-waypoints—
-✓ Jessica help with "Unnatural Categories"
-✓ wireheading his fiction subreddit
-✓ discrediting to the community
-✓ people-I-usually-respect footnote
-- Yudkowsky is trying to be a religious leader
-- let's recap
-
-sections—
-- existential risk interlude; social justice game theory; I could forgive him
-- September 2020 Category War victory
-- prelude to pronouns post
-
-dedicated day each?—
-_ the dolphin war (6 November?)
+battle stations—
+✓ outline NYT defense/prelude to pronouns
+✓ flesh out prelude to pronouns I
+- flush out prelude to pronouns II
+_ outlining existential stakes and social justice FDT
+- outlining Dolphin War II
+_ flesh out existential stakes and social justice FDT
+_ flesh out Dolphin War II
+
+
+dedicated day?—
_ Michael Vassar and the Theory of Optimal Gossip
-_ Sasha disaster
+_ psychiatric disaster
With internet available—
-_ 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"
+_ did my archive.is spree include https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1435618825198731270 and https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1356812143849394176?
+_ link to Kay Brown's summary of the "Social Desirability Response Set" paper, and footnote paper link and my brief methodology explanation
+_ "Alexander once joked"—include the year
+_ availability heuristic
+_ one more significant figure in reporting 2011 Less Wrong male %, to match 2020
+_ something to support Metz being a pro for decades
+_ "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?"
+_ Anna's claim that Scott was a target specifically because he was good, my counterclaim that payment can't be impunity
far editing tier—
+_ footnote previous race-IQ baiting on "why do I keep bringing this up"
+_ mention my "trembling hand" history with secrets, not just that I don't like it
+_ https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yaCwW8nPQeJknbCgf/free-speech-and-triskaidekaphobic-calculators-a-reply-to as part of December 2019 blogging streak
_ It's not clear anyone he usually respects was making this mistake; it seems likely that the original thread was subtweeting Eric Weinstein, who was not making this mistake
_ "I Wish You Well" as breakup song
_ the function of privacy norms is to protect you from people who want to selectively reveal information to hurt you, so it makes sense that I'm particularly careful about Yudkowsky's privacy and not Scott's, because I totally am trying to hurt Yudkowsky (this also protects me from the charge that by granting more privacy to Yudkowsky than Scott, I'm implying that Yudkowsky said something more incriminating; the difference in treatment is about _me_ and my expectations, rather than what they may or may not have said when I tried emailing them); I want it to be clear that I'm attacking him but not betraying him
_ edit the child transition section in a way that Kay Brown would be OK with, have a few sentences about Clever Hans before the wrap-up
_ ask Jessica where Scott clarified his position on antipsychotics?
_ I should respond to Ziz's charges that my criticism of concept-policing was a form of concept-policing
+_ why doesn't he apply his anti-optimism to his gender statements?!
+_ notice the symmetry where _both_ E and I want to partition the discussion with "That's a policy question" ... I just think it's unfair to partition after "words don't have intrinsic defn's" rather than 37 ways
+_ contract-drafting em, SSC blogroll is most of my traffic
+_ "Common Interest of Many Causes" and "Kolmogorov Complicity" offer directly contradictory strategies
+_ Vassar's about-face on gender
+_ risk of people bouncing off progressivism
+_ an AGP teen boy could at least consent to transition, and make plans based on knowing what the thing is (you'd actually want to go through a little bit of male puberty)
+_ figure out full timeline of which of my Less Wrong posts to mention
terms to explain on first mention—
The thing about our crowd is that we have a lamentably low proportion of women (13.3% cis women in the last community survey) and—I don't know when this happened; it certainly didn't feel like this back in 'aught-nine—an enormous number of trans women relative to population base rates (2.7%, for a cis-to-trans ratio of 4.9!!), the vast majority of whom I expect to be AGP
-https://slatestarscratchpad.tumblr.com/post/142995164286/i-was-at-a-slate-star-codex-meetup. "We are solving the gender ratio issue one transition at a time"
[TODO: contrast "... Not Man for the Categories" to "Against Lie Inflation";
When the topic at hand is how to define "lying", Alexander
----
-Because of the particular historical moment in which we live, we end up facing pressure from progressives, because—whatever our _object-level_ beliefs about (say) [sex, race, and class differences](/2020/Apr/book-review-human-diversity/)—and however much many of us would prefer not to talk about them—on the _meta_ level, our creed requires us to admit _it's an empirical question_, not a moral one—and that [empirical questions have no privileged reason to admit convenient answers](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sYgv4eYH82JEsTD34/beyond-the-reach-of-god).
-
-I view this conflict as entirely incidental, something that [would happen in some form in any place and time](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cKrgy7hLdszkse2pq/archimedes-s-chronophone), rather than having to do with American politics or "the left" in particular. In a Christian theocracy, our analogues would get in trouble for beliefs about evolution; in the old Soviet Union, our analogues would get in trouble for [thinking about market economics](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/24/book-review-red-plenty/) (as a [positive technical discipline](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorems_of_welfare_economics#Proof_of_the_first_fundamental_theorem) adjacent to game theory, not yoked to a particular normative agenda).
-
-Incidental or not, the conflict is real, and everyone smart knows it—even if it's not easy to _prove_ that everyone smart knows it, because everyone smart is very careful what they say in public. (I am not smart.)
-
(which Alexander aptly renamed [Kolmorogov complicity](https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-and-the-parable-of-lightning/):
-
-
Becuase of the conflict, and because all the prominent high-status people are running a Kolmogorov Option strategy, and because we happen to have to a _wildly_ disproportionate number of _people like me_ around, I think being "pro-trans" ended up being part of the community's "shield" against external political pressure, of the sort that perked up after [the February 2021 _New York Times_ hit piece about Alexander's blog](https://archive.is/0Ghdl). (The _magnitude_ of heat brought on by the recent _Times_ piece and its aftermath was new, but the underlying dynamics had been present for years.)
-Jacob Falkovich notes, ["The two demographics most over-represented in the SlateStarCodex readership according to the surveys are transgender people and Ph.D. holders."](https://twitter.com/yashkaf/status/1275524303430262790) [Aaronson notes (in commentary on the _Times_ article)](https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=5310) "the rationalist community's legendary openness to alternative gender identities and sexualities" as something that would have "complicated the picture" of our portrayal as anti-feminist.
-
-Even the _haters_ grudgingly give Alexander credit for "... Not Man for the Categories": ["I strongly disagree that one good article about accepting transness means you get to walk away from writing that is somewhat white supremacist and quite fascist without at least awknowledging you were wrong."](https://archive.is/SlJo1)
Given these political realities, you'd think that I _should_ be sympathetic to the Kolmogorov Option argument, which makes a lot of sense. _Of course_ all the high-status people with a public-facing mission (like building a movement to prevent the coming robot apocalypse) are going to be motivatedly dumb about trans stuff in public: look at all the damage [the _other_ Harry Potter author did to her legacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_J._K._Rowling#Transgender_people).
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wustx45CPL5rZenuo/no-safe-defense-not-even-science
> I'm not sure that human beings realistically _can_ trust and think at the same time.
+https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/t6Fe2PsEwb3HhcBEr/the-litany-against-gurus
If you listen to the sorts of things the guy says lately, it looks like he's just completely given up on the idea that public speech could possibly be useful, or that anyone besides he and his flunkies is capable of thought. For example:
-----
-FYI, I think this turned out significantly harsher on you than my January 2022 emails made it sound, thus occasioning this one additional email (because I want to be very sure I'm only attacking you and not betraying you; a true friend stabs you in the front).
+FYI, I think this turned out significantly harsher on you than my January 2022 emails made it sound, thus occasioning this additional email.
I'm planning on publishing the drafts linked below on [dates].
* "Agreeing with Stalin in Ways That Exhibit Generally Rationalist Principles" (19K words)
* **"Why I Don't Trust Eliezer Yudkowsky's Intellectual Honesty"** (1.5K word summary of the parts of the Whole Dumb Story that are specifically an attack on your reputation)
-I'm available if you want to contest anything you think is unfair or challenge my interpretation of the "can't directly refer to private conversations" privacy norm, but I doubt it's a high-value use of your time. End transmission.
+**If you want to contest any purported factual inaccuracies or my interpretation of the "no direct references to private conversations" privacy norm, get back to me before [date].** If you have anything else to say for yourself, you can say it in the public comments section. End transmission.
+
+[13 November: #drama discussion today (https://discord.com/channels/401181628015050773/458419017602826260/1041586188961714259) makes me feel like I don't want to put a "Why I Don't Trust ..." post, like it would be too cruel]
+
+[no awareness that people like me or Michael or Jessica would consider this a betrayal coming from the author of the Sequences (even if it wouldn't be a betrayal coming from a generic public intellectual)]
----
Similarly, you should stop pretending to be a rationality teacher if you're going to be corrupted by politics
20 June 2021, "The egregore doesn't care about the past", thematic moments at Valinor
+
+
+You don't want to have a reputation that isn't true; I've screwed up confidentiality before, so I don't want a "good at keeping secrets" reputation; if Yudkowsky doesn't want to live up to the standard of "not being a partisan hack", then ...
+
+Extended analogy between "Scott Alexander is always right" and "Trying to trick me into cutting my dick off"—in neither case would any sane person take it literally, but it's pointing at something important (Scott and EY are trusted intellectual authorities, rats are shameless about transition cheerleading)
+
+Scott's other 2014 work doesn't make the same mistake
+
+"The Most Important Scarce Resource is Legitimacy"
+https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/03/23/legitimacy.html
+
+"English is fragile"
+
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1590460598869168128
+> I now see even foom-y equations as missing the point.
+(!)
+
+----
+
+dialogue with a pre-reader on "Challenges"—
+
+> More to the point, there's a kind of anthropic futility in these paragraphs, anyone who needs to read them to understand won't read them, so they shouldn't exist.
+
+I think I'm trying to humiliate the people who are pretending not to understand in front of the people who do understand, and I think that humiliation benefits from proof-of-work? Is that ... not true??
+
+> No, because it makes you look clueless rather than them look clueless.
+
+-----
+
+compare EY and SBF
+
+Scott Aaronson on the Times's hit piece of Scott Alexander—
+https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=5310
+> The trouble with the NYT piece is not that it makes any false statements, but just that it constantly _insinuates_ nefarious beliefs and motives, via strategic word choices and omission of relevant facts that change the emotional coloration of the facts that it _does_ present.
+
+https://graymirror.substack.com/p/the-journalist-rationalist-showdown
+
+https://twitter.com/jstn/status/1591088015941963776
+> 2023 is going to be the most 2005 it's been in years
+
+-------
+
+re the FTX debacle, Yudkowsky retweets Katja:
+
+https://twitter.com/KatjaGrace/status/1590974800318861313
+> So I'd advocate for instead taking really seriously when someone seems to be saying that they think it's worth setting aside integrity etc for some greater good
+
+I'm tempted to leave a message in #drama asking if people are ready to generalize this to Kolmogorov complicity (people _very explicitly_ setting aside integrity &c. for the greater good of not being unpopular with progressives). It's so appropriate!! But it doesn't seem like a good use of my diplomacy budget relative to finishing the memoir—the intelligent social web is predictably going to round it off to "Zack redirecting everything into being about his hobbyhorse again, ignore". For the same reason, I was right to hold back my snarky comment about Yudkowsky's appeal to integrity in "Death With Dignity": the universal response would have been, "read the room." Commenting here would be bad along the same dimension, albeit not as extreme.
+
+------
+
+effects on my social life—calculating what I'm allowed to say; making sure I contribute non-hobbyhorse value to offset my hobbyhorse interruptions
+
+----
+
+https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/FKJ8yiF3KjFhAuivt/impco-don-t-injure-yourself-by-returning-ftxff-money-for
+when that happens, in EA, I often do suspect that nobody else will dare to speak the contrary viewpoint, if not me.
+
+Michael, June 2019
+> If clarity seems like death to them and like life to us, and we don't know this, IMHO that's an unpromising basis for friendship
+
+------
+
+Piper and Yudkowsky on privacy norms—
+
+https://twitter.com/KelseyTuoc/status/1591996891734376449
+> if such promises were made, they should be kept, but in practice in the present day, they often aren't made, and if you haven't explicitly promised a source confidentiality and then learn of something deeply unethical from them you should absolutely whistleblow.
+
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1592002777429180416
+> I don't think I'd go for "haven't explicitly promised" here but rather "if you're pretty sure there was no such informal understanding on which basis you were granted that access and information".
+
+------
+
+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.
+
+
+
+> 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