-_ "Lenore" psychiatric disaster
+first edit pass bookmark: "seemed to accept this as an inevitable background"
+
+blocks to fit somewhere—
+_ the hill he wants to die on (conclusion for "Zevi's Choice"??)
+_ Tail vs. Bailey / Davis vs. Yudkowsky analogy (new block somewhere—or a separate dialogue post??)
+_ mention that "Not Man for the Categories" keeps getting cited
+
+pt. 3 edit tier—
+✓ fullname Taylor and Hoffman at start of pt. 3
+✓ footnote clarifying that "Riley" and Sarah weren't core members of the group, despite being included on some emails?
+✓ be more specific about Ben's anti-EA and Jessica's anti-MIRI things
+✓ weird that Kelsey thought the issue was that we were trying to get Yudkowsky to make a statement
+✓ set context for Anna on first mention in the post
+✓ more specific on "mostly pretty horrifying" and group conversation with the whole house
+✓ cut words from the "Yes Requires" slapfight?
+✓ cut words from "Social Reality" scuffle
+✓ examples of "bitter and insulting" comments about rationalists
+- Scott got comas right in the same year as "Categories"
+-----
+_ Ben on "locally coherent coordination": use direct quotes for Ben's language—maybe rewrite in my own language (footnote?) as an understanding test
+_ "Not the Incentives"—rewrite given that I'm not shielding Ray
+_ better explanation of MOPs in "Social Reality" scuffle
+_ better context on "scam" &c. earlier
+_ meeting with Ray?
+_ mention that I was miffed about "Boundaries?" not getting Curated, while one of Euk's animal posts did
+_ establish usage of "coordination group" vs. "posse"?
+_ LessWrong vs. GreaterWrong for comment links?
+_ cut words from descriptions of other posts! (if people want to read them, they can click through ... but on review, these descriptions seem pretty reasonable?)
+-------
+_ cut words from NRx denouncement Jessica discussion
+_ later thoughts on jump to evaluation, translating between different groups' language
+_ explicitly mention http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/bad-faith-behavior-not-feeling/
+_ "I" statements
+_ we can go stronger than "I definitely don't think Yudkowsky _thinks of himself_ as having given up on Speech _in those words_"
+_ try to clarify Abram's categories view (Michael didn't get it)
+_ cut lots of words from December 2019 blogging spree
+_ in a footnote, defend the "cutting my dick off" rhetorical flourish
+_ choice quotes in "end of the Category War" thank you note
+_ do I have a better identifier than "Vassarite"?
+_ maybe I do want to fill in a few more details about the Sasha disaster, conditional on what I end up writing regarding Scott's prosecution?—and conditional on my separate retro email—also the Zolpidem thing
+_ mention "Darkest Timeline" and Skyrms somewhere
+_ footnote explaining quibbles? (the first time I tried to write this, I hesitated, not sure if necessary)
+_ "it was the same thing here"—most readers are not going to understand what I see as the obvious analogy
+_ first mention of Jack G. should introduce him properly
+_ link to protest flyer
+
+
+pt. 4 edit tier—
+_ mention Nick Bostrom email scandal (and his not appearing on the one-sentence CAIS statement)
+_ revise and cut words from "bad faith" section since can link to "Assume Bad Faith"
+_ cut words from January 2020 Twitter exchange (after war criminal defenses)
+_ everyone *who matters* prefers to stay on the good side
+
+pt. 5 edit tier—
+_ quote specific exchange where I mentioned 10,000 words of philosophy that Scott was wrong—obviously the wrong play
+_ "as Soares pointed out" needs link
+_ can I rewrite to not bury the lede on "intent doesn't matter"?
+_ also reference "No such thing as a tree" in Dolphin War section
+_ better brief explanation of dark side epistemology
+_ "deep causal structure" argument needs to be crystal clear, not sloopy
+_ it's a relevant detail whether the optimization is coming from Nate
+_ probably cut the vaccine polarization paragraphs? (overheard at a party is not great sourcing, even if technically admissible)
+_ elaborate on how 2007!Yudkowsky and 2021!Xu are saying the opposite things if you just take a plain-language reading and consider, not whether individual sentences can be interpreted as "true", but what kind of _optimization_ the text is doing to the behavior of receptive readers
+_ revise reply to Xu
+_ cite Earthling/postrat sneers
+_ cite postYud Tweet
+_ when EY put a checkmark on my Discord message characterizing his strategy as giving up on intellectual honesty
+_ cut lots of words from Scotts comments on Jessica's MIRI post (keep: "attempting to erase the agency", Scott blaming my troubles on Michael being absurd)
+_ sucking Scott's dick is helpful because he's now the main gateway instead of HPMOR
+_ Sarah's point that Scott gets a lot of undeserved deference, too: https://twitter.com/s_r_constantin/status/1435609950303162370
+_ clarify that Keltham infers there are no mascochists, vs. Word of God
+_ "Doublethink" ref in Xu discussion should mention that Word of God Eliezerfic clarification that it's not about telling others
+_ https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/vvc2MiZvWgMFaSbhx/book-review-the-bell-curve-by-charles-murray/comment/git7xaE2aHfSZyLzL
+
+things to discuss with Michael/Ben/Jessica—
+_ Anna on Paul Graham
+_ compression of Yudkowsky thinking reasoning wasn't useful
+_ Michael's SLAPP against REACH
+_ Michael on creepy and crazy men
+_ elided Sasha disaster
+
+
+pt. 3–5 prereaders—
+_ paid hostile prereader (first choice: April)
+_ Iceman
+_ Scott? (cursory notification)
+_ Kelsey (what was that 1 year statute of limitations about??)
+_ Steven Kaas
+_ David Xu
+_ Ray
+_ Ruby
+_ Teortaxes? (he might be interested)
+
+
+-------
+
+later prereaders—
+_ afford various medical procedures
+
+slotted TODO blocks for pt. 6 and dath ilan ancillary—
- Eliezerfic fight conclusion
-_ Michael Vassar and the Theory of Optimal Gossip
-_ plan to reach out to Rick
-- regrets, wasted time, conclusion
-_ reaction to Ziz
-_ State of Steven
-_ culture off the rails; my warning points to Vaniver
-_ complicity and friendship
-_ out of patience email
-_ the hill he wants to die on
-_ recap of crimes, cont'd
-_ lead-in to Sept. 2021 Twitter altercation
-_ Dolphin War finish
+_ Keltham's section in dath ilan ancillary
+_ objections and replies in dath ilan ancillary
+_ kitchen knife section in dath ilan ancillary
+
+dath ilan ancillary tier—
+_ Who are the 9 most important legislators called?
+_ collect Earth people sneers
+_ what kind of person wants to delete history? History would tell you
+_ psyops don't require people taking them seriously, only that they make people think the govenment is doing psyops
+_ the reason "truth is better than lies; knowledge is better than ignorance" is general; can assert by authorial fiat whatever details are needed to make it all turn out for the greater good, but _that's not how anything works in real life_.
+_ "telling people things would be meddling" moral needs work; obvious objection is that different rules apply to Keepers
+_ "obligate" is only Word of God, right?—I should probably cite this
+
+
------
With internet available—
+_ Earthing/postrat sneers
_ Is http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/01/be-a-charity-angel.html the best link for after-the-fact prize funding?
_ P(doom)
_ Michael on OB in 'aught-eight on smart kids internalizing rules meant for the norm of reaction of a dumber population
_ Yudkowsky's LW moderation policy
far editing tier—
+_ screenshot key Tweet threads (now that Twitter requires you to log in)
_ Caliphate / craft and the community
_ colony ship happiness lie in https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AWaJvBMb9HGBwtNqd/qualitative-strategies-of-friendliness
_ re being fair to abusers: thinking about what behavior pattern you would like to see, generally, by people in your situation, instead of privileging the perspective and feelings of people who've made themselves vulnerable to you by transgressing against you
_ body odors comment
+_ worry about hyperbole/jumps-to-evaluation; it destroys credibility
_ "Density in Thingspace" comment
_ Christmas with Scott: mention the destruction of "voluntary"?
_ Christmas with Scott: mention the grid of points?
_ Alyssa lying about me [pt. 4]
_ Brian Skyrms??
_ mr-hire and pre-emptive steelmanning (before meeting LW mods)
-_ meeting with Ray
_ is the Glowfic author "Lintamande ... they" or "Lintamande ... she"?
_ explain plot of _Planecrash_ better
_ CfAR's AI pivot??
_ backlink Yudkowsky's implicit political concession
_ backlink "again grateful" for doctor's notes
-pt. 1½ posterity tier (probably not getting published)—
-_ "People": say something about the awkward racial/political dynamics of three of my four anecdotes being about black people? Salient because rare? Salient because of my NRx-pilling?
-_ Re: on legitimacy and the entrepreneur; or, continuing the attempt to spread my sociopathic awakening onto Scott [pt. 2 somewhere]
-_ include Wilhelm "Gender Czar" conversation? [pt. 2]
-_ emailing Blanchard/Bailey/Hsu/Lawrence [pt. 2]
-
-
-
-terms to explain on first mention—
-_ inpatient/outpatient
-_ NRx
-_ TERF?
-_ Civilization (context of dath ilan)
-_ Valinor (probably don't name it, actually)
-_ "Caliphate"
-_ "rationalist"
-_ Center for Applied Rationality
-_ MIRI
-_ "egregore"
-_ eliezera
-
-
-
-
people to consult before publishing, for feedback or right of objection—
_ Iceman
_ Scott
_ hostile prereader (April—if not, J. Beshir, Swimmer, someone else from Alicorner #drama)
-_ Kelsey
+_ Kelsey (what was that 1 year statute of limitations about??)
_ NRx Twitter bro
-_ maybe SK (briefly about his name)? (the memoir might have the opposite problem (too long) from my hostile-shorthand Twitter snipes)
-_ Megan (that poem could easily be about some other entomologist named Megan) ... I'm probably going to cut that §, though
+_ Steven Kaas (briefly about his name)? (the memoir might have the opposite problem (too long) from my hostile-shorthand Twitter snipes)
_ David Xu? (Is it OK to name him in his LW account?)
_ afford various medical procedures
_ Buck? (get the story about Michael being escorted from events)
-_ A/a alumna??
_ Ray
_ Ruby
-_ Kay Brown?? (assuming I include the delusional emails to her)
+_ Teortaxes??
marketing—
_ Twitter
Friend of the blog Ninety-Three has been nagging me about my pathetic pacing—looking at the diffs of my wordcount spreadsheet, I have four thousand-word days in January, two in February, and two in March (which is half-over). He ... has a point. With no dayjob and no responsibilities, four-figure wordcount days should be normal, something that happens four times a week, not four times a month.
--------
-
-It might actually make sense for this to get split into eight parts??—I'm going to finish the five-part draft first before doing any more splitting. But—
-
-Here's where we stand now—
-
-24K Blanchard's Dangerous Idea and the Plight of the Lucid Crossdreamer
-23K A Hill of Validity in Defense of Meaning
-21K If Clarity Seems Like Death to Them
-16K Agreeing With Stalin in Ways That Exhibit Generally Rationalist Principles
-31K Standing Under the Same Sky
------
-115K
-
-What if that became something more like—
-19K Blanchard's Dangerous Idea and the Plight of the Lucid Crossdreamer
-10K My Recent Madness (working title)
-23K A Hill of Validity in Defense of Meaning
-30K If Clarity Seems Like Death to Them
-16K Agreeing With Stalin in Ways That Exhibit Generally Rationalist Principles
-18K Dignity (working title)
-20K Standing Under the Same Sky
- 3K Epilogue (working title)
------
-139K
-
-If I did this, I would need three more good (non-working) titles and epigraph quotes. For epigraphs, I'm thinking—
-My Recent Madness—Zoolander "crazy pills" quote
-Dignity—it has all been said before, but you must say it again
-Epilogue—the truth is great and shall prevail
-
-... I don't think I want to go to eight parts, though—that's way too self-indulgent! (I think I can go to six, because the dath ilan discussion actually is long and separable; I probably don't need a separate epilogue-post.) If one of my existing parts runs over 30K words, that's strong evidence that it can be cut.
-
-30K Blanchard's Dangerous Idea and the Plight of the Lucid Crossdreamer
-23K A Hill of Validity in Defense of Meaning
-30K If Clarity Seems Like Death to Them
-16K Agreeing With Stalin in Ways That Exhibit Generally Rationalist Principles
-20K Dignity (working title)
-20K Standing Under the Same Sky
----
-139K
-
-—which implies that I'm 25 double-digit writing days away, such that finishing a gapless ms. in April is at least thinkable ... but only if I stop daydreaming and get to work.
-
-17K Blanchard's Dangerous Idea and the Plight of the Lucid Crossdreamer
-13K People, Evolved Social-Control Mechanisms, and Rocks
-23K A Hill of Validity in Defense of Meaning
-30K If Clarity Seems Like Death to Them
-16K Agreeing With Stalin in Ways That Exhibit Generally Rationalist Principles
-20K Zevi's Choice
-20K Standing Under the Same Sky
----
-139K
-
-
-------
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
> The Other's theory of themselves usually does not make them look terrible. And you will not have much luck just yelling at them about how they must *really* be doing terrible_thing instead. That's woke filter bubble thinking. I stopped talking to Michael when he went that way.
https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1435619618052214787
+The fact that I flipped out at Nate's dolphin thing was a misplay on my part, but it generated more Twitter discussion (including Eliezer's "never told anyone to go trans" remarks and Vorobey's comments) makes it a "win" for the cause even if I was out of line? My freaking out was "rational".
But I think Eliezer and I _agree_ on what he's doing; he just doesn't see it's bad
I really appreciated Anatoly Vorobey's comments:
+https://twitter.com/avorobey/status/1404769388969054210
+
> to provide context how it may (justifiably?) seem like over the last 7-8 years the rat. community largely fell *hard* for a particular gender philosophy
> ... fell for it in ways that seemed so spectacularly uncritical, compared to other beliefs carefully examined and dissected, and more so, even justified with a veneer of "rationality" (as in Scott's Categories post) that beautifully coincided with the tumblr dogma of the time...
https://arbital.greaterwrong.com/p/logical_dt/?l=5gc
It even leaked into Big Yud!!! "Counterfactuals were made for humanity, not humanity for counterfactuals."
+At least I don't have to link the rebuttal myself every time:
+https://www.datasecretslox.com/index.php/topic,1553.msg38755.html
+https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/10vx6gk/the_categories_were_made_for_man_not_man_for_the/j7k8fjc/
+
------
If you _have_ intent-to-inform and occasionally end up using your megaphone to say false things (out of sloppiness or motivated reasoning in the passion of the moment), it's actually not that big of a deal, as long as you're willing to acknowledge corrections. (It helps if you have critics who personally hate your guts and therefore have a motive to catch you making errors, and a discerning audience who will only reward the critics for finding real errors and not fake errors.) In the long run, the errors cancel out.
If you _don't_ have intent-to-inform, but make sure to never, ever say false things (because you know that "lying" is wrong, and think that as long as you haven't "lied", you're in the clear), but you don't feel like you have an obligation to acknowledge criticisms (for example, because you think you and your flunkies are the only real people in the world, and anyone who doesn't want to become one of your flunkies can be disdained as a "post-rat"), that's potentially a much worse situation, because the errors don't cancel.
-----
-
-bitter comments about rationalists—
-https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/qXwmMkEBLL59NkvYR/the-lesswrong-2018-review-posts-need-at-least-2-nominations/comment/d4RrEizzH85BdCPhE
-https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qaYeQnSYotCHQcPh8/drowning-children-are-rare?commentId=Nhv9KPte7d5jbtLBv
-https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/tkuknrjYCbaDoZEh5/could-we-solve-this-email-mess-if-we-all-moved-to-paid/comment/ZkreTspP599RBKsi7
-
------
https://trevorklee.substack.com/p/the-ftx-future-fund-needs-to-slow
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1684947017502433281
> Keir Starmer agrees that a woman is an adult human female. Will Ed Davey also rejoin the real world, science & the English language by reversing his view that a woman can "quite clearly" have a penis? Inability to face reality in small things bodes ill for more serious matters.
-Analysis of my writing mistake (show this to Jackie!!)
+Analysis of my writing mistake
https://twitter.com/shroomwaview/status/1681742799052341249
------
It was very striking to me how, in the case of the baby biting a lemon, Alicorn _immediately_ formulated the hypothesis that what-the-grownups-thought-was-cute was affecting the baby's behavior, and everyone _immediately just got it_. I was tempted to say something caustic about how no one seemed to think a similar mechanism could have accounted for some of the older child's verbal behavior the previous year, but I kept silent; that was clearly outside the purview of my double-dog promise.
There was another moment when Mike made a remark about how weekends are socially constructed. I had a lot of genuinely on-topic cached witty philosophy banter about [how the social construction of concepts works](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/edEXi4SpkXfvaX42j/schelling-categories-and-simple-membership-tests), that would have been completely innocuous if anyone _else_ had said it, but I kept silent because I wasn't sure if it was within my double-dog margin of error if _I_ said it.
+
+> even making a baby ML dude who's about to write a terrible paper hesitate for 10 seconds and _think of the reader's reaction_ seems like a disimprovement over status quo ante.
+https://discord.com/channels/401181628015050773/458329253595840522/1006685798227267736
+
+Also, the part where I said it amounted to giving up on intellectual honesty, and he put a check mark on it
+
+The third LW bookset is called "The Carving of Reality"? Did I have counterfactual influence on that (by making that part of the sequences more memetically salient, as opposed to the "categories are made for man" strain)?
+
+Yudkowsky on EA criticism contest
+https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/HyHCkK3aDsfY95MoD/cea-ev-op-rp-should-engage-an-independent-investigator-to?commentId=kgHyydoX5jT5zKqqa
+
+Yudkowsky says "we" are not to blame for FTX, but wasn't early Alameda (the Japan bitcoint arbitrage) founded as an earn-to-give scheme, and recrutied from EA?
+
+https://twitter.com/aditya_baradwaj/status/1694355639903080691
+> [SBF] wanted to build a machine—a growing sphere of influence that could break past the walls of that little office in Berkeley and wash over the world as a force for good. Not just a company, but a monument to effective altruism.
+
+Scott November 2020: "I think we eventually ended up on the same page"
+https://www.datasecretslox.com/index.php/topic,1553.msg38799.html#msg38799
+
+SK on never making a perfectly correct point
+https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/P3FQNvnW8Cz42QBuA/dialogue-on-appeals-to-consequences#Z8haBdrGiRQcGSXye
+
+Scott on puberty blockers, dreadful: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-fetishes
+
+https://jdpressman.com/2023/08/28/agi-ruin-and-the-road-to-iconoclasm.html
+
+https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BahoNzY2pzSeM2Dtk/beware-of-stephen-j-gould
+> there comes a point in self-deception where it becomes morally indistinguishable from lying. Consistently self-serving scientific "error", in the face of repeated correction and without informing others of the criticism, blends over into scientific fraud.
+
+https://time.com/collection/time100-ai/6309037/eliezer-yudkowsky/
+> "I expected to be a tiny voice shouting into the void, and people listened instead. So I doubled down on that."
+
+-----
+
+bullet notes for Tail analogy—
+ * My friend Tailcalled is better at science than me; in the hours that I've wasted with personal, political, and philosophical writing, he's actually been running surveys and digging into statistical methodology.
+ * As a result of his surveys, Tail was convinced of the two-type taxonomy, started /r/Blanchardianism, &c.
+ * Arguing with him resulted in my backing away from pure BBL ("Useful Approximation")
+ * Later, he became disillusioned with "Blanchardians" and went to war against them. I kept telling him he _is_ a "Blanchardian", insofar as he largely agrees with the main findings (about AGP as a major cause). He corresponded with Bailey and became frustrated with Bailey's ridigity. Blanchardians market themselves as disinterest truthseekers, but a lot of what they're actually doing is providing a counternarrative to social justice.
+ * There's an analogy between Tail's antipathy for Bailey and my antipathy for Yudkowsky: I still largely agree with "the rationalists", but the way especially Yudkowsky markets himself as a uniquely sane thinker
+
+Something he said made me feel spooked that he knew something about risks of future suffering that he wouldn't talk about, but in retrospect, I don't think that's what he meant.
+
+https://twitter.com/zackmdavis/status/1435856644076830721
+> The error in "Not Man for the Categories" is not subtle! After the issue had been brought to your attention, I think you should have been able to condemn it: "Scott's wrong; you can't redefine concepts in order to make people happy; that's retarded." It really is that simple! 4/6
+
+> It can also be naive to assume that all the damage that people consistently do is unintentional. For that matter, Sam by being "lol you mad" rather than "sorry" is continuing to do that damage. I'd have bought "sorry" rather a lot better, in terms of no ulterior motives.
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1706861603029909508
+
+-------
+
+On 27 September 2023, Yudkowsky told Quentin Pope, "If I was given to your sort of attackiness, I'd now compose a giant LW post about how this blatant error demonstrates that nobody should trust you about anything else either." (https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1707142828995031415) I felt like it was an OK use of bandwidth to point out that tracking reputations is sometimes useful (https://twitter.com/zackmdavis/status/1707183146335367243). My agenda here is the same as when I wrote "... on Epistemic Conduct for Author Criticism": I don't want Big Yud using his social power to delegitimize "attacks" in general, because I have an interest in attacking him. Later, he quote-Tweeted something and said,
+
+> People need to grow up reading a lot of case studies like this in order to pick of a well-calibrated instinctive sense of what ignorant criticism typically sounds like. A derisory tone is a very strong base cue, though not an invincible one.
+
+Was he subtweeting me?? (Because I was defending criticism against tone policing, and this is saying tone is a valid cue.) If it was a subtweet, I take that as vindication that my reply was a good use of bandwidth.
+
+-----
+
+In particular, I think the conspiracy theory "Yudkowsky sometimes avoids nuanced arguments that he doesn't trust people to understand" is true, because ... you've said so (e.g., "without getting into any weirdness that I don't expect Earthlings to think about validly"). https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/2NncxDQ3KBDCxiJiP/cosmopolitan-values-don-t-come-free/comment/dMHdWcxgSpcdyG4hb
+
+----
+
+(He responded to me in this interaction, which is interesting.)
+
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1708587781424046242
+> Zack, you missed this point presumably because you're losing your grasp of basic theory in favor of conspiracy theory.
+
+https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qbcuk8WwFnTZcXTd6/thomas-kwa-s-miri-research-experience
+> The model was something like: Nate and Eliezer have a mindset that's good for both capabilities and alignment, and so if we talk to other alignment researchers about our work, the mindset will diffuse into the alignment community, and thence to OpenAI, where it would speed up capabilities.
+
+27 January 2020—
+> I'm also afraid of the failure mode where I get frame-controlled by the Michael/Ben/Jessica mini-egregore (while we tell ourselves a story that we're the real rationalist coordination group and not an egregore at all). Michael says that the worldview he's articulating would be the one that would be obvious to me if I felt that I was in danger. Insofar as I trust that my friends' mini-egregore is seeing something but I don't trust the details, the obvious path forward is to try to do original seeing while leaning into fear—trusting Michael's meta level advice, but not his detailed story.
+
+Weird tribalist praise for Scott: https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/GMCs73dCPTL8dWYGq/use-normal-predictions/comment/ez8xrquaXmmvbsYPi
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff