✓ Jessica help with "Unnatural Categories"
✓ wireheading his fiction subreddit
✓ discrediting to the community
-- let's recap
- 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
+- 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
_ Michael Vassar and the Theory of Optimal Gossip
_ Sasha disaster
With internet available—
-_ university library
+_ record of Yudkowsky citing TDT as part of decision to prosecute Emerson?
+_ university library sells borrowing privileges
_ 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?
_ examples of snarky comments about "the rationalists"
_ 13th century word meanings
_ weirdly hostile comments on "... Boundaries?"
-_ more examples of Yudkowsky's arrogance
+
far editing tier—
+_ "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
_ pull "agreeing with Stalin" quote earlier in ms. to argue that Yudkowsky apparently doesn't disagree with my "deliberately ambiguous"
_ is the title of pt. 4 OK? (agreeing with Stalin _is_ correct when Stalin is right; the problem is that Stalin isn't right about gender)
_ illustrate "student dysphoria is worse" with anecdote about leaving physics class and going to the counselor to see if I could graduate earlier?
_ explain "court ruling" earlier
_ 2019 Discord discourse with Alicorner
_ edit discussion of "anti-trans" side given that I later emphasize that "sides" shouldn't be a thing
-_ explain the adversarial pressure on privacy norms
_ first EY contact was asking for public clarification or "I am being silenced" (so Glomarizing over "unsatisfying response" or no response isn't leaking anything Yudkowksy cares about)
_ Nov. 2018 continues thread from Oct. 2016 conversation
_ better explanation of posse formation
_ better summary of Littman
_ explain Rob
_ 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?
terms to explain on first mention—
_ I think it's OK to copy my friends' language from emails; plagiarism instincts
+-------
+
+4 November progress assessment: My 113 word TODO bullets on "discrediting to the community" bloated up into 563 words of prose, a decompression ratio of 5. Taking this at face value—
+
+My remaining TODO notes in the pt. 3 ms. are about 1400 words—does that mean they become 7000 words, with the finished pt. 3 weighing in at 46K words??
+
+For pt. 2, does 970 words of TODO inflate into 5K words of prose, for a finished pt. 2 at 16K words? Feels more likely to be an underestimate due to these notes being sparser on average? An additional 7K words, to finish at 18K??
+
+For pt. 4, I have 617 words of TODO notes, but those also feel pretty sparse and should expand at a higher ratio than 5. An additional 5K words, to finish at 19K??
+
+Projected post lengths: 18K + 46K + 19K = 83K??
+Projected additional words: 17K??
+Projected additional drafting: 17K / 750 K/day = 23 days??
+cross-referenced with my dayjob schedule implies ... finished draft ms. on 15 December?
+
-------
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
> It, it—the fe—it, flame—flames. Flames—on the side of my face. Breathing—breathl—heaving breaths, heaving—
-like a crazy ex-girlfriend (["I have no underlying issues to address / I'm certifiably cute, and adorably obsessed"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMHz6FiRzS8))
-
But he is willing to go to bat for killing babies, but not for "Biological Sex is Actually Real Even If That Hurts Your Feelings" https://mobile.twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1547562974927134732
https://extropians.weidai.com/extropians.3Q97/4361.html
when I was near death from that salivary stone, I mumbled something to my father about "our people"
-If the world is ending either way, wouldn't it be more dignified for him to die _without_ Stalin's dick in his mouth?
-[Is this the hill he wants to die on? The pronouns post mentions "while you can still get away with disclaimers", referring to sanction from the outside world, as if he won't receive any sanction from his people, because he owns us. That's wrong. Yudkowsky as a person doesn't own me; the Sequences-algorithm does
+
https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/pfbid0331sBqRLBrDBM2Se5sf94JurGRTCjhbmrYnKcR4zHSSgghFALLKCdsG6aFbVF9dy9l?comment_id=10159421833274228&reply_comment_id=10159421901809228
> I don't think it *should* preclude my posting on topics like these, which is something I get the impression Zack disagrees with me about. I think that in a half-Kolmogorov-Option environment where people like Zack haven't actually been shot and you can get away with attaching explicit disclaimers like this one, it is sometimes personally prudent and not community-harmful to post your agreement with Stalin about things you actually agree with Stalin about, in ways that exhibit generally rationalist principles, especially because people do *know* they're living in a half-Stalinist environment, even though it hugely bugs Zack that the exact degree of Stalinism and filtration can't be explicitly laid out the way they would be in the meta-Bayesian Should Universe... or something. I think people are better off at the end of that.
> The censorship policy of the Reign of Terror is not part of the content of the post itself and may not be debated on the post. If you think Censorship!! is a terrible idea and invalidates discussion, feel free not to read the comments section.
> The Internet is full of things to read that will not make you angry. If it seems like you choose to spend a lot of time reading things that will give you a chance to be angry and push down others so you can be above them, you're not an interesting plant to have in my garden and you will be weeded. I don't consider it fun to get angry at such people, and I will choose to read something else instead.
+I tried arguing against ideas _first!_
+
I do wonder how much of his verbal report is shaped by pedagogy (& not having high-quality critics). People are very bad at imagining how alien aliens would be! "Don't try to hallucinate value there; just, don't" is simpler than working out exactly how far to push cosmopolitanism
what's really weird is having a delusion, knowing it's a delusion, and _everyone else_ insists your delusion is true
... and I'm not allowed to say that without drawing on my diplomacy budget, which puts a permanent distance between me and the group
-(If you are silent about your pain, _they'll kill you and say you enjoyed it_.)
-
4 levels of intellectual conversation https://rationalconspiracy.com/2017/01/03/four-layers-of-intellectual-conversation/
If we _actually had_ magical sex change technology of the kind described in ["Changing Emotions"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QZs4vkC7cbyjL9XA9/changing-emotions), no one would even consider clever philosophy arguments about how to redefine words: people who wanted to change sex would just do it, and everyone else would use the corresponding language, not as a favor, but because it straightforwardly described reality.
-
Scott said it sounded like I wasn't a 100% category absolutist, and that I would be willing to let a few tiny things through, and that our real difference is that he thought this gender thing was tiny enough to ignore, and I didn't. I thought his self-report of "tiny enough to ignore" was blatantly false: I predicted that his brain notices when trans women don't pass, and that this affected his probabilistic anticipations about them, decisions towards them, _&c._, and that when he finds out that a passing trans women is trans, then also affects his probabilistic anticipations, _&c._ This could be consistent with "tiny enough to ignore" if you draw the category boundaries of "tiny" and "ignore" the right way in order to force the sentence to come out "true" ... but you see the problem. If I took what Scott said in "... Not Man for the Categories" literally, I could make _any_ sentence true by driving a truck through the noncentral fallacy.
-https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1362514650089156608
-> Hypothesis: People to whom self-awareness and introspection come naturally, put way too much moral exculpatory weight on "But what if they don't know they're lying?" They don't know a lot of their internals! And don't want to know! That's just how they roll.
Steve Sailer retweeted me today criticizing Lee Jussim https://twitter.com/zackmdavis/status/1160662220511932416
Thanks, Mom. I'm so lucky to have a mother that's _less retarded than the leadership of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute_.
-------
-
-[TODO: Yudkowsky wireheading his fiction subreddit
-
-https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/dvkv41/meta_reducing_negativity_on_rrational/
-https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/dvkv41/meta_reducing_negativity_on_rrational/f7fs88l/
-13 November 2019
-
-The recent thing that was most helpful in making my memoir seem like just a challenging writing project, rather than treason/heresy, was actually Eliezer
-
-doing more destroying-language-for-the-sake-of-politeness but in a non-Culture-War context:
-
-comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/dvkv41/meta_reducing_negativity_on_rrational/f7fs88l/
-> On discussion threads for a work's particular chapter, people may debate the well-executedness of some particular feature of that work's particular chapter. Comments saying that nobody should enjoy this whole work are still verboten. Replies here should still follow the etiquette of saying "Mileage varied: I thought character X seemed stupid to me" rather than saying "No, character X was actually quite stupid."
-
-
-]
-
----
2019 comments to "Wilhelm"—
The text of _Inadequate Equilibria_ is more modest than his rhetorical marketing blunder
-and the BOTZ ETF I bought in 2020 has a -27.57% unrealized loss! awesome!!
+and the BOTZ ETF I bought in 2020 has a −27.57% unrealized loss! awesome!!
Katie also asked "MTF?" when I told her about the Sasha disaster!!
I assume starting a detransition market would be not-OK
-Oh, this was also on 18 February 2021 (same day as my comment about SneerClub); maybe the conjunction of the two made me more salient
-https://twitter.com/zackmdavis/status/1362555980232282113
-> Oh, maybe it's relevant to note that those posts were specifically part of my 21-month rage–grief campaign of being furious at Eliezer all day every day for lying-by-implicature about the philosophy of language? But, I don't want to seem petty by pointing that out! I'm over it!
+-----
+
+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).
+
+I'm planning on publishing the drafts linked below on [dates].
+
+ * "Blanchard's Dangerous Idea and the Plight of the Lucid Crossdreamer" (18K words)
+ * "A Hill of Validity in Defense of Meaning" (46K words)
+ * "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.
+
+----
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff