sounds fake to me" ... and gets 4 "+1" emoji.
-Eliezer, I've spent my entire adult life in the subculture you created. You created me. Everything I'm doing now, I learned from you. I've put in a lot of effort—along with Ben and Michael and Sarah and Zvi and now Jessica—trying to explain that there's a collective sanity problem that we could really use your help with. (You should see the strategy email threads we've been having behind your back!) I don't understand how repeating that people live in different mental universes is a relevant response to our thousands of words of careful arguments?
+Eliezer, I've spent my entire adult life in the subculture you created. You created me. Everything I'm doing now, I learned from you. I've put in a lot of effort—along with Ben and Michael and Sarah and [...] and now Jessica—trying to explain that there's a collective sanity problem that we could really use your help with. (You should see the strategy email threads we've been having behind your back!) I don't understand how repeating that people live in different mental universes is a relevant response to our thousands of words of careful arguments?
I'm pretty sure everyone here is strongly in favor of Jessica's existence. But maybe, if someone thinks really carefully about it, there could be some way to protect Jessica's interests without destroying the faculty of language?! (Especially given that Jessica herself may have interests in being able to talk.)
Michael—
-> My guess is that at this point Zack and Ben should both sign off actually, and maybe Sarah as well, and that this should become a conversation between Eliezer and Jessica, Zvi, myself, and other people who have or have historically had strong MIRI affiliations and have paid serious attention to logical decision theories. Maybe we should bring in Wei Dai, since along with Eliezer, he created logical decision theory, so in so far as there's a natural heir to the Caliphate other than Eliezer it's him. At this point, I think that if this doesn't resolve with Eliezer backing down I am pretty much obligated to involve everyone who I believe has historically taken seriously Eliezer's claims of strong principles against lying. Among other things, I think that it's clear that without standing on such a moral bedrock, Eliezer is no longer claiming to be the spiritual leader of the Caliphate (intuitively, that title passes to me?), and that the secular leader of the AI Risk Caliphate has been Demis for many years now.
+> My guess is that at this point Zack and Ben should both sign off actually, and maybe Sarah as well, and that this should become a conversation between Eliezer and Jessica, [...] myself, and other people who have or have historically had strong MIRI affiliations and have paid serious attention to logical decision theories. Maybe we should bring in Wei Dai, since along with Eliezer, he created logical decision theory, so in so far as there's a natural heir to the Caliphate other than Eliezer it's him. At this point, I think that if this doesn't resolve with Eliezer backing down I am pretty much obligated to involve everyone who I believe has historically taken seriously Eliezer's claims of strong principles against lying. Among other things, I think that it's clear that without standing on such a moral bedrock, Eliezer is no longer claiming to be the spiritual leader of the Caliphate (intuitively, that title passes to me?), and that the secular leader of the AI Risk Caliphate has been Demis for many years now.
> Sarah, don't worry, this definitely doesn't imply involving shit-heads who want to carpet-bomb us. It might involve explicitly discussing the pros and cons of involving leftist shit-heads as part of motivating Eliezer (and/or Scott) and I think that we should try to become psychologically immune to their carpet-bombing in any event, but there may be good reasons for Sarah to remain economically coupled to their good-will, since of all of us she's the only one who may stand to receive resources from the Corporate Center-Left Coalition or to direct their resources. It does seem to me that technically, in so far as their attacks are harmless to those not seeking privilege, leftist shit-heads are Guided by the Goodness of their Weapons, and working out whether this is in fact true may be related to the logical decision theory that will enable us to integrate political threats with compassionate rational engagement and bring Eliezer and Scott back from the team of deception and privilege.
Michael—
> I don't think that we should be permanently giving up on people, but I do think that we should be regarding them as temporarily without the appeal to rights in relationship to ourselves. Varelse in Orson Scott Card speak.
-> I think that it was extremely worth our time to engage at this level of detail, and at an even greater level of detail in order to achieve common knowledge, as I don't think that we have achieved common knowledge*yet* if Zvi still thinks that we shouldn't confidently act on the assumption that Eliezer is not doing useful things unobserved.
+> I think that it was extremely worth our time to engage at this level of detail, and at an even greater level of detail in order to achieve common knowledge, as I don't think that we have achieved common knowledge*yet* if [...] still thinks that we shouldn't confidently act on the assumption that Eliezer is not doing useful things unobserved.
> I would defend engagement with Eliezer for as long as we did in the past and in several future cases if we had several future relationships that seemed comparably valuable to the one we were hoping for, e.g. with a reformed Eliezer Yudkowsky, but I think that it's important that we be clear in our own minds that as of now there should be no presumptive loyalty to Eliezer over, for instance, Demis who is the Schelling Point for leader for an AI Risk coalition not Guided by the Goodness of it's Weapons.
I'm more worried about elephant-in-the-brain scenarios where, for example, "rationalist" higher-ups who don't consciously think of themselves as corrupted by political power games nevertheless write superficially-plausible bullshit hit pieces denouncing their political rivals as "likely to lie or manipulate" that get highly upvoted based on the author's high status (rather than anyone having thought critically about the content of the charges) and later seemingly-positively cited by their colleagues as an example of the community immune system making an update.
- He ... flatters people? He ... didn't tell people to abandon their careers? What?!
-In summary, what I see is a culture that has given up on the common interest of many causes, a culture where even our best and brightest are mostly focused on colluding to be nice to each other, minimizing social attack surface, and funneling money to branded EA institutions—even when their own fans can see that they're capable of so much more. In contrast, I want to work on asking interesting questions and then getting the right answer for the right reasons, in public (so that people who aren't already my closest trusted friends can learn, too). Under these circumstances, I don't want the main gravity well to award itself more authority to clear the neighborhood around its orbit, because I haven't been given sufficient reason not to expect that authority to be wielded against me and mine.
\ No newline at end of file
+In summary, what I see is a culture that has given up on the common interest of many causes, a culture where even our best and brightest are mostly focused on colluding to be nice to each other, minimizing social attack surface, and funneling money to branded EA institutions—even when their own fans can see that they're capable of so much more. In contrast, I want to work on asking interesting questions and then getting the right answer for the right reasons, in public (so that people who aren't already my closest trusted friends can learn, too). Under these circumstances, I don't want the main gravity well to award itself more authority to clear the neighborhood around its orbit, because I haven't been given sufficient reason not to expect that authority to be wielded against me and mine.
+
+ * "losing his ability to model other people and I'm worried about him", I think Ben-and-Jessica would see as [...] angry about living in simulacrum level 3 and we're worried about everyone else."
+
+
+It seems to that according to Zack's own account, even writing the memoir privately feels like an act of war that he'd rather avoid, not just using his own territory as he sees fit to create internal clarity around a thing.
+
+I think this has to mean either
+(a) that Zack isn't on the side of clarity except pragmatically where that helps him get his particular story around gender and rationalism validated
+or
+(b) that Zack has ceded the territory of the interior of his own mind to the forces of anticlarity, not for reasons, but just because he's let the anticlaritarians dominate his frame.
+
+This seems like a pretty important impasse to resolve. I don't think even Zack seriously thinks option (a) is sustainable long-run, which is some evidence for (b) but not decisive. I'm not sure (a) and (b) are actually separate hypotheses, rather than just different frames.
+
+or (c) I've ceded the territory of the interior of my own mind to Eliezer Yudkowsky in particular, and while I've made a lot of progress unwinding this, I'm still, still not done, and him seeming to respect me in person at the Newtonmas party set me back a bit ("Ooh, I wish you'd want me to stay / I'll be alright / Just not tonight")
+
+So a philosopher trying to recover a partially-destroyed word using ostensive definition needs to say, "You know all these specific examples (training data) of things we call 'X'? Okay, so, that training data has been mislabeled. Actually, these-and-such specific things are false-positives (your corrupt Society calls them 'X', but they're not) and these-and-such specific things are false-negatives (your corrupt Society doesn't call them 'X', but they are)—and that's the true meaning of 'X'."
+
+angels who timelessly perceive the universal wavefunction sub specie aeternitatis would have no motivation for a shorter encoding for "sex characteristics not changeable at tech level x". But mortal creatures who actually live in a Society with tech level x:=x₀ would, because they need it to compress their descriptions of the world they see (in which, e.g., trans men sometimes get pregnant).
+
+Oh, I think I see what you're getting at if I forget the "application" and just think about binary vectors. In the beginning, there are two kinds of vectors: [0, 0, 0, 0, ... 0], and [1, 1, 1, 1, ..., 1]. As technology gets better, we gain the ability to flip more coordinates from 0 to 1. First we learn how to make [1, 0, 0, 0, ... 0], then we learn how to make [1, 1, 0, 0, 0, ... 0], then [1, 1, 1, 0, 0, ... 0].
+
+I think you're saying it's lame to make a classifier with a pretentious name that's like, "One 1, then zeroes" when the tech allows that, but then the classifier gets updated to "Two 1s, then zeroes" when the tech allows that, &c.
+
+What I'm saying is that, in any tech regime between the stone age and the Singularity, your population does in fact have three distinct clusters that you might want to use language to talk about: the "all 0's" cluster, the "some 1s, then 0s" cluster, and the "all 1s" cluster. In the very early and very late tech regimes, maybe you don't care about the middle category and just use a two-category system. I think that we live in an early regime that needs three categories.
+
+As far as the state ideology of California is concerned, people who learn math from textbooks rather than dutifully attending classes don't exist. As far as the ideology taught in those schools' social-science classes is concerned, males who wish they were shaped like you but think this is obviously not an intersex condition don't exist and merely having a word for to name them is harmful. I think it makes sense that I'm at war here! If I can avoid it, I don't want to cause collateral damage to you if you're at war with a strain non-progressive authoritarian collectivism which is lower on my enemy list than yours. But if I can't cheaply avoid it (in that I don't want to say silent in situations like this or pay a disclaimer tax), maybe we need to accept some small amount of collateral damage from each other???
+
+Let's add the "lawyer" structure back in. I'm sitting at a restaurant and someone else complains that they ordered a burger but got a veggie burger. Why is it trolling if I speak up in their defense, but not if I speak up about my own burger order? It seems to me that the same interest is being defended (the right to use unmarked "burger" to mean "meat(1)" and expect people to know what you meant rather than pretend not to in order to save animals), and that's what matters (rather than whose name gets listed as "defendant" or who has the philosophy skills to explain why they feel cheated by the veggie burger).
+
+
+> If you are rounding off "they're trying to make me say I'm one of these other things instead of 'autogynephile'" to "they're trying to kill me" then, uhh, stop trying to kill trans and nonbinary people who Blanchard's model fits poorly??? (Like, this is all really hyperbolic! Maybe we shouldn't do this silly exaggeration thing???)
+> - Like, if you can understand why being misrepresented even in this slight way is painful, can't you try to reduce the harm that would come from imposing an ill-fitting ontology on lots of socially vulnerable people???
+> - (Also some trans people don't think it's an intersex brain thing!! They might have a social constructionist view etc.)
+> So it seems like you're going about this "getting a short message length" thing in an overly zero-sum fashion (trying to gain representation at the expense of other people's representation).
+
+(zero-sum actors, e.g. neo nazis, are going to be pushing in various ways that make it easier to push along in their direction than it would if it were just you).
+
+> I think this is how the political factions end up being "protect minorities and be incoherent" and "harm minorities and be locally coherent". Different respectability/violence tradeoffs (to get a mix of zero sum and non zero sum energy). And these define the Overton window, whereas many other Overton windows could be drawn instead.
+
+In the possible world where the parameters of male sexual psychology are such that autogynephilia doesn't exist "but everything else is the same", then I don't think you get the kind and scope of trans-activism movement that Saotome-Westlake's and Adams-Miller's writing is a reaction to. In this world, you still get Judith Butler (AFAB, Gender Trouble published 1990) and Anne Fausto-Sterling (AFAB, Sexing the Body published 2000), but I think you don't get pronoun stickers at conferences in 2018 and you don't get a "three-year-old [...] is a girl now; she verbally confirmed it!" social-reality enforcement campaign in 2020.
+
+To your second question, it might actually depend on how you operationalize "influence"! Notably, the campaign to trans MMB (whose parents met on lesswrong.com) is being run predominantly by AFAB people; they're just combatants in the service of an ideology that I don't think would have been so memetically fit if it weren't such a convenient accommodation for AGP. (At least, that's my theory under the doctrine of "algorithmic intent"; the people involved don't think of themselves as combatants in the service of anything.)
+
+
+I think your reputation (in the jungle growing around the ruins of what we once called the "rationalist community") has some amount of instrumental value: most of why you were so useful to me during the Category War when everyone I trusted was fucking with me, is that I was leaning on you for internal social proof ("Michael thinks it makes sense that I'm murderously angry about this, and that makes me feel brave enough to keep harrassing Scott and Eliezer instead of quietly committing mind-suicide"), but that only worked because I had a cached reputation of you as one of the Old-Time Rationalist Elders. It seems unfortunate that you don't have the asset of that reputation anymore among today's jungle-dwellers.
+
+
+-----
+
+7 Feb conversation with "Wilhelm" about Rust All-Hands
+
+M. showed people this funny Tweet on his phone: https://twitter.com/reduct_rs/status/1093599017303457793 and my uncontrolled facial expression was probably one of annoyance rather than mirth
+ReductRs on Twitter
+
+https://twitter.com/reduct_rs/status/1093599017303457793
+> Man Who Finds ‘They’ Pronouns Confusing Has No Problem Calling His Computer "She"
+
+You sent
+I don't know if he noticed; it's not like he was testing me for facecrime; showing ppl funny Tweets on your phone is just what everyone does. But maybe the little moments add up?
+You sent
+I lamented that the karoke machine didn't have the background lyrics for the part of "Prince Ali" where the women are fawing over Aladdin, and wokebro said that now that he thinks of it, the song is problematic, and I said, jovially, "It was 1992; it was a different time"
+You sent
+Obviously, no one is going to throw a fit over me casually defending the Disney films of my youth; that's not purity test material. But maybe the little moments add up, as people gradually get a read of who's sending what signals
+
+oh, I guess there was also a moment where I told the wife, "You're our only female vocalist; you should make sure to sing the 'Hope he doesn't see right through me' line in 'Be a Man' from Mulan", which I thought was an obviously innocuous/relevant comment (it was in fact the case that no one else had the voice for that part), I could imagine someone having a negative micro-reaction on the grounds that I was being exclusionary by calling attention to her sex, or because of counterfactual transphobia (I wouldn't have said that if there was also a trans woman in the room, which maybe makes it a bad thing to say even if there wasn't??)
+You sent
+that's sheer speculation; I don't know how the 2019 algorithm works; I haven't been downloading patches since 2009
+
+except, oops, I'm unironically guilty of sexism by referring to the woman as one of the dev's wife, when she's a Site Engineer at GitHub in her own right and therefore deserves one-of-us Hacker status even if she hasn't been working with Rust specifically
+You sent
+you, at least, will forgive me
+
+-----
+
+to Wilhelm 6 Mar 2019
+
+so much stupid drama among the "rationalists"
+You sent
+two non-passing MtFs are kicking up a fuss about my friend Anna allegedly discriminating against trans women, and people are taking this seriously
+You sent
+in contrast to my view (speaking only for myself; Anna is totally innocent) that statistically "discriminating" (i.e., using Bayesian reasoning) against trans women when hiring for a rationality org is just straightforwardly CORRECT
+
+
+at least men's and women's bodies will make similar numbers of paperclips
+You sent
+where "similar" means Cohen's d around 0.9
+
+8 Mar:
+
+watching television is different now that I have anti-prog antibodies
+
+on The Good Place (2016—), the neurotic philosophy professor character is black, and the idiot comic relief guy is Asian
+You sent
+I like Superstore (2015—) as a moderately-funny workplace comedy, but sometimes it veers into prog signaling in a way that just—isn't even well-done? (the most egregious one was when the disabled mulatto main-cast character is attracted to a woman at an anti-trans bathrooms protest, and is faced with the dilemma of, "She's hot, but her views are beyond the pale")
+
+Lauren Ash's character on Superstore is written in a behaviorally-masculine way that makes me swoon (in a world with magical body-swapping, AGPs would be this kind of woman), but Lauren Ash probably doesn't actually behave that way in real life
+
+[11 April:] Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1992–1999) got preachy ... like, three episodes in a seven year run
+
+
+30 March
+> The cynicism may not be misplaced? The language of allyship is not a credible signal (in the language of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory) of actually being an ally if non-allies can translate their agenda into that language and are incentivized to do so.
+
+he Liked it; as if you can get away with explaining the game theory of Havel's greengrocer as long as you frame it as "some greengrocers are actually enemies of the people"
+You sent
+"even if they have the sign up"
+
+
+13 April
+
+> Another problem with the view that "how to draw category boundaries is based on subjective priorities" perspective is that it is solipsistic. Your priorities re the territory aren't something you can always dictate; sometimes the territory is dictating priorities to you, and you need to figure out the right categories to address this pressure.
+> For instance, if you are a fisherman, you may not care about whether a dolphin is a fish: you can catch both in nets. But if you are a dophin breeder, then dolphins being mammals matters a lot more.
+> In the case of dolphins, most people won't have to breed dolphins or house them, so they lack skin-in-the-game to care about the exact categorization of dolphins
+
+one possible failure mode of this marketing campaign is that people who saw the object-level culture war version "... To Make Predictions" will have an Absolute Denial Macro reaction, but people who see the meta-level version about dolphins will just be like "This is obvious; everyone already knows this, not worth upvoting or discussion"
+
+there's no way to win
+
+> Perhaps because they don't think they have skin-in-the-game
+
+EVERYONE has skin in the game of Bayesian epistemology!!!
+
+------
+
+Discord conversation 23 Jan 2019
+
+but I need the phrase "actual women" in my expressive vocabulary to talk about the phenomenon where, if transition technology were to improve, then the people we call "trans women" would want to make use of that technology; I need language that _asymmetrically_ distinguishes between the original thing that already exists without having to try, and the artificial thing that's trying to imitate it to the limits of available technology
+
+Kelsey—
+what's wrong with 'cis women'?
+
+me—
+it's _pointlessly obfuscatory_
+in this particular context
+
+Kelsey—
+also, cis women get boob jobs all the time
+the people getting surgery to have bodies that do 'women' more the way they want
+are mostly cis women
+cis women get labia reconstruction sometimes
+cis women get tummy tucks
+I don't think 'people who'd get surgery to have the ideal female body' cuts anything at the joints
+
+Elena—
+"the original thing that already exists without having to try" sounds fake to me
+
+
+I agree that the "SneerClub et al. hates us because they're evil bullies" hypothesis has a grain of truth to it, but stopping the analysis there seems ... _incredibly shallow and transparently self-serving_?
+
+
+------
+
+https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/pfbid0WA95Anng7UZZEjqYv2aWC4LxZJU7KPvcRnxkTdmNJpH4PoQQgEFtqszPbCiCnqfil?comment_id=10159410429909228
+
+If you listen to why _they_ say they hate us, it's because we're racist, sexist, transphobic fascists. The party-line response to seems to trend towards, "That's obviously false (Scott voted for Warren, look at all the social democrats on the LW/SSC serveys, &c.); they're just using that as a convenient smear because they like bullying nerds." (Fair paraphrase?)
+
+But ... the smears have a grain of truth to them, right? If "sexism" means "it's an empirical question whether innate statistical psychological sex differences of some magnitude exist, it empirically looks like they do, and this has implications about our social world", the "SSC et al. are crypto-sexists" charge is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT (e.g. https://slatestarcodex.com/.../contra-grant-on.../). (Crypto-racist, crypto-fascist, &c. are left as an exercise to the reader.)
+
+You could plead, "That's a bad definition of sexism", but that's only convincing if you've _already_ been trained in the "use empiricism and open discussion to discover policies with utilitarian-desirable outcomes" tradition; the people with a California-public-school-social-studies-plus-Tumblr education don't already _know_ that. (Source: I didn't know this at age 18 back in 'aught-six, and we didn't have Tumblr then.)
+
+In that light ... can you see why someone might find "blow the whistle on people who are claiming to be innocent but are actually guilty (of thinking bad thoughts)" to be a more compelling ethical consideration than "respect confidentiality requests"? The "debate ideas, not people" thing is a specific meta-ideological innovation, not baseline human morality!
+
+If our _actual_ problem is "Genuinely consistent rationalism is realistically always going to be an enemy of the state, because the map that fully reflects the territory is going to include facts that powerful coalitions would prefer to censor, no matter what specific ideology happens to be on top in a particular place and time (https://www.lesswrong.com/.../heads-i-win-tails-never...)", but we _think_ our problem is "We need to figure out how to exclude evil bullies", then we're in trouble!!
+
+
+> We also have an inevitable Kolmogorov Option issue but that should not be confused with the inevitable Evil Bullies issue, even if bullies attack through Kolmogorov Option issues.
+
+Being transparent about the game theory I see: intuitively, it seems like I have a selfish incentive to "support" the bullies (by publicly pointing out that they have a point, as above) insofar as I'm directly personally harmed by my social network following a Kolmogorov Option strategy rather than an open-dissidence Free Speech for Shared Maps strategy, and more bullying might cause the network to switch strategies on "may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb" grounds? Maybe I should explain this so people have a chance to talk me out of it?
+... hm, acutally, when I try to formalize this with the simplest possible toy model, it doesn't work (the "may as well be hung ..." effect doesn't happen given the modeling assumptions I just made up). I was going to say: our team chooses a self-censorship parameter c from 0 to 10, and faces a bullying level b from 0 to 10. b is actually b(c, p), a function of self-censorship and publicity p (also from 0 to 10). The team leaders' utility function is U(c, b) := -(c + b) (bullying and self-censorship are both bad). Suppose the bullying level is b := 10 - c + p (self-censorship decreases bullying, and publicity increases it).
+My thought was: a disgruntled team-member might want to increase p in order to induce the leaders to choose a smaller value of c. But when I do the algebra, -(c + b) = -(c + (10 - c + p)) = -c - 10 + c - p = -10 - p. (Which doesn't depend on c, seemingly implying that more publicity is just bad for the leaders without changing their choice of c? But I should really be doing my dayjob now instead of figuring out if I made a mistake in this Facebook comment.)
+
+> Eliezer is not a private person - he's a public figure. He set in motion a machine that continues to raise funds and demand work from people for below-market rates based on moral authority claims centered around his ability to be almost uniquely sane and therefore benevolent. (In some cases indirectly through his ability to cause others to be the same.) "Work for me or the world ends badly," basically.
+
+> If this is TRUE (and also not a threat to destroy the world), then it's important to say, and to actually extract that work. But if not, then it's abuse! (Even if we want to be cautious about using emotionally loaded terms like that in public.)
+
+> We've falsified to our satisfaction the hypothesis that Eliezer is currently sane in the relevant way (which is an extremely high standard, and not a special flaw of Eliezer in the current environment). This should also falsify the hypothesis that the sanity-maintenance mechanisms Eliezer set up work as advertised.
+
+> The machine he built to extract money, attention, and labor is still working, though, and claiming to be sane in part based on his prior advertisements, which it continues to promote. If Eliezer can't be bothered to withdraw his validation, then we get to talk about what we think is going on, clearly, in ways that aren't considerate of his feelings. He doesn't get to draw a boundary that prevents us from telling other people things about MIRI and him that we rationally and sincerely believe to be true.
+
+> The fact that we magnanimously offered to settle this via private discussions with Eliezer doesn't give him an extra right to draw boundaries afterwards. We didn't agree to that. Attempting to settle doesn't forfeit the right to sue. Attempting to work out your differences with someone 1:1 doesn't forfeit your right to complain later if you were unable to arrive at a satisfactory deal (so long as you didn't pretend to do so).
+
+--------
+
+7 May—
+> I'm still pretty frustrated with the way you seem to dismiss my desire for a community that can get the basics right as delusional! Yes, I remember how you said in 2009 that you're not going to say the Things You Can't Say, and you keep repeating that you tried to tell me that public reason doesn't work, but that seems really fundamentally unresponsive to how I keep repeating that I only expect consensus on the basic philosophy stuff (not my object-level special interest). Why is it so unrealistic to imagine that the actually-smart people could enforce standards in our own tiny little bubble of the world? (Read the "worthless cowards" political/rhetorical move as an attempt to enforce the standard that the actually-smart people should enforce standards.)
+
+> I'm also still pretty angry about how your response to my "I believed our own propaganda" complaint is (my possibly-unfair paraphrase) "what you call 'propaganda' was all in your head; we were never actually going to do the unrestricted truthseeking thing when it was politically inconvenient." But ... no! I didn't just make up the propaganda! The hyperlinks still work! I didn't imagine them! They were real! You can still click on them: ["A Sense That More Is Possible"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Nu3wa6npK4Ry66vFp/a-sense-that-more-is-possible), ["Raising the Sanity Waterline"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XqmjdBKa4ZaXJtNmf/raising-the-sanity-waterline)
+
+> Can you please acknowledge that I didn't just make this up? Happy to pay you $200 for a reply to this email within the next 72 hours
+
+Or see ["A Fable of Science and Politics"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6hfGNLf4Hg5DXqJCF/a-fable-of-science-and-politics), where the editorial tone is pretty clear that we're supposed to be like Daria or Ferris, not Charles.
+
+> But, it's kind of bad that I'm thirty-one years old and haven't figured out how to be less emotionally needy/demanding; feeling a little bit less frame-locked now; let's talk in a few months (but offer in email-before-last is still open because rescinding it would be dishonorable)
+
+
+> I liked the conversation and like being on good terms and do not wish to be negative in what I am about to say. That said, if it's okay with you, I in general don't want to receive offers of money anymore (nor actual money either); I think I used to regard them as good-faith proposals for mutual benefit between consenting adults a la libertarianism, and at the moment I am afraid that if I ever accept money (or you ever give me money for an email or something) it'll appear in some Ben Hoffman essay as "using you" or some similar such thing, and receiving such offers (or taking them), given that I am not in fact in much need of money at the present margin, looks to me like not a good way to further my own goals as a consenting adult. (I appreciate the email you then sent afterward; I'd planned to write this before you sent that email, and it still seemed worth saying, but I appreciate also your own efforts to create a low-drama context.)
+
+> Re delusions, perhaps "ideals, which are useful but also partly intentionally simplified/inaccurate so as to be easier to unite around, and which for simplicity one coordinates as though others share" might be a better way to describe them, since sometimes simplified models have uses. Also, of course, the desire part can't be delusional; desires don't have truth-values; only predictions can be false-and-protecting-themselves-from-evidence. You can desire whatever you want, and can work toward it!
+
+> Regarding whether those ideals were ever the thing that a sensible but unbiased seeker-for-uniting-ideals, observing the 2008-2010 community, would've extrapolated from our community's speech and writing:
+
+> I agree such a person might've gotten your ideal from "a sense that more is possible", "raising the sanity waterline", and for that matter the facebook post about local validity semantics. Also from Michael Vassar's speech at the time about how he just went ahead and discussed e.g. race and gender and IQ and didn't seem to get ill effects from this and thought other people should do so too. too.
+> I think there are also pieces of speech one can point to from 2008-2010 that point toward it being unsurprising if people avoid controversial issues, e.g. "politics is the mind-killer" and its reception/quotation"; my own discussion of the essay "things you can't say" and my getting of Benton House to read this essay; various other things that others in good regard (not Eliezer) said to me privately at the time.
+> My own extrapolated ideal from all of this at the time was something like: "Ah, our ideal is 'let's try to figure out how to actually think, and practice it in concrete cases, while meanwhile dodging examples in public that risk getting us into trouble; practicing on less politics-inducing examples should work fine while developing the art, and is a net better idea than heading toward places where our nascent community may get torn apart by politics'".
+
+> (Looking at that last bullet point myself today, that claim seems far from obviously true, though also far from obviously false. It is therefore not a sentence I would say today (to avoid saying things that aren't likely enough to be true). It also seems to me today that we have done less to develop the core art of epistemic rationality than Eliezer hoped for in those posts, partly for lack of diligence and partly because the project itself proved harder and more likely to stir up hard-to-avoid psychological and social cans of instability than I initially expected. I guess my current guess is something like: "politics: can't rationality with it, can't rationality without it", although "it's hard to figure out how to" is maybe more accurate than simply "can't".)
+
+
+
+> When forming the original let's-be-apolitical vision in 2008, we did not anticipate that whether or not I should cut my dick off would become a political issue. That's new evidence about whether the original vision was wise! I'm not trying to do politics with my idiosyncratic special interest; I'm trying to think seriously about the most important thing in my life and only do the minimum amount of politics necessary to protect my ability to think. If 2019-era "rationalists" are going to commit a trivial epistemology mistake that interferes with my ability to think seriously about the most important thing in my life, but can't correct the mistake (because that would be politically inconvenient), then the 2019-era "rationalists" are worse than useless to me personally. This probably doesn't matter causally (I'm not an AI researcher, therefore I don't matter), but it might matter timelessly (if I'm part of a reference class that includes AI researchers).
+
+> Fundamentally, I just don't think you can do consisently high-grade reasoning as a group without committing heresy, because of the "Entangled Truths, Contagious Lies"/"Dark Side Epistemology" mechanism. You, Anna, in particular, are unusually good at thinking things without saying them; I think most people facing similar speech restrictions just get worse at thinking (plausibly including Eliezer), and the problem gets worse as the group effort scales. (It's easier to recommend "What You Can't Say" to your housemates than to put it on a canonical reading list, for obvious reasons.) You can't optimize your group's culture for not-talking-about-atheism without also optimizing against understanding Occam's razor; you can't optimize for not questioning gender self-identity without also optimizing against understanding "A Human's Guide to Words."
+
+-----
+
+
+there's this thing where some people are way more productive than others and everyone knows it, but no one wants to make it common knowledge which is really awkward for the people who are simultaneously (a) known but not commonly-known to be underperforming (such that the culture of common-knowledge-prevention is to my self-interest because I get to collect the status and money rents of being a $150K/yr software engineer without actually performing at that level, and my coworkers and even managers don't want to call attention to it because that would be mean—and it helps that they know that I already feel guilty about it) but also (b) tempermentally unsuited and ideologically opposed to subsisting on unjustly-acquired rents rather than value creation
+
+(where I'm fond of the Ayn Rand æsthetic of "I earn my keep, and if the market were to decide that I don't deserve to live anymore, I guess it would be right and I should accept my fate with dignity" and I think the æsthetic is serving a useful function in my psychology even though it's also important to model how I would change my tune if the market actually decided that I don't deserve to live)
+
+> but the "Everyone knows that Zack feels guilty about underperforming, so they don't punish him, because he's already doing enough internalized-domination to punish himself" dynamic is unsustainable if it evolves (evolves is definitely the right word here) into
+
+a loop of "feeling gulit in exchange for not doing work" rather than the intended function of "feeling guilt in order to successfully incentivize work"
+
+You've got to be strong to survive in the [O-ring sector](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-ring_theory_of_economic_development)
+
+(I can actually see the multiplicative "tasks are intertwined and have to all happen at high reliability in order to create value" thing playing out in the form of "if I had fixed this bug earlier, then I would have less manual cleanup work", in contrast to the "making a bad latte with not enough foam, that doesn't ruin any of the other customer's lattes" from my Safeway-Starbucks-kiosk days)
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff