first edit pass bookmark: "I got a chance to talk to"
-pt. 3 edit tier—
-✓ footnote on the bad-faith condition on "My Price for Joining"
-_ footnote explaining quibbles on clarification
-_ quote Yudkowsky's LW moderation policy
-_ confusing people and ourselves about what the exact crime is
-_ FTX validated Ben's view of EA!! ("systematically conflating corruption, accumulation of dominance, and theft, with getting things done")
-_ hint at Vanessa being trans
-_ Ruby fight: "forces of blandness want me gone ... stand my ground" remark
+time-sensitive globals TODOs—
+✓ address red team objections to pt. 3
+✓ schedule Friendship Day at Valinor
+✓ apply pro edits to pt. 3
+✓ address auto edit tier to pt. 3
+- rephrase "everyone-yelling operation" in pt. 5
+_ consult Anna
+_ clear with Steven
+_ finish and ship "Reply to Scott on Autogenderphilia"
+_ finish and ship "Hrunkner Unnerby"
+_ psychiatric disaster private doc
+_ clear with Michael/Ben/Jessica
+_ clear with Alicorn
+_ clear with Kelsey
+_ clear with Ray
+_ clear with Ruby
+_ SHIP PT. 3!!
+------------
+_ address auto edit tier to pt. 4–5
+_ red team pt. 4–5
+_ pro edit pt. 4–5
+_ consult lc
+
+
+pt. 3 edit tier (auto edition)—
+✓ FTX aside footnote version
+✓ revert alphabet names (from 17638259f20)
+✓ narcissistic delusions
+✓ clarify that cheerful price history is with Anna specifically
+✓ screenshot "pleading, snarky reply"
+✓ GreaterWrong over Less Wrong for comment links
+✓ return on cognitive investment
+✓ establish usage of "coordination group" vs. "posse" (posse)
+✓ do I have a better identifier than "Vassarite"
+----
+_ Ruby fight included ban threat, "forces of blandness want me gone ... stand my ground" remark
+_ breakup song
+_ briefly speculate on causes of brain damage (tie in to moderation policy?)
+_ being friends with dogs (it's good, but do I have the wordcount budget?)
_ mention that I was miffed about "Boundaries?" not getting Curated, while one of Euk's animal posts did
_ explicitly mention http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/bad-faith-behavior-not-feeling/
_ meeting with Ray (maybe?)
-_ friends with someone on an animal level, like with a dog
_ mention Said rigor check somewhere, nervousness about Michael's gang being a mini-egregore
-_ at some point, speculate on causes of brain damage
_ I should respond to Ziz's charges that my criticism of concept-policing was a form of concept-policing
_ Anna's claim that Scott was a target specifically because he was good, my counterclaim that payment can't be impunity
-_ quote Jack on timelines anxiety
-_ 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
_ the "reducing negativity" post does obliquely hint at the regression point being general
_ link to protest flyer
-_ establish usage of "coordination group" vs. "posse"? (editor might catch?)
_ "it was the same thing here"—most readers are not going to see an obvious analogy (editor might catch?)
_ better explanation of MOPs in "Social Reality" scuffle (editor might catch?)
_ better context on "scam" &c. earlier (editor might catch?)
_ cut words from descriptions of other posts! (editor might catch?)
_ try to clarify Abram's categories view (Michael didn't get it) (but it still seems clear to me on re-read?)
-_ GreaterWrong over Less Wrong for comment links
pt. 4 edit tier—
-_ "tossed in a bucket" is ignoring advice from Sept. 2022 clarification to be clear about the type distinction
-_ "Ideology Is Not the Movement" mentions not misgendering
+✓ "Ideology Is Not the Movement" mentions not misgendering
+✓ mention Nick Bostrom email scandal (and his not appearing on the one-sentence CAIS statement)
+✓ explain why he could think of some relevant differences
_ body odors comment
-_ mention Nick Bostrom email scandal (and his not appearing on the one-sentence CAIS statement)
-_ if he wanted to, I'm sure Eliezer Yudkowsky could think of some relevant differences (I should explain)
_ emphasize that 2018 thread was policing TERF-like pronoun usage, not just disapproving of gender-based pronouns
_ if you only say good things about Republican candidates
_ to-be-continued ending about how being a fraud might be a good idea
_ quote specific exchange where I mentioned 10,000 words of philosophy that Scott was wrong—obviously the wrong play
_ Meghan Murphy got it down to four words
_ Dolphin War needs more Twitter links: "as Soares pointed out" needs link, "threw an eleven-Tweet tantrum" (probably screenshot), tussling
+_ replace anti-black joke with misogynist joke?
_ end of voting conversation needs links
_ 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
_ the hill he wants to die on
_ humans have honor instead of TDT. "That's right! I'm appealing to your honor!"
_ Leeroy Jenkins Option
+_ consult 93 about Jessica's dramapost §
_ historical non-robot-cult rationality wisdom
_ work in the "some clever gambit to play trans activists and gender-critical feminists against each other"
_ finale: mention that I'm not doing the dumb reversed-stupidity thing
things to discuss with Michael/Ben/Jessica—
_ Anna on Paul Graham
_ Yudkowsky thinking reasoning wasn't useful
-_ Jessica brought up race & IQ (she skimmed the previous draft, so I should highlight this)
+_ Jessica brought up race & IQ (she skimmed the previous draft, so I should highlight), or calling Ruby a MOP
+_ Ben publish "Discursive Warfare and Faction Formation" doc?
+_ footnote about FTX
+_ revision of "yelling" description
_ Michael's SLAPP against REACH (new)
_ Michael on creepy and crazy men (new)
_ elided Sasha disaster (new)
+_ what should I say to Iceman?
+_ "yelling"
+
pt. 3–5 prereaders—
_ Iceman
-_ Scott? (cursory notification)
+_ Anna
+_ Said
+_ Joel
_ Kelsey (what was that 1 year statute of limitations about??)
_ Steven Kaas
_ David Xu
In October 2016,
-
if [...] wrote her own 10,600 draft Document explaining why she thought [...] is actually a girl, that would be really interesting!—but rather that 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.
-https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1634338145016909824 re "malinformation"
-> If we don't have the concept of an attack performed by selectively reporting true information—or, less pleasantly, an attack on the predictable misinferences of people we think less rational than ourselves—the only socially acceptable counter is to say the info is false.
-
I said that I couldn't help but be reminded of a really great short story that I remembered reading back in—it must have been 'aught-nine. I thought it was called "Darkness and Light", or something like that. It was about a guy who gets transported to a fantasy world where he has a magic axe that yells at him sometimes, and he's prophecied to defeat the bad guy, and he and his allies have to defeat these ogres to reach the bad guy's lair. And when they get there, the bad guy _accuses them of murder_ for killing the ogres on the way there.
(The story was actually Yudkowsky's ["The Sword of Good"](https://www.yudkowsky.net/other/fiction/the-sword-of-good), but I was still enjoying the "Robin Hanson's blog" æsthetic.)
Everyone believed this in 2005! Everyone _still_ believes this!
-
> Dear Totally Excellent Rationalist Friends:
> As a transhumanist and someone with a long, long history of fantasizing about having the property, I am of course strongly in favor of there being social norms and institutions that are carefully designed to help people achieve their lifelong dream of acquiring the property, or rather, the best approximation thereof that is achievable given the marked limitations of existing technology.
> However, it's also kind of important to notice that fantasizing about having the property without having yet sought out interventions to acquire the property, is not the same thing as somehow already literally having the property in some unspecified metaphysical sense! The process of attempting to acquire the property does not propagate backwards in time!
Weird tribalist praise for Scott: https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/GMCs73dCPTL8dWYGq/use-normal-predictions/comment/ez8xrquaXmmvbsYPi
-https://hpmor.com/chapter/97
-> "Or tricks," Harry said evenly. "Statements which are technically true but which deceive the listener into forming further beliefs which are false. I think it's worth making that distinction.
-
-https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/pQGFeKvjydztpgnsY/occupational-infohazards/comment/TcsXh44pB9xRziGgt
-> A bunch of people we respected and worked with had decided the world was going to end, very soon, uncomfortably soon, and they were making it extremely difficult for us to check their work.
-
-------
I like to imagine that they have a saying out of dath ilan: once is happenstance; twice is coincidence; _three times is hostile optimization_.
-------
-I don't, actually, expect people to spontaneously blurt out everything they believe to be true, that Stalin would find offensive. "No comment" would be fine. Even selective argumentation that's clearly labeled as such would be fine. (There's no shame in being an honest specialist who says, "I've mostly thought about these issues though the lens of ideology _X_, and therefore can't claim to be comprehensive; if you want other perspectives, you'll have to read other authors and think it through for yourself.")
\ No newline at end of file
+I don't, actually, expect people to spontaneously blurt out everything they believe to be true, that Stalin would find offensive. "No comment" would be fine. Even selective argumentation that's clearly labeled as such would be fine. (There's no shame in being an honest specialist who says, "I've mostly thought about these issues though the lens of ideology _X_, and therefore can't claim to be comprehensive; if you want other perspectives, you'll have to read other authors and think it through for yourself.")
+
+
+-----
+
+Michael said that we didn't want to police Eliezer's behavior, but just note that something had seemingly changed and move on. "There are a lot of people who can be usefully informed about the change," Michael said. "Not him though."
+
+That was the part I couldn't understand, the part I couldn't accept.
+
+The man rewrote had rewritten my personality over the internet. Everything I do, I learned from him. He couldn't be so dense as to not even see the thing we'd been trying to point at. Like, even if he were ultimately to endorse his current strategy, he should do it on purpose rather than on accident!
+
+(Scott mostly saw it, and had [filed his honorable-discharge paperwork](https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/04/some-clarifications-on-rationalist-blogging/). Anna definitely saw it, and she was doing it on purpose.)
+
+-----
+
+https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/kuqgJDPF6nfscSZsZ/thread-for-discussing-bostrom-s-email-and-apology?commentId=Z7kyiPAfmtztueFFJ
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff