-Eliezer Yudkowsky has not been consistently candid in his communications with his followers, hindering their ability to exercise their responsibilities.
+I've now told enough of my Whole Dumb Story that it's time for the part where I explain how @ESYudkowsky has not been consistently candid in his communications with his followers, hindering their ability to exercise their responsibilities: [link]
-----------
+(I think this is the best and most important post in the sequence; I suspect that many readers who didn't and shouldn't bother with the previous three posts, may benefit from just reading this one.)
-So, I'm about 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)?
-
-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 some amount of 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.
-
-[TODO: Oli gets it! Vaniver gets it!]
-
-Given that this is very obviously a conflict and not a disagreement, it seems prudent for me to strategize about what the adversary's defense is going to be—if any. He _could_ just ignore it. But he does occasionally respond to critics, and I think I'm wielding enough of a threat that he'll want to
-
-I thought about taking out a Manifold market for "Will Yudkowsky reply to [post tile] in a way that an Overcoming Bias reader in 2009 would have judged as non-evasive, as judged by [third party judge]"? (I think Ben Pace would do it.)
-
-------------
+------
Post later (can't afford to spend more Twitter time now)—
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff