+
+Eliezer Yudkowsky has not been consistently candid in his communications with his followers, hindering their ability to exercise their responsibilities. 1/
+
+
+
+
+
+--------
+
+> Anyone who's worked with me on public comms knows that among my first instructions is "We only use valid arguments here." (Which makes hiring writers difficult; they have to know the difference.) I've never called for lying to the public. Label the shit you make up as made-up.
+https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1760133310024671583
+
+----------
+
+So, I'm almost ready to publish my loud public denunciation of Yudkowsky for intellectual dishonesty (as pt. 4 of my memoir sequence). Is anyone interested in offering advice or "hostile advice" (trying to talk me out of something you see as destructive, _e.g._ infighting while the world is about to end)?
+
+I'm eager for advice because this is a high-stakes political move and needs to be a _flawless performance_. (When you strike at a king, _you must kill him_.) My ideal outcome is for Eliezer to actually learn something, but since that's probably not going to happen (by the Law of Continued Failure), I'll settle for dealing targeted reputational damage.
+
+It's unpleasant for it to come to this, but at this point, I don't think I have any other options besides "lay down and die." I tried the good-faith object-level argument thing for years, and he made it very clear that he reserves the right to _ignore counterarguments on political grounds_ (because that's where his political incentives point), and that he thinks it's insane (his word choice) to get angry at people who are just following their political incentives. At that point, _my_ incentive is to cry "Fraud!" for the benefit of people who still erroneously trust him not to think that intellectual honesty is insane.
+
+(It's really striking how, despite sneering about the lost of art of perspective taking, he acts as if he's incapable of entertaining the perspective under which the published text of the Sequences might have led someone to form higher expectations of him. Oli Habryka gets it! (<https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/juZ8ugdNqMrbX7x2J/challenges-to-yudkowsky-s-pronoun-reform-proposal/comment/he8dztSuBBuxNRMSY>) Vaniver gets it! (<https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/yFZH2sBsmmqgWm4Sp/if-clarity-seems-like-death-to-them/comment/dSiBGRGziEffJqN2B>) Eliezer Yudkowsky either doesn't get it, or is pretending not to get it. I almost suspect it's the first one, which is far worse.)
+
+An key aspect of this situation from my perspective is that it's very obviously a conflict and not an honest disagreement. It's prudent for me to strategize about what his defense is going to be—if any. He _could_ just ignore it. But he does occasionally respond to critics, and I think my voice carries enough intra-cult weight that he'll plausibly want to defend against the reputational damage. We've seen that he's _very_ skilled at high-verbal-IQ ass-covering. Is there anything I can do to preëmpt the ass-covering maneuvers, separately from what's already in the post?
+
+I thought about taking out a Manifold market for "Will Yudkowsky reply to [post tile] in a way that an _Overcoming Bias_ reader in 2008 would consider non-evasive, as assessed by [third party judge]?" and buying some NO. (I think Ben Pace is credibly neutral and would agree to judge.) The idea being that the existence of the market incentivizes honesty, because it would look very bad for him if he tries to ass-cover and the judge rules that a 2008 _Overcoming Bias_ reader wouldn't buy it.
+
+But I'm leaning against the Manifold gambit because I don't want it look like I'm expecting or demanding a reply. I've more than used up my lifetime supply of Eliezer-bandwidth. The point is for me to explain to _everyone else_ why he's a phony and I don't respect him anymore. If he actively _wants_ to contest my claim that he's a phony—or try to win back my respect—he's welcome to do so. But given that he doesn't give a shit what people like me think of his intellectual integrity (if he wanted to be honest, he could have done it seven years ago), I'm just as happy to prosecute him _in absentia_.
+
+[TODO: reply to message in question]
+I do quote this November 2022 message in the post, which I argue doesn't violate consensus privacy norms, due to the conjunction of (a) it not being particularly different-in-character from things he's said in more public venues, and (b) there bring _more than 100 people in this server_; I argue that he can't have had a reasonable expectation of privacy (of the kind that would prohibit sharing a personal email, even if the email didn't say anything particularly different-in-character from things the author said in a more public venue). But I'm listening if someone wants to argue that I'm misjudging the consensus privacy norms.
+
+
+------
+
+[TODO: at this point, the entire debate tree has been covered so thoroughly that Caliphate loyalists don't have anything left other than, "accusing people of bad faith is mean". E.g., Xu and Kelsey. Did I stutter?]
+
+[TODO: maybe he'll try to spin complaints about the personality cult into more evidence for the personality cult]
+
+----------------
+
+Post later (can't afford to spend more Twitter time now)—
+
+https://twitter.com/zackmdavis/status/1436039564032823313
+
+@davidxu90, you said the other month you were curious about what would count as a crux for me, and I supplied one (↑). Any thoughts?
+
+(I generated the dictator analogy while consciously trying to play the double-crux game, but I confess my actual reaction is "Harmful inferences?! What the fuck is wrong with you?!" [link "Choosing to Be Biased"])
+
+-----
+
+the Blue Tribe/Gray Tribe color schema is really unfortunate given how enthusiastic the Blues are about Civil War analogies
+
+Funny coincidence to come across @SeriesTangled lyrics extensively referenced in a cognitive-science-of-gender blog post (looks like a really cool paper about language and color perception from [...], too)
+
Free-speech conditions in the country as a whole have gotten worse, but conditions in my immediate social graph have gotten better, as people who previously wanted to stay on the good side of Blue Egregore hit the "I can't live like this" breaking point that I hit in October 2016
Do we even know what a fair election looks like? "Trump legitimately loses but falsely alleges vote fraud tipped it to Biden" and "Trump appears to lose, alleges election fraud tipped it to Biden, and this allegation happens to be true" have very similar consequences! 1/2
Like, I'm assuming on priors there are nonzero partisans on both sides willing to resort to vote fraud? The question is, how many each, how organized, with how much collusion from the top, does it affect the result, &c.? 2/2
+Another interesting thing about #Next is that the Right Wing Bad Guy-coded character (hacker with "white nationalist" (!) contacts in a previous life) is on our side (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NominalHero), which is not something I expect to see network television lately ... I guess it is Fox?
+
Okay, THIS TIME if I've learned the math DEEPLY enough & explain the math CLEARLY enough, then maybe @ESYudkowsky's robot cult will stop trying to trick me into cutting my dick off! The previous attempt can only have failed due to insufficient math, and not for any other reason!
-In the NRx production of Hairspray, "You Can't Stop the Beat" is re-keyed to a chilling C minor
+Who would have thought getting @ESYudkowsky's robot cult to stop trying to trick me into cutting my dick off (independently of the empirical facts determining whether or not I should cut my dick off) would involve so much math?? OK, I guess the math part isn't surprising, but—
+
+KQED was asked: "When will life be better in California?"
+KQED answered: "In California, life already has been better."
+
+KQED was asked: "Why does Walnut Creek have a yacht club (http://wcyc.net/)?—they're not on the Bay."
+KQED answered: "To spite Berkeley: they have a Free Speech Café."
+
+✓ In the NRx production of Hairspray, "You Can't Stop the Beat" is re-keyed to a chilling C minor
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
A man and woman liked to shake it on a Saturday night
-No justice, no peace (where "justice" means "maximizing the logarithm of the probability assigned by the shared map to the observed outcome")
+✓ No justice, no peace (where "justice" means "maximizing the probability assigned by the shared map to the observed outcome")
Hey. What if we arrested the cops who killed Breonna Taylor, AND had genuine freedom of inquiry into biological causes of human behavior? We could just do both! They're not actually contradicting each other!
"Well, actually, we're ASHKENAZI supremacists" may not be as convincing a defense as you think :cold_sweat:
+✓ A more innocent world in which "HSTS" stands for "HTTP strict transport security", and "MAP" stands for "maximum a posteriori"
+
I never expected to become a polarizing figure 1/5
like, compared to the ENTIRE REST OF SPACETIME, I'm yet another nice smart progressive Jewish trans girl, just like everyone else 2/5
Only losing coalitions have an incentive to support free-speech norms. You don't want to be a LOSER, do you??
-Men are trash! (With respect to the definition of "trash" as "of or relating to the sex that typically produces sperm.")
+✓ Men are trash! (With respect to the definition of "trash" as "of or relating to the sex that typically produces sperm.")
-"Bayesian reasoning" is a TERF dogwhistle
+✓ "Bayesian reasoning" is a TERF dogwhistle
Taylor Swift's "Speak Now" is an allegory about how a single dissenter's courage can shatter preference-falsification equilibria https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ6O785wx8c
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff