+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]
-Eliezer Yudkowsky has not been consistently candid in his communications with his followers, hindering their ability to exercise their responsibilities. 1/
+(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 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 doesn't seem capable of entertaining the perspective under which the published text of the Sequences might have led someone to form higher expectations of his performance. 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.)
-
-Given that this is very obviously a conflict and not a disagreement, it seems 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 pre-empt 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 have judged as 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 market makes him less likely to ass-cover, because it would look very bad for him if the judge rules that a 2009 _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, 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 claim 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 _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.
-
-----------------
+------
Post later (can't afford to spend more Twitter time now)—
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff