> I'm not trying to get Eliezer or "the community" to take a public stance on gender politics; I'm trying to get us to take a stance in favor of the kind of epistemology that we were doing in 2008. It turns out that epistemology has implications for gender politics which are unsafe, but that's more inferential steps, and ... I guess I just don't expect the sort of people who would punish good epistemology to follow the inferential steps? Maybe I'm living in the should-universe a bit here, but I don't think it "should" be hard for Eliezer to publicly say, "Yep, categories aren't arbitrary because you need them to carve reality at the joints in order to make probabilistic inferences, just like I said in 2008; this is obvious."
-Scott got a lot of pushback just for including the blog that I showed him in a links post (Times have changed! BBL is locally quasi-mainstream after Ozy engaged)
-https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/01/links-1116-site-unseen/
-https://slatestarscratchpad.tumblr.com/post/152736458066/hey-scott-im-a-bit-of-a-fan-of-yours-and-i
+(Times have changed! BBL is locally quasi-mainstream after Ozy engaged)
+[Scott got a lot of pushback just for including the blog that I showed him in a links post
+https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/01/links-1116-site-unseen/
+https://slatestarscratchpad.tumblr.com/post/152736458066/hey-scott-im-a-bit-of-a-fan-of-yours-and-i]
It's weird that he thinks telling the truth is politically impossible, because the specific truths I'm focused on are things he _already said_, that anyone could just look up. I guess the point is that the egregore doesn't have the logical or reading comprehension for that?—or rather (a reader points out) the egregore has no reason to care about the past; if you get tagged as an enemy, your past statements will get dug up as evidence of foul present intent, but if you're doing good enough of playing the part today, no one cares what you said in 2009
------
-It's as if the guy has just completely given up on the idea that public speech is useful, or that anyone besides he and his flunkies are capable of thought.
+It's as if the guy has just completely given up on the idea that public speech is useful, or that anyone besides he and his flunkies is capable of thought.
> "too many people think it's unvirtuous to shut up and listen to me" I wish I had never written about LDT and just told people to vote for reasons they understand when they're older
https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1509944888376188929
+Notwithstanding that there are reasons for him to be traumatized over how some people have misinterpreted timeless decision theory—what a _profoundly_ anti-intellectual statement! This is just not something you would ever say if you cared about having a rationality community that could process arguments and correct errors, rather than a robot cult to suck you off.
+To be clear, there _is_ such a thing as legitimately trusting an authority who knows better than you! For example, the Sequences tell of how Yudkowsky once wrote about [TODO: linky] writing to Judea Pearl to correct an apparent error in _Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference_. Pearl agreed that there was an error, but said that Yudkowsky's proposed correction was also wrong, and provided the real correction. Yudkowsky didn't understand the real correction, but
-What a _profoundly_ anti-intellectual statement! This is just not something you would say if you cared about having a rationality community that could process arguments and correct errors,
-rather than a robot cult
-To be clear, there _is_ such a thing as legitimately trusting an authority who knows better than you.
+If he's frustrated that people won't listen _now_, he should remember the only reason he has _any_ people who defer to him _at all_ is because he used to be such a good explainer who actually argued for things.
That trust is a _finite resource_.
------
-
-
-
-
+Lightwavers on Twitter (who Yudkowsky knew as ) dissed
\ No newline at end of file
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff