first edit pass bookmark: "I got a chance to talk to"
time-sensitive globals TODOs—
-- apply pro edits to pt. 3 (waiting on remaining parts)
-- address red team objections to pt. 3
-- address auto edit tier to pt. 3
-_ schedule Friendship Day at Valinor
+✓ 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
-_ consult Said
-_ Jessica's dramapost § in pt. 5
-_ consult 93 about Jessica's dramapost §
+_ clear with Steven
_ finish and ship "Reply to Scott on Autogenderphilia"
_ finish and ship "Hrunkner Unnerby"
-_ psychiatric disaster doc
_ clear with Michael/Ben/Jessica
+_ consult Said?
_ 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
-
-pt. 3 edit tier (red team edition)—
-✓ extract these kinds of statements of political alignment as concessions
-✓ credibly helpful unsolicited criticism
-✓ male multivariate distribution
-✓ reserve the right to lie
-✓ how to be principled about the ways in which you're dishonest
-✓ I don't think the group of gay men and lesbian
-✓ narcissistic delusions (soften)
-✓ ended up growing out of it (footnote the number?)
-✓ harm I'm theorizing (model of the child)
-✓ might be fictional (reword to not leak info)
+- address auto edit tier to pt. 4
+_ solicit red team pt. 4
+_ solicit pro edit pt. 4
+_ apply red team pt. 4
+_ apply pro edit pt. 4
+
+_ address auto edit tier to pt. 5
+_ solicit red team pt. 5
+_ solicit pro edit pt. 5
+_ apply red team pt. 5
+_ apply pro edit pt. 5
+
+_ consult lc
+_ psychiatric disaster private doc
+
pt. 3 edit tier (auto edition)—
-✓ footnote on the bad-faith condition on "My Price for Joining"
-✓ footnote explaining quibbles on clarification
-✓ quote Yudkowsky's LW moderation policy
-✓ hint at "Yes Requires" objector being trans
-✓ quote Jack on timelines anxiety
-✓ clarify "A Lesson is Learned"
-- explain the "jump to evaluation" failure
-- FTX
-_ where were all the trans kids 10 years ago?
-_ clarify that cheerful price history is with Anna specifically
+✓ 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"
+✓ log2 with an 'o'
+✓ yank note about LW comment policy to top-level
+✓ "Common Interest of Many Causes" and "Kolmogorov Complicity" offer directly contradictory strategies
+_ re-check wording of trans-kids-on-the-margin section
+_ briefly speculate on causes of brain damage in footnote?
----
-_ briefly speculate on causes of brain damage (tie in to moderation policy?)
+_ Ruby fight included ban threat, "forces of blandness want me gone ... stand my ground" remark
+_ breakup song
_ being friends with dogs (it's good, but do I have the wordcount budget?)
-_ Ruby fight: "forces of blandness want me gone ... stand my ground" remark
_ 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?)
_ mention Said rigor check somewhere, nervousness about Michael's gang being a mini-egregore
_ 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
-_ 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?)
-_ screenshot "pleading, snarky reply"
-_ GreaterWrong over Less Wrong for comment links
pt. 4 edit tier—
✓ "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
-_ emphasize that 2018 thread was policing TERF-like pronoun usage, not just disapproving of gender-based pronouns
+✓ rephrase "gamete size" discussion to make it clearer that Yudkowsky's proposal also implicitly requires people to be agree about the clustering thing
+✓ honesty and humility, HEXACO
+✓ GreaterWrong over Less Wrong for comment links
+
+- ending qualifications on "fraud" and whether it might be a good idea
+
_ if you only say good things about Republican candidates
-_ to-be-continued ending about how being a fraud might be a good idea
-_ selective argumentation that's clearly labeled as such would be fine
-_ cite more sneers; use a footnote to pack in as many as possible
+
_ Litany Against Gurus, not sure humans can think and trust at the same time; High Status and Stupidity
+_ body odors comment
_ when EY put a checkmark on my Discord message characterizing his strategy as giving up on intellectual honesty
-_ honesty and humility, HEXACO
-_ rephrase "gamete size" discussion to make it clearer that Yudkowsky's proposal also implicitly requires people to be agree about the clustering thing
-_ "Common Interest of Many Causes" and "Kolmogorov Complicity" offer directly contradictory strategies
-_ GreaterWrong over Less Wrong for comment links
+
+_ selective argumentation that's clearly labeled as such would be fine
+---
+_ emphasize that 2018 thread was policing TERF-like pronoun usage, not just disapproving of gender-based pronouns
+_ https://cognition.cafe/p/on-lies-and-liars
+_ cite more sneers; use a footnote to pack in as many as possible
+
+
+
pt. 5 edit tier—
_ sucking Scott's dick is helpful because he's now the main gateway instead of HPMOR
_ 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
_ mention Michael's influence and South Park recs in late 2016?
_ GreaterWrong over Less Wrong for comment links
-
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?
-_ FTX and nuance epilogue (new)
+_ 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?
+
pt. 3–5 prereaders—
Men aren't women! Men aren't women tho!
-It's only _after_ people pretended to disagree with _that_, that I started recusively digging into the details—why adult human males on hormone replacement therapy still aren't adult human females, why 'adult human male' and 'adult human female' are natural categories that it makes sense for Meghan McCarthy to want short codewords to point to, how words can be used in different ways depending on context (such that we can understand Meghan McCarthy's claim as it was meant, even if the words _woman_ and _man_ can also be used in other senses), what it means for something to be a natural cateogry, what it means to say that _X_'s aren't _Y_'s ...
+It's only _after_ people pretended to disagree with _that_, that I started recusively digging into the details—why adult human males on hormone replacement therapy still aren't adult human females, why 'adult human male' and 'adult human female' are natural categories that it makes sense for Meghan Murphy to want short codewords to point to, how words can be used in different ways depending on context (such that we can understand Meghan Murphy's claim as it was meant, even if the words _woman_ and _man_ can also be used in other senses), what it means for something to be a natural cateogry, what it means to say that _X_'s aren't _Y_'s ...
It is more than a little insulting to be told, after all this, that the problem is that _I_ don't know how to come to a point, rather than everyone in Berkeley not knowing how to accept a point that contradicts their religion. It's such a stupidly simple stonewalling strategy: when the critic makes their point simply (men aren't women! men aren't women tho!), sneer at them for being ontologically confused, and then when they spend years of their life writing up the exhaustively detailed rigorous version, sneer at them for not being able to come to a point.
------
-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
+14 November 2022 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
https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1404697716689489921
> I have never in my own life tried to persuade anyone to go trans (or not go trans)—I don't imagine myself to understand others that much.
-If you think it "sometimes personally prudent and not community-harmful" to go out of your way to say positive things about Republican candidates and never, ever say positive things about Democratic candidates (because you "don't see what the alternative is besides getting shot"), you can see why people might regard you as a _Republican shill_—even if all the things you said were true, and even if you never told any specific individual, "You should vote Republican."
+If you think it "sometimes personally prudent and not community-harmful" to go out of your way to say positive things about Republican candidates and never, ever say positive things about Democratic candidates (because you "don't see what the alternative is besides getting shot"), you can see why people might regard you as a Republican shill—even if all the things you said were true, and even if you never told any specific individual, "You should vote Republican."
https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10154110278349228
> Just checked my filtered messages on Facebook and saw, "Your post last night was kind of the final thing I needed to realize that I'm a girl."
But if he's _then_ going to take a shit on c3 of my chessboard (["important things [...] would be all the things I've read [...] from human beings who are people—describing reasons someone does not like to be tossed into a Male Bucket or Female Bucket, as it would be assigned by their birth certificate", "the simplest and best protocol is, '"He" refers to the set of people who have asked us to use "he"'"](https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10159421750419228)), the "playing on a different chessboard, no harm intended" excuse loses its credibility. The turd on c3 is a pretty big likelihood ratio! (That is, I'm more likely to observe a turd on c3 in worlds where Yudkowsky _is_ playing my chessboard and wants me to lose, than in world where he's playing on a different chessboard and just _happened_ to take a shit there, by coincidence.)
-(The authors of the [HEXACO personality model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEXACO_model_of_personality_structure) may have gotten something importantly right in [grouping "honesty" and "humility" as a single factor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honesty-humility_factor_of_the_HEXACO_model_of_personality).)
+
------
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.")
+The problem is with selective argumentation that falsely claims to be complete.
------
+-----
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."
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff