✓ "Agreeing With Stalin" intro recap
✓ recap of crimes, cont'd
✓ Dolphin War finish
-_ lead-in to Sept. 2021 Twitter altercation
+✓ lead-in to Sept. 2021 Twitter altercation
_ Michael Vassar and the Theory of Optimal Gossip
_ plan to reach out to Rick / Michael on creepy men/crazy men
_ reaction to Ziz
-Notes from pt. 3 readthrough—
+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, perhaps in footnotes
_ 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
-Notes from pt. 4 readthrough—
+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)
_ revise reply to Xu
_ 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)
-Notes pt. 5—
+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
+_ Scott got comas right in the same year as "Categories"
+_ cite Earthling/postrat sneers
+_ cite postYud Tweet
------
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
* 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
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff