dedicated day?—
_ Michael Vassar and the Theory of Optimal Gossip
-_ Sasha disaster
+_ psychiatric disaster
With internet available—
-_ dath ilan endorsers are paid strictly for their time
-_ replies to Laura Vaughn's comment about Brent?
-_ evil bullies reply
-_ link FTX fiasco on "stealing their customers' money"
-_ stealing customer deposits
-_ does "Contra Grant" side-step the innateness issue?
-_ what does "vis á vis" actually mean?
-_ check original wording of Brennan denunciation
-_ link "Anti-Reactionary FAQ"
-_ RationalWiki link (is that still a thing?)
-_ logical induction link
-_ dolphin thread also referenced Georgia on trees, which also cited "Not Man for the Categories"
-_ commit patch URL for my slate_starchive script
-_ Wentworth specifically doesn't want people's John-models to overwrite their own models
-_ footnote Charles Murray's caveats
-_ record of Yudkowsky citing TDT as part of decision to prosecute Emerson?
-_ university library sells borrowing privileges
+✓ record of Yudkowsky citing TDT as part of decision to prosecute Emerson?
+✓ Scott vs. Ben on Drowning
+✓ Ray and D. Xu's comments on "The Incentives"
+✓ comments on "Self-Consciousness wants to make"
+✓ tussle with Ruby on "Causal vs. Social Reality"
+_ "not taking into account considerations" → rephrase to quote "God's dictionary"
_ Aaron Terrell and Corina Cohn
-_ Eddie Izzard
_ more examples of Yudkowsky's arrogance (MIRI dialogues, knew how to say anything at all)
-_ rational-ist/physics-ist analogy (and link to Yudkowsky Tweet where I think I got this from)
-_ "linking to K-complicity in my replies", link the specific reply
-_ Wentworth on mutual information being on the right track?
-_ "20% of the ones with penises" someone in the comments saying, "It is a woman's body", and Yudkowsky saying "duly corrected"
-_ "not taking into account considerations" → rephrase to quote "God's dictionary"
-_ except when it's net bad to have concluded Y: https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/BgEG9RZBtQMLGuqm7/[Error%20communicating%20with%20LW2%20server]/comment/LgLx6AD94c2odFxs4
_ my history of sniping in Yudkowsky's mentions
-_ comments on "Self-Consciousness wants to make"
-_ Scott vs. Ben on Drowning Children
-_ Ray and D. Xu's comments on "The Incentives"
_ my comment about having changed my mind about "A Fable of Science and Politics"
_ more Yudkowsky Facebook comment screenshots
_ that neuroscience paper backing the two-types
-_ compile Categories references from the Dolphin War Twitter thread
-_ tussle with Ruby on "Causal vs. Social Reality"
_ examples of snarky comments about "the rationalists"
_ 13th century word meanings
_ weirdly hostile comments on "... Boundaries?"
------
-The problem isn't just the smugness and condescension; it's the smugness and condescension when he's in the wrong and knows it; I don't want to be lumped in with
+14 November conversation, he put a checkmark emoji on my explanation of why giving up on persuading people via methods that discriminate true or false amounts to giving up on the concept of intellectual honesty and choosing instead to become a propaganda AI, which made me feel much less ragey https://discord.com/channels/401181628015050773/458419017602826260/1041836374556426350
+
+The problem isn't just the smugness and condescension; it's the smugness and condescension when he's in the wrong and betraying the principles he laid out in the Sequences and knows it; I don't want to be lumped in with anti-arrogance that's not sensitive to whether the arrogance is in the right
My obsession must look as pathetic from the outside as Scott Aaronson's—why doesn't he laugh it off, who cares what SneerClub thinks?—but in my case, the difference is that I was betrayed
-----
+dath ilan on advertising (https://www.glowfic.com/replies/1589520#reply-1589520)—
+> So, in practice, an ad might look like a picture of the product, with a brief description of what the product does better that tries to sound very factual and quantitative so it doesn't set off suspicions. Plus a much more glowing quote from a Very Serious Person who's high enough up to have a famous reputation for impartiality, where the Very Serious Person either got paid a small amount for their time to try that product, or donated some time that a nonprofit auctioned for much larger amounts; and the Very Serious Person ended up actually impressed with the product, and willing to stake some of their reputation on recommending it in the name of the social surplus they expect to be thereby produced.
+
+
+I wrote a Python script to replace links to _Slate Star Codex_ with archive links: http://unremediatedgender.space/source?p=Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git;a=commitdiff;h=21731ba6f1191f1e8f9#patch23
+
+John Wentworth—
+> I chose the "train a shoulder advisor" framing specifically to keep my/Eliezer's models separate from the participants' own models.
+https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/Afdohjyt6gESu4ANf/most-people-start-with-the-same-few-bad-ideas#comment-zL728sQssPtXM3QD9
+
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1355712437006204932
+> A "Physics-ist" is trying to engage in a more special human activity, hopefully productively, where they *think* about light in order to use it better.
+
+Wentworth on my confusion about going with the sqaured-error criterion in "Unnatural Categories"—
+> I think you were on the right track with mutual information. They key insight here is not an insight about what metric to use, it's an insight about the structure of the world and our information about the world. [...] If we care more about the rough wall-height than about brick-parity, that’s because the rough wall-height is more relevant to the other things which we care about in the world. And that, in turn, is because the rough wall-height is more relevant to more things in general. Information about brick-parity just doesn’t propagate very far in the causal graph of the world; it's quickly wiped out by noise in other variables. Rough wall-height propagates further.
+
+not interested in litigating "lying" vs. "rationalizing" vs. "misleading-by-implicature"; you can be _culpable_ for causing people to be misled in a way that isn't that sensitive to what exactly was going on in your head
+
+-----
+
+https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/pfbid02ZoAPjap94KgiDg4CNi1GhhhZeQs3TeTc312SMvoCrNep4smg41S3G874saF2ZRSQl?comment_id=10159410429909228&reply_comment_id=10159410748194228
+
+> Zack, and many others, I think you have a vulnerability where you care way too much about the reasons that bullies give for bullying you, and the bullies detect that and exploit it.
+
+https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/pfbid02ZoAPjap94KgiDg4CNi1GhhhZeQs3TeTc312SMvoCrNep4smg41S3G874saF2ZRSQl?comment_id=10159410429909228&reply_comment_id=10159410753284228
+
+> Everyone. (Including organizers of science fiction conventions.) Has a problem of "We need to figure out how to exclude evil bullies." 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.
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff