From 31ae82a297387a96ecf57aac397363fcface8b6e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Zack M. Davis" Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 21:31:21 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 01/16] poke at pt. 4 prep --- ...xhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md | 2 +- notes/memoir-sections.md | 19 ++++++++++--------- notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv | 3 ++- notes/tweet_pad.txt | 18 +++++++++++++++++- 4 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md index 1eddba2..2ab8de5 100644 --- a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md +++ b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md @@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ It would seem that in the current year, that culture is dead—or if it has any At this point, some readers might protest that I'm being too uncharitable in harping on the "not liking to be tossed into a [...] Bucket" paragraph. The same post also explicitly says that "[i]t's not that no truth-bearing propositions about these issues can possibly exist." I agree that there are some interpretations of "not lik[ing] to be tossed into a Male Bucket or Female Bucket" that make sense, even though biological sex denialism does not make sense. Given that the author is Eliezer Yudkowsky, should I not give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he meant to communicate the reading that does make sense, rather than the reading that doesn't make sense? -I reply: _given that the author is Eliezer Yudkowsky_—no, obviously not. I have been ["trained in a theory of social deception that says that people can arrange reasons, excuses, for anything"](https://www.glowfic.com/replies/1820866#reply-1820866), such that it's informative ["to look at what _ended up_ happening, assume it was the _intended_ result, and ask who benefited."](http://www.hpmor.com/chapter/47) Yudkowsky is just too talented a writer for it to be a coincidence that his rational analysis of pronoun conventions just happens to affirm trans activist sensibilities and to avoid mentioning any specific unfavorable truth-bearing propositions about these issues that could possibly exist. Where the text is ambiguous about whether biological sex is a real thing that people should be able to talk about despite someone's "not lik[ing] to be tossed into a Male Bucket or Female Bucket", I think it's ambiguous for a reason. +I reply: _given that the author is Eliezer Yudkowsky_—no, obviously not. I have been ["trained in a theory of social deception that says that people can arrange reasons, excuses, for anything"](https://www.glowfic.com/replies/1820866#reply-1820866), such that it's informative ["to look at what _ended up_ happening, assume it was the _intended_ result, and ask who benefited."](http://www.hpmor.com/chapter/47) If Yudkowsky just wanted to post about how gendered pronouns in English are unnecessary and bad as an apolitical matter of language design, he could have written a post making that point without coupling it to a [self-undermining reform proposal](/2022/Mar/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal/) and sanctimonious flag-waving in support of people "not lik[ing] to be tossed into a Male Bucket or Female Bucket". Where the text is ambiguous about whether biological sex is a real thing that people should be able to talk about, I think it's ambiguous for a reason. When smart people act dumb, it's often wise to conjecture that their behavior represents [_optimized_ stupidity](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sXHQ9R5tahiaXEZhR/algorithmic-intent-a-hansonian-generalized-anti-zombie)—apparent "stupidity" that achieves a goal through some channel other than their words straightforwardly reflecting reality. Someone who was actually stupid wouldn't be able to generate text so carefully fine-tuned to reach a gender-politically convenient conclusion without explicitly invoking any controversial gender-political reasoning. I think the point is to pander to biological sex denialists without technically saying anything unambiguously false that someone could call out as a "lie." diff --git a/notes/memoir-sections.md b/notes/memoir-sections.md index 31f8a07..42c0dab 100644 --- a/notes/memoir-sections.md +++ b/notes/memoir-sections.md @@ -1,28 +1,27 @@ pt. 4 edit tier— ✓ "A Fire" § title -_ revise the start of §6 to say he came by core pronoun stance honestly -_ revise "too good a writer" to be more explicit "someone could be that naive" -_ footnote about how I could be blamed for being too credulous +✓ revise "too good a writer" to be more explicit "someone could be that naive" +_ footnote about how I could be blamed for being too credulous? _ say that explicitly, up front, at the start of that … chunk. _ edit post to clarify "nudging the cognition" -_ revise start of §6 to say that -_ look for a place to link "Faction formation" _ Tail's objection to FFS example _ Brennan "everyone else should participate" needs more wording adjustments _ the mailing list post noted it as a "common sexual fantasy" _ Sept. 2020 clarification noted that a distinction should be made between _ 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 +_ look for a place to link http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/ +_ look for a place to link https://cognition.cafe/p/on-lies-and-liars _ cite more sneers; use a footnote to pack in as many as possible _ Dawkins and Jerry Coyne and https://www.thefp.com/p/carole-hooven-why-i-left-harvard +_ make sure I'm summarizing "Challenges" appropriately time-sensitive globals TODOs— ✓ consult Said ✓ patriate-links script TODOs -_ remaining pt. 4 edit tier -_ draft Twitter thread -_ draft #drama strategy comments +- remaining pt. 4 edit tier +- draft #drama strategy opening remarks _ consult Anna +_ draft Twitter thread _ #drama strategy session _ bully Jeff Ladish _ PUBLISH pt. 4!! @@ -1359,6 +1358,8 @@ Still citing it (19 Sep 22): https://twitter.com/ingalala/status/156839169106472 https://arbital.greaterwrong.com/p/logical_dt/?l=5gc It even leaked into Big Yud!!! "Counterfactuals were made for humanity, not humanity for counterfactuals." +Still citing it (13 Feb 24): https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kSq5qiafd6SqQoJWv/technologies-and-terminology-ai-isn-t-software-it-s-deepware + At least I don't have to link the rebuttal myself every time: https://www.datasecretslox.com/index.php/topic,1553.msg38755.html https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/10vx6gk/the_categories_were_made_for_man_not_man_for_the/j7k8fjc/ diff --git a/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv b/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv index 7ae5111..7023806 100644 --- a/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv +++ b/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv @@ -665,4 +665,5 @@ 02/10/2024,118628,0 02/11/2024,118630,2 02/12/2024,118637,7 -02/13/2024,, \ No newline at end of file +02/13/2024,118639,2 +02/14/2024,, \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/notes/tweet_pad.txt b/notes/tweet_pad.txt index 1d51833..1118c01 100644 --- a/notes/tweet_pad.txt +++ b/notes/tweet_pad.txt @@ -1,4 +1,20 @@ -If you only want to read one of the 20K-word posts in this sequence, I'd skip this one and return next week for the part where I explain how Eliezer Yudkowsky has not been consistently candid in his communications with his followers, hindering their ability to exercise their responsibilities. +Eliezer Yudkowsky has not been consistently candid in his communications with his followers, hindering their ability to exercise their responsibilities. + +---------- + +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)— -- 2.17.1 From 0acf80933772c65678f85be64c1bb11dcc75555a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Zack M. Davis" Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 19:54:16 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 02/16] poke at pt. 4 prep, incl. #drama strategy opening statement MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I'm not happy with my motivation this week—it looks like I'm going to miss the framerule for publishing on Saturday! I don't want to rush it—I want to be absolutely comfortable that what I'm doing is rock-solid. Still disappointing. (And then I'll catch up with everything I've been putting off in March?) --- ...exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md | 4 ++-- notes/memoir-sections.md | 10 +++++++--- notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv | 3 ++- notes/tweet_pad.txt | 18 ++++++++++++------ 4 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md index 2ab8de5..61edf69 100644 --- a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md +++ b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md @@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ It would seem that in the current year, that culture is dead—or if it has any At this point, some readers might protest that I'm being too uncharitable in harping on the "not liking to be tossed into a [...] Bucket" paragraph. The same post also explicitly says that "[i]t's not that no truth-bearing propositions about these issues can possibly exist." I agree that there are some interpretations of "not lik[ing] to be tossed into a Male Bucket or Female Bucket" that make sense, even though biological sex denialism does not make sense. Given that the author is Eliezer Yudkowsky, should I not give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he meant to communicate the reading that does make sense, rather than the reading that doesn't make sense? -I reply: _given that the author is Eliezer Yudkowsky_—no, obviously not. I have been ["trained in a theory of social deception that says that people can arrange reasons, excuses, for anything"](https://www.glowfic.com/replies/1820866#reply-1820866), such that it's informative ["to look at what _ended up_ happening, assume it was the _intended_ result, and ask who benefited."](http://www.hpmor.com/chapter/47) If Yudkowsky just wanted to post about how gendered pronouns in English are unnecessary and bad as an apolitical matter of language design, he could have written a post making that point without coupling it to a [self-undermining reform proposal](/2022/Mar/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal/) and sanctimonious flag-waving in support of people "not lik[ing] to be tossed into a Male Bucket or Female Bucket". Where the text is ambiguous about whether biological sex is a real thing that people should be able to talk about, I think it's ambiguous for a reason. +I reply: _given that the author is Eliezer Yudkowsky_—no, obviously not. I have been ["trained in a theory of social deception that says that people can arrange reasons, excuses, for anything"](https://www.glowfic.com/replies/1820866#reply-1820866), such that it's informative ["to look at what _ended up_ happening, assume it was the _intended_ result, and ask who benefited."](http://www.hpmor.com/chapter/47) If Yudkowsky just wanted to post about how gendered pronouns are unnecessary and bad as an apolitical matter of language design, he could have written a post making that point without coupling it to a [self-undermining reform proposal](/2022/Mar/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal/) and sanctimonious flag-waving in support of people "not lik[ing] to be tossed into a Male Bucket or Female Bucket". Where the text is ambiguous about whether biological sex is a real thing that people should be able to talk about, I think it's ambiguous on purpose. When smart people act dumb, it's often wise to conjecture that their behavior represents [_optimized_ stupidity](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sXHQ9R5tahiaXEZhR/algorithmic-intent-a-hansonian-generalized-anti-zombie)—apparent "stupidity" that achieves a goal through some channel other than their words straightforwardly reflecting reality. Someone who was actually stupid wouldn't be able to generate text so carefully fine-tuned to reach a gender-politically convenient conclusion without explicitly invoking any controversial gender-political reasoning. I think the point is to pander to biological sex denialists without technically saying anything unambiguously false that someone could call out as a "lie." @@ -413,7 +413,7 @@ And if it's too much to expect garden-variety "rationalists" to figure out on th Then I would have at least expected Eliezer Yudkowsky to take actions _in favor of_ rather than _against_ his faithful students having these basic capabilities for reflection, self-observation, and ... speech? I would have expected Eliezer Yudkowsky to not _actively exert optimization pressure in the direction of transforming me into a Jane Austen character_. -### This Isn't About Subjective Intent +### Criticism of Public Statements Is About the Public Statements, Not Subjective Intent This is the part where Yudkowsky or his flunkies accuse me of being uncharitable, of [failing at perspective-taking](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1435617576495714304) and [embracing conspiracy theories](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1708587781424046242). Obviously, Yudkowsky doesn't _think of himself_ as trying to transform his faithful students into Jane Austen characters. Perhaps, then, I have failed to understand his position? [As Yudkowsky put it](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1435618825198731270): diff --git a/notes/memoir-sections.md b/notes/memoir-sections.md index 42c0dab..f6ac950 100644 --- a/notes/memoir-sections.md +++ b/notes/memoir-sections.md @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@ pt. 4 edit tier— ✓ "A Fire" § title -✓ revise "too good a writer" to be more explicit "someone could be that naive" +- revise "too good a writer" to be more explicit "someone could be that naive" +_ make sure I'm summarizing "policy debates" moral from "Challenges" _ footnote about how I could be blamed for being too credulous? _ say that explicitly, up front, at the start of that … chunk. _ edit post to clarify "nudging the cognition" @@ -13,7 +14,7 @@ _ look for a place to link http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/ _ look for a place to link https://cognition.cafe/p/on-lies-and-liars _ cite more sneers; use a footnote to pack in as many as possible _ Dawkins and Jerry Coyne and https://www.thefp.com/p/carole-hooven-why-i-left-harvard -_ make sure I'm summarizing "Challenges" appropriately +_ parenthetical defending literal fraud time-sensitive globals TODOs— ✓ consult Said @@ -21,8 +22,8 @@ time-sensitive globals TODOs— - remaining pt. 4 edit tier - draft #drama strategy opening remarks _ consult Anna -_ draft Twitter thread _ #drama strategy session +_ draft Twitter thread _ bully Jeff Ladish _ PUBLISH pt. 4!! @@ -2831,3 +2832,6 @@ https://scholars-stage.org/public-intellectuals-have-short-shelf-lives-but-why/ > "Racism" is so commonly used weirdly that I think there are few circumstances left where I'd try to use the word to communicate. Instead I'd say, "X seems to be judging people negatively in a hard-to-shake-off way based on their skin color." https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1755624226550387013 + +> "Study science, not just me!" is probably the most important piece of advice Ayn Rand should've given her followers and didn't. There's no one human being who ever lived, whose shoulders were broad enough to bear all the weight of a true science with many contributors. +https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/96TBXaHwLbFyeAxrg/guardians-of-ayn-rand diff --git a/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv b/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv index 7023806..12eab78 100644 --- a/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv +++ b/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv @@ -666,4 +666,5 @@ 02/11/2024,118630,2 02/12/2024,118637,7 02/13/2024,118639,2 -02/14/2024,, \ No newline at end of file +02/14/2024,118643,4 +02/15/2024,, \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/notes/tweet_pad.txt b/notes/tweet_pad.txt index 1118c01..da315d3 100644 --- a/notes/tweet_pad.txt +++ b/notes/tweet_pad.txt @@ -1,20 +1,26 @@ -Eliezer Yudkowsky has not been consistently candid in his communications with his followers, hindering their ability to exercise their responsibilities. + +Eliezer Yudkowsky has not been consistently candid in his communications with his followers, hindering their ability to exercise their responsibilities. 1/ ---------- 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. +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. -[TODO: Oli gets it! Vaniver gets it!] +(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! () Vaniver gets it! () 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. -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 +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_. -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.) +[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)— -- 2.17.1 From 7bc920b52eb3640b7e23b3109ed2b9c24cfd8d27 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Zack M. Davis" Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2024 10:00:13 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 03/16] pt. 4 edits from an incomplete day Was having trouble concentrating yesterday, and then a medical emergency came up. Concentration deficit is probably related to me being sick of this, definitely need to shove it out the door this week. --- ...xhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md | 17 +++++++++++++++-- notes/memoir-sections.md | 10 +++++----- notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv | 4 +++- notes/tweet_pad.txt | 19 +++++++++++++------ 4 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md index 61edf69..ef4e0c4 100644 --- a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md +++ b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md @@ -139,10 +139,12 @@ And I think I _would_ have been over it ... ### Yudkowsky Doubles Down (February 2021) -I eventually explained what was wrong with Yudkowsky's new arguments at the length of 12,000 words in March 2022's ["Challenges to Yudkowsky's Pronoun Reform Proposal"](/2022/Mar/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal/),[^challenges-title] but that post focused on the object-level arguments; I have more to say here (that I decided to cut from "Challenges") about the meta-level political context. The February 2021 post on pronouns is a fascinating document, in its own way—a penetrating case study on the effects of politics on a formerly great mind. +I eventually explained what was wrong with Yudkowsky's new arguments at the length of 12,000 words in March 2022's ["Challenges to Yudkowsky's Pronoun Reform Proposal"](/2022/Mar/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal/),[^challenges-title]. Briefly: given a conflict over pronoun conventions, there's not going to be a "right answer", but we can at least be objective in describing what the conflict is about, and Yudkowsky wasn't doing that. Given that we can't coordinate a switch to universal singular _they_, the pronouns _she_ and _he_ continue to have different meanings in the minds of native English speakers, in the sense that your mind forms different probabilistic expectations of someone taking feminine or masculine pronouns. That's _why_ trans people want to be referred to by the pronoun corresponding to their chosen gender; if there were literally no difference in meaning, there would be no reason to care. Thus, making the distinction on the basis of gender identity rather than sex [has consequences](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/veN86cBhoe7mBxXLk/categorizing-has-consequences); by proclaiming his "simplest and best protocol" without acknowledging the ways in which it's _not_ simple and not _unambiguously_ the best, Yudkowsky was failing to heed that [policy debates should not appear one-sided](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided). [^challenges-title]: The title is an allusion to Yudkowsky's ["Challenges to Christiano's Capability Amplification Proposal"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/S7csET9CgBtpi7sCh/challenges-to-christiano-s-capability-amplification-proposal). +I have more to say here (that I decided to cut from "Challenges") about the meta-level political context. The February 2021 post on pronouns is a fascinating document, in its own way—a penetrating case study on the effects of politics on a formerly great mind. + Yudkowsky begins by setting the context of "[h]aving received a bit of private pushback" on his willingness to declare that asking someone to use a different pronoun is not lying. But the reason he got a bit [("a bit")](/2023/Jul/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning/) of private pushback was because the original "hill of meaning" thread was so blatantly optimized to intimidate and delegitimize people who want to use language to reason about biological sex. The pushback wasn't about using trans people's preferred pronouns (I do that, too), or about not wanting pronouns to imply sex (sounds fine, if we were defining a conlang from scratch); the problem is using an argument that's ostensibly about pronouns to sneak in an implicature (["Who competes in sports segregated around an Aristotelian binary is a policy question [ ] that I personally find very humorous"](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1067490362225156096)) that it's dumb and wrong to want to talk about the sense in which trans women are male and trans men are female, as a fact about reality that continues to be true even if it hurts someone's feelings, and even if policy decisions made on the basis of that fact are not themselves facts (as if anyone had doubted this). @@ -231,7 +233,18 @@ It would seem that in the current year, that culture is dead—or if it has any At this point, some readers might protest that I'm being too uncharitable in harping on the "not liking to be tossed into a [...] Bucket" paragraph. The same post also explicitly says that "[i]t's not that no truth-bearing propositions about these issues can possibly exist." I agree that there are some interpretations of "not lik[ing] to be tossed into a Male Bucket or Female Bucket" that make sense, even though biological sex denialism does not make sense. Given that the author is Eliezer Yudkowsky, should I not give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he meant to communicate the reading that does make sense, rather than the reading that doesn't make sense? -I reply: _given that the author is Eliezer Yudkowsky_—no, obviously not. I have been ["trained in a theory of social deception that says that people can arrange reasons, excuses, for anything"](https://www.glowfic.com/replies/1820866#reply-1820866), such that it's informative ["to look at what _ended up_ happening, assume it was the _intended_ result, and ask who benefited."](http://www.hpmor.com/chapter/47) If Yudkowsky just wanted to post about how gendered pronouns are unnecessary and bad as an apolitical matter of language design, he could have written a post making that point without coupling it to a [self-undermining reform proposal](/2022/Mar/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal/) and sanctimonious flag-waving in support of people "not lik[ing] to be tossed into a Male Bucket or Female Bucket". Where the text is ambiguous about whether biological sex is a real thing that people should be able to talk about, I think it's ambiguous on purpose. +I reply: _given that the author is Eliezer Yudkowsky_—no, obviously not. I have been ["trained in a theory of social deception that says that people can arrange reasons, excuses, for anything"](https://www.glowfic.com/replies/1820866#reply-1820866), such that it's informative ["to look at what _ended up_ happening, assume it was the _intended_ result, and ask who benefited."](http://www.hpmor.com/chapter/47) If Yudkowsky just wanted to post about how gendered pronouns are unnecessary and bad as an apolitical matter of language design, he could have written a post making that narrow point. + +What ended up happening is that he wrote + +[TODO: fix up the end of this paragraph] + +without coupling it to a [self-undermining reform proposal](/2022/Mar/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal/) and sanctimonious flag-waving in support of people "not lik[ing] to be tossed into a Male Bucket or Female Bucket". + + + + +Where the text is ambiguous about whether biological sex is a real thing that people should be able to talk about, I think it's ambiguous on purpose. When smart people act dumb, it's often wise to conjecture that their behavior represents [_optimized_ stupidity](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sXHQ9R5tahiaXEZhR/algorithmic-intent-a-hansonian-generalized-anti-zombie)—apparent "stupidity" that achieves a goal through some channel other than their words straightforwardly reflecting reality. Someone who was actually stupid wouldn't be able to generate text so carefully fine-tuned to reach a gender-politically convenient conclusion without explicitly invoking any controversial gender-political reasoning. I think the point is to pander to biological sex denialists without technically saying anything unambiguously false that someone could call out as a "lie." diff --git a/notes/memoir-sections.md b/notes/memoir-sections.md index f6ac950..f067e32 100644 --- a/notes/memoir-sections.md +++ b/notes/memoir-sections.md @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ pt. 4 edit tier— ✓ "A Fire" § title +✓ make sure I'm summarizing "policy debates" moral from "Challenges" - revise "too good a writer" to be more explicit "someone could be that naive" -_ make sure I'm summarizing "policy debates" moral from "Challenges" _ footnote about how I could be blamed for being too credulous? _ say that explicitly, up front, at the start of that … chunk. _ edit post to clarify "nudging the cognition" @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ _ Brennan "everyone else should participate" needs more wording adjustments _ the mailing list post noted it as a "common sexual fantasy" _ Sept. 2020 clarification noted that a distinction should be made between _ emphasize that 2018 thread was policing TERF-like pronoun usage, not just disapproving of gender-based pronouns -_ look for a place to link http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/ -_ look for a place to link https://cognition.cafe/p/on-lies-and-liars +_ look for a place to link http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/discursive-warfare-and-faction-formation/ _ cite more sneers; use a footnote to pack in as many as possible +_ Stephen Jay Gould _ Dawkins and Jerry Coyne and https://www.thefp.com/p/carole-hooven-why-i-left-harvard -_ parenthetical defending literal fraud +_ parenthetical defending literal fraud? time-sensitive globals TODOs— ✓ consult Said @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ time-sensitive globals TODOs— _ consult Anna _ #drama strategy session _ draft Twitter thread +_ consult lc? _ bully Jeff Ladish _ PUBLISH pt. 4!! @@ -39,7 +40,6 @@ _ apply pro edit pt. 5 ✓ consult Tail -_ consult lc _ consult David Xu _ psychiatric disaster private doc diff --git a/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv b/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv index 12eab78..fb060b7 100644 --- a/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv +++ b/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv @@ -667,4 +667,6 @@ 02/12/2024,118637,7 02/13/2024,118639,2 02/14/2024,118643,4 -02/15/2024,, \ No newline at end of file +02/15/2024,118643,0 +02/16/2024,118811,168 +02/17/2024,, diff --git a/notes/tweet_pad.txt b/notes/tweet_pad.txt index da315d3..afa8c1a 100644 --- a/notes/tweet_pad.txt +++ b/notes/tweet_pad.txt @@ -5,20 +5,27 @@ Eliezer Yudkowsky has not been consistently candid in his communications with hi 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. +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! () Vaniver gets it! () 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.) +(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! () Vaniver gets it! () 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? +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 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. +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, I'm just as happy to prosecute him _in absentia_. +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 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. +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] ---------------- -- 2.17.1 From 92f9ee528fd56127161b43867750418d8fcbdfec Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Zack M. Davis" Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 20:33:08 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 04/16] poke --- ...xhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md | 23 +++++++------------ notes/memoir-sections.md | 13 +++++++---- 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md index ef4e0c4..80e0eb6 100644 --- a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md +++ b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md @@ -233,20 +233,9 @@ It would seem that in the current year, that culture is dead—or if it has any At this point, some readers might protest that I'm being too uncharitable in harping on the "not liking to be tossed into a [...] Bucket" paragraph. The same post also explicitly says that "[i]t's not that no truth-bearing propositions about these issues can possibly exist." I agree that there are some interpretations of "not lik[ing] to be tossed into a Male Bucket or Female Bucket" that make sense, even though biological sex denialism does not make sense. Given that the author is Eliezer Yudkowsky, should I not give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he meant to communicate the reading that does make sense, rather than the reading that doesn't make sense? -I reply: _given that the author is Eliezer Yudkowsky_—no, obviously not. I have been ["trained in a theory of social deception that says that people can arrange reasons, excuses, for anything"](https://www.glowfic.com/replies/1820866#reply-1820866), such that it's informative ["to look at what _ended up_ happening, assume it was the _intended_ result, and ask who benefited."](http://www.hpmor.com/chapter/47) If Yudkowsky just wanted to post about how gendered pronouns are unnecessary and bad as an apolitical matter of language design, he could have written a post making that narrow point. +I reply: _given that the author is Eliezer Yudkowsky_—no, obviously not. I have been ["trained in a theory of social deception that says that people can arrange reasons, excuses, for anything"](https://www.glowfic.com/replies/1820866#reply-1820866), such that it's informative ["to look at what _ended up_ happening, assume it was the _intended_ result, and ask who benefited."](http://www.hpmor.com/chapter/47) If Yudkowsky just wanted to post about how gendered pronouns are unnecessary and bad as an apolitical matter of language design, he could have written a post just making that narrow point. What ended up happening is that he wrote a post featuring sanctimonious flag-waving about the precious feelings of people "not lik[ing] to be tossed into a Male Bucket or Female Bucket", and concluding with a policy proposal that gives the trans activist side everything they want, proclaiming this "the simplest and best protocol" without so much as acknowledging the real arguments on [the other side of the policy debate](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided). -What ended up happening is that he wrote - -[TODO: fix up the end of this paragraph] - -without coupling it to a [self-undermining reform proposal](/2022/Mar/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal/) and sanctimonious flag-waving in support of people "not lik[ing] to be tossed into a Male Bucket or Female Bucket". - - - - -Where the text is ambiguous about whether biological sex is a real thing that people should be able to talk about, I think it's ambiguous on purpose. - -When smart people act dumb, it's often wise to conjecture that their behavior represents [_optimized_ stupidity](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sXHQ9R5tahiaXEZhR/algorithmic-intent-a-hansonian-generalized-anti-zombie)—apparent "stupidity" that achieves a goal through some channel other than their words straightforwardly reflecting reality. Someone who was actually stupid wouldn't be able to generate text so carefully fine-tuned to reach a gender-politically convenient conclusion without explicitly invoking any controversial gender-political reasoning. I think the point is to pander to biological sex denialists without technically saying anything unambiguously false that someone could call out as a "lie." +When smart people act dumb, it's often wise to conjecture that their behavior represents [_optimized_ stupidity](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sXHQ9R5tahiaXEZhR/algorithmic-intent-a-hansonian-generalized-anti-zombie)—apparent "stupidity" that achieves a goal through some channel other than their words straightforwardly reflecting reality. Someone who was actually stupid wouldn't be able to generate text so carefully fine-tuned to reach a gender-politically convenient conclusion without explicitly invoking any controversial gender-political reasoning. Where the text is ambiguous about whether biological sex is a real thing that people should be able to talk about, I think the point is to pander to biological sex denialists without technically saying anything unambiguously false that someone could call out as a "lie." On a close reading of the comment section, we see hints that Yudkowsky does not obviously disagree with this interpretation of his behavior? First, we get [a disclaimer comment](/images/yudkowsky-the_disclaimer.png): @@ -524,7 +513,11 @@ Eliezer Yudkowsky did not _unambiguously_ choose Feelings. He's been very carefu In making such boasts, I think Yudkowsky is opting in to being held to higher standards than other mortals. If Scott Alexander gets something wrong when I was trusting him to be right, that's disappointing, but I'm not the victim of false advertising, because Scott Alexander doesn't claim to be anything more than some guy with a blog. If I trusted him more than that, that's on me. -If Eliezer Yudkowsky gets something wrong when I was trusting him to be right, and refuses to acknowledge corrections (in the absence of an unsustainable 21-month nagging campaign), and keeps inventing new galaxy-brained ways to be wrong in the service of his political agenda of being seen to agree with Stalin without technically lying, then I think I _am_ the victim of false advertising. His marketing bluster was designed to trick people like me into trusting him, even if my being dumb enough to believe him is on me. +If Eliezer Yudkowsky gets something wrong when I was trusting him to be right, and refuses to acknowledge corrections (in the absence of an unsustainable 21-month nagging campaign), and keeps inventing new galaxy-brained ways to be wrong in the service of his political agenda of being seen to agree with Stalin without technically lying, then I think I _am_ the victim of false advertising. His marketing bluster was designed to trick people like me into trusting him, even if my being dumb enough to believe him is on me.[^gullible] + +[^gullible]: Perhaps some readers will consider this post to be more revealing about my character rather than Yudkowsky's: that [everybody knows](https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2019/07/02/everybody-knows/) his bluster wasn't supposed to be taken seriously. I have no more right to complain about "false advertising" than purchasers of a ["World's Best"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery) ice-cream who are horrified (or pretending to be) that it may not objectively be the best in the world. + + Such readers might have a point! [TODO finish footnote] Because, I did, actually, trust him. Back in 2009 when _Less Wrong_ was new, we had a thread of hyperbolic ["Eliezer Yudkowsky Facts"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Ndtb22KYBxpBsagpj/eliezer-yudkowsky-facts) (in the style of [Chuck Norris facts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Norris_facts)). ["Never go in against Eliezer Yudkowsky when anything is on the line"](https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/Ndtb22KYBxpBsagpj/eliezer-yudkowsky-facts/comment/Aq9eWJmK6Liivn8ND), said one of the facts—and back then, I didn't think I would _need_ to. @@ -534,7 +527,7 @@ He visibly [cared about other people being in touch with reality](https://www.le [^bo-heroism]: A lot of the epistemic heroism here is just in [noticing](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/SA79JMXKWke32A3hG/original-seeing) the conflict between Feelings and Truth, between Politeness and Truth, rather than necessarily acting on it. If telling a person they smell bad would predictably meet harsh social punishment, I couldn't blame someone for consciously choosing silence and safety over telling the truth. - What I can and do blame someone for is actively fighting for Feelings while misrepresenting himself as the rightful caliph of epistemic rationality. There are a lot of trans people who would benefit from feedback that they don't pass but aren't getting that feedback by default. I wouldn't necessarily expect Yudkowsky to provide it. (I don't, either.) I _would_ expect the person who wrote the Sequences not to publicly proclaim that the important thing is the feelings of people describing reasons someone does not like to be tossed into a Smells Bad bucket which don't bear on the factual question of whether someone smells bad. + What I can and do blame someone for is actively fighting for Feelings while misrepresenting himself as the rightful caliph of epistemic rationality. There are a lot of trans people who would benefit from feedback that they don't pass but aren't getting that feedback by default. I wouldn't necessarily expect Yudkowsky to provide it. (I don't, either.) I _would_ expect the person who wrote the Sequences not to proclaim that the important thing is the feelings of people who do not like to be tossed into a Smells Bad bucket which don't bear on the factual question of whether someone smells bad. That person is dead now, even if his body is still breathing. diff --git a/notes/memoir-sections.md b/notes/memoir-sections.md index f067e32..ef52b13 100644 --- a/notes/memoir-sections.md +++ b/notes/memoir-sections.md @@ -1,27 +1,30 @@ pt. 4 edit tier— ✓ "A Fire" § title ✓ make sure I'm summarizing "policy debates" moral from "Challenges" -- revise "too good a writer" to be more explicit "someone could be that naive" -_ footnote about how I could be blamed for being too credulous? +✓ revise "too good a writer" to be more explicit "someone could be that naive" +- footnote about how I could be blamed for being too credulous? _ say that explicitly, up front, at the start of that … chunk. _ edit post to clarify "nudging the cognition" _ Tail's objection to FFS example _ Brennan "everyone else should participate" needs more wording adjustments -_ the mailing list post noted it as a "common sexual fantasy" _ Sept. 2020 clarification noted that a distinction should be made between _ emphasize that 2018 thread was policing TERF-like pronoun usage, not just disapproving of gender-based pronouns _ look for a place to link http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/discursive-warfare-and-faction-formation/ +_ parenthetical defending literal fraud? +----- +requires net— +_ the mailing list post noted it as a "common sexual fantasy" _ cite more sneers; use a footnote to pack in as many as possible _ Stephen Jay Gould _ Dawkins and Jerry Coyne and https://www.thefp.com/p/carole-hooven-why-i-left-harvard -_ parenthetical defending literal fraud? + time-sensitive globals TODOs— ✓ consult Said ✓ patriate-links script TODOs - remaining pt. 4 edit tier - draft #drama strategy opening remarks -_ consult Anna +- consult Anna _ #drama strategy session _ draft Twitter thread _ consult lc? -- 2.17.1 From fdf44ffd384a69c2c0a067d1d362235c76d80fec Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Zack M. Davis" Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 21:04:34 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 05/16] memoir: molasses pokes at pt. 4 continue --- ...-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md | 8 ++++---- notes/memoir-sections.md | 3 +-- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md index 80e0eb6..c04a73c 100644 --- a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md +++ b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md @@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ It would seem that in the current year, that culture is dead—or if it has any At this point, some readers might protest that I'm being too uncharitable in harping on the "not liking to be tossed into a [...] Bucket" paragraph. The same post also explicitly says that "[i]t's not that no truth-bearing propositions about these issues can possibly exist." I agree that there are some interpretations of "not lik[ing] to be tossed into a Male Bucket or Female Bucket" that make sense, even though biological sex denialism does not make sense. Given that the author is Eliezer Yudkowsky, should I not give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he meant to communicate the reading that does make sense, rather than the reading that doesn't make sense? -I reply: _given that the author is Eliezer Yudkowsky_—no, obviously not. I have been ["trained in a theory of social deception that says that people can arrange reasons, excuses, for anything"](https://www.glowfic.com/replies/1820866#reply-1820866), such that it's informative ["to look at what _ended up_ happening, assume it was the _intended_ result, and ask who benefited."](http://www.hpmor.com/chapter/47) If Yudkowsky just wanted to post about how gendered pronouns are unnecessary and bad as an apolitical matter of language design, he could have written a post just making that narrow point. What ended up happening is that he wrote a post featuring sanctimonious flag-waving about the precious feelings of people "not lik[ing] to be tossed into a Male Bucket or Female Bucket", and concluding with a policy proposal that gives the trans activist side everything they want, proclaiming this "the simplest and best protocol" without so much as acknowledging the real arguments on [the other side of the policy debate](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided). +I reply: _given that the author is Eliezer Yudkowsky_—no, obviously not. I have been ["trained in a theory of social deception that says that people can arrange reasons, excuses, for anything"](https://www.glowfic.com/replies/1820866#reply-1820866), such that it's informative ["to look at what _ended up_ happening, assume it was the _intended_ result, and ask who benefited."](http://www.hpmor.com/chapter/47) If Yudkowsky just wanted to post about how gendered pronouns are unnecessary and bad as an apolitical matter of language design, he could have written a post just making that narrow point. What ended up happening is that he wrote a post featuring sanctimonious flag-waving about the precious feelings of people "not lik[ing] to be tossed into a Male Bucket or Female Bucket", and concluding with a policy proposal that gives the trans activist coalition everything they want, proclaiming this "the simplest and best protocol" without so much as acknowledging the real arguments on [the other side of the policy debate](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided). I don't think it's crazy to assume this was the intended result, and to ask who benefitted. When smart people act dumb, it's often wise to conjecture that their behavior represents [_optimized_ stupidity](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sXHQ9R5tahiaXEZhR/algorithmic-intent-a-hansonian-generalized-anti-zombie)—apparent "stupidity" that achieves a goal through some channel other than their words straightforwardly reflecting reality. Someone who was actually stupid wouldn't be able to generate text so carefully fine-tuned to reach a gender-politically convenient conclusion without explicitly invoking any controversial gender-political reasoning. Where the text is ambiguous about whether biological sex is a real thing that people should be able to talk about, I think the point is to pander to biological sex denialists without technically saying anything unambiguously false that someone could call out as a "lie." @@ -515,9 +515,9 @@ In making such boasts, I think Yudkowsky is opting in to being held to higher st If Eliezer Yudkowsky gets something wrong when I was trusting him to be right, and refuses to acknowledge corrections (in the absence of an unsustainable 21-month nagging campaign), and keeps inventing new galaxy-brained ways to be wrong in the service of his political agenda of being seen to agree with Stalin without technically lying, then I think I _am_ the victim of false advertising. His marketing bluster was designed to trick people like me into trusting him, even if my being dumb enough to believe him is on me.[^gullible] -[^gullible]: Perhaps some readers will consider this post to be more revealing about my character rather than Yudkowsky's: that [everybody knows](https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2019/07/02/everybody-knows/) his bluster wasn't supposed to be taken seriously. I have no more right to complain about "false advertising" than purchasers of a ["World's Best"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery) ice-cream who are horrified (or pretending to be) that it may not objectively be the best in the world. +[^gullible]: Perhaps some readers will consider this post to be more revealing about my character rather than Yudkowsky's: that [everybody knows](https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2019/07/02/everybody-knows/) his bluster wasn't supposed to be taken seriously, so I have no more right to complain about "false advertising" than purchasers of a ["World's Best"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery) ice-cream who are horrified (or pretending to be) that it may not objectively be the best in the world. - Such readers might have a point! [TODO finish footnote] + Such readers may have a point. If _you_ [already knew](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tSgcorrgBnrCH8nL3/don-t-revere-the-bearer-of-good-info) that Yudkowsky's pose of epistemic superiority was phony (because everyone knows), then you are wiser than I was. But I think there are a lot of people in the "rationalist" subculture who didn't know (because we weren't anyone). This post is for their benefit. Because, I did, actually, trust him. Back in 2009 when _Less Wrong_ was new, we had a thread of hyperbolic ["Eliezer Yudkowsky Facts"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Ndtb22KYBxpBsagpj/eliezer-yudkowsky-facts) (in the style of [Chuck Norris facts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Norris_facts)). ["Never go in against Eliezer Yudkowsky when anything is on the line"](https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/Ndtb22KYBxpBsagpj/eliezer-yudkowsky-facts/comment/Aq9eWJmK6Liivn8ND), said one of the facts—and back then, I didn't think I would _need_ to. @@ -527,7 +527,7 @@ He visibly [cared about other people being in touch with reality](https://www.le [^bo-heroism]: A lot of the epistemic heroism here is just in [noticing](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/SA79JMXKWke32A3hG/original-seeing) the conflict between Feelings and Truth, between Politeness and Truth, rather than necessarily acting on it. If telling a person they smell bad would predictably meet harsh social punishment, I couldn't blame someone for consciously choosing silence and safety over telling the truth. - What I can and do blame someone for is actively fighting for Feelings while misrepresenting himself as the rightful caliph of epistemic rationality. There are a lot of trans people who would benefit from feedback that they don't pass but aren't getting that feedback by default. I wouldn't necessarily expect Yudkowsky to provide it. (I don't, either.) I _would_ expect the person who wrote the Sequences not to proclaim that the important thing is the feelings of people who do not like to be tossed into a Smells Bad bucket which don't bear on the factual question of whether someone smells bad. + What I can and do blame someone for is actively fighting for Feelings while misrepresenting himself as the rightful caliph of epistemic rationality. There are a lot of trans people who would benefit from feedback that they don't pass but aren't getting that feedback by default. I wouldn't necessarily expect Yudkowsky to provide it. (I don't, either.) I _would_ expect the person who wrote the Sequences not to proclaim that the important thing is the feelings of people who do not like to be tossed into a Smells Bad bucket, which don't bear on the factual question of whether someone smells bad. That person is dead now, even if his body is still breathing. diff --git a/notes/memoir-sections.md b/notes/memoir-sections.md index ef52b13..515e163 100644 --- a/notes/memoir-sections.md +++ b/notes/memoir-sections.md @@ -2,8 +2,7 @@ pt. 4 edit tier— ✓ "A Fire" § title ✓ make sure I'm summarizing "policy debates" moral from "Challenges" ✓ revise "too good a writer" to be more explicit "someone could be that naive" -- footnote about how I could be blamed for being too credulous? -_ say that explicitly, up front, at the start of that … chunk. +✓ footnote about how I could be blamed for being too credulous? _ edit post to clarify "nudging the cognition" _ Tail's objection to FFS example _ Brennan "everyone else should participate" needs more wording adjustments -- 2.17.1 From ed65be61c9f409e87b6524aeb36038b4d86be7de Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Zack M. Davis" Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 21:14:42 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 06/16] check in --- notes/memoir-sections.md | 3 +-- notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv | 7 ++++++- notes/tweet_pad.txt | 11 ++++++++++- 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/notes/memoir-sections.md b/notes/memoir-sections.md index 515e163..80ed473 100644 --- a/notes/memoir-sections.md +++ b/notes/memoir-sections.md @@ -10,8 +10,7 @@ _ Sept. 2020 clarification noted that a distinction should be made between _ emphasize that 2018 thread was policing TERF-like pronoun usage, not just disapproving of gender-based pronouns _ look for a place to link http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/discursive-warfare-and-faction-formation/ _ parenthetical defending literal fraud? ------ -requires net— +_ link https://thingofthings.substack.com/p/why-callout-posts-often-include-trivial _ the mailing list post noted it as a "common sexual fantasy" _ cite more sneers; use a footnote to pack in as many as possible _ Stephen Jay Gould diff --git a/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv b/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv index fb060b7..e8c2ba8 100644 --- a/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv +++ b/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv @@ -669,4 +669,9 @@ 02/14/2024,118643,4 02/15/2024,118643,0 02/16/2024,118811,168 -02/17/2024,, +02/17/2024,118811,0 +02/18/2024,118811,0 +02/19/2024,118811,0 +02/20/2024,118902,91 +02/21/2024,118965,63 +02/22/2024,, \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/notes/tweet_pad.txt b/notes/tweet_pad.txt index afa8c1a..2014592 100644 --- a/notes/tweet_pad.txt +++ b/notes/tweet_pad.txt @@ -1,9 +1,18 @@ 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 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)? +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. -- 2.17.1 From fd1dc7ab70924dd0250e94c42e06dbfac5b5b5ff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Zack M. Davis" Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 12:41:44 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 07/16] check in --- ...xhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md | 10 ++-- notes/dath_ilan_scrap.md | 3 ++ notes/memoir-sections.md | 46 ++++++++++++++++--- notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv | 7 ++- notes/tweet_pad.txt | 24 ++++------ 5 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md index c04a73c..8701605 100644 --- a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md +++ b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md @@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ And I think I _would_ have been over it ... ### Yudkowsky Doubles Down (February 2021) -I eventually explained what was wrong with Yudkowsky's new arguments at the length of 12,000 words in March 2022's ["Challenges to Yudkowsky's Pronoun Reform Proposal"](/2022/Mar/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal/),[^challenges-title]. Briefly: given a conflict over pronoun conventions, there's not going to be a "right answer", but we can at least be objective in describing what the conflict is about, and Yudkowsky wasn't doing that. Given that we can't coordinate a switch to universal singular _they_, the pronouns _she_ and _he_ continue to have different meanings in the minds of native English speakers, in the sense that your mind forms different probabilistic expectations of someone taking feminine or masculine pronouns. That's _why_ trans people want to be referred to by the pronoun corresponding to their chosen gender; if there were literally no difference in meaning, there would be no reason to care. Thus, making the distinction on the basis of gender identity rather than sex [has consequences](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/veN86cBhoe7mBxXLk/categorizing-has-consequences); by proclaiming his "simplest and best protocol" without acknowledging the ways in which it's _not_ simple and not _unambiguously_ the best, Yudkowsky was failing to heed that [policy debates should not appear one-sided](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided). +I eventually explained what was wrong with Yudkowsky's new arguments at the length of 12,000 words in March 2022's ["Challenges to Yudkowsky's Pronoun Reform Proposal"](/2022/Mar/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal/),[^challenges-title]. Briefly: given a conflict over pronoun conventions, there's not going to be a "right answer", but we can at least be objective in describing what the conflict is about, and Yudkowsky wasn't doing that. Given that we can't coordinate a switch to universal singular _they_, the pronouns _she_ and _he_ continue to have different meanings in the minds of native English speakers, in the sense that your mind forms different probabilistic expectations of someone taking feminine or masculine pronouns. That's _why_ trans people want to be referred to by the pronoun corresponding to their chosen gender; if there were literally no difference in meaning, there would be no reason to care. Thus, making the distinction on the basis of gender identity rather than sex [has consequences](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/veN86cBhoe7mBxXLk/categorizing-has-consequences); by proclaiming his "simplest and best protocol" without acknowledging the ways in which it's _not_ simple and not _unambiguously_ the best, Yudkowsky was [falsely portraying the policy debate as one-sided](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided). [^challenges-title]: The title is an allusion to Yudkowsky's ["Challenges to Christiano's Capability Amplification Proposal"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/S7csET9CgBtpi7sCh/challenges-to-christiano-s-capability-amplification-proposal). @@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ It would seem that in the current year, that culture is dead—or if it has any At this point, some readers might protest that I'm being too uncharitable in harping on the "not liking to be tossed into a [...] Bucket" paragraph. The same post also explicitly says that "[i]t's not that no truth-bearing propositions about these issues can possibly exist." I agree that there are some interpretations of "not lik[ing] to be tossed into a Male Bucket or Female Bucket" that make sense, even though biological sex denialism does not make sense. Given that the author is Eliezer Yudkowsky, should I not give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he meant to communicate the reading that does make sense, rather than the reading that doesn't make sense? -I reply: _given that the author is Eliezer Yudkowsky_—no, obviously not. I have been ["trained in a theory of social deception that says that people can arrange reasons, excuses, for anything"](https://www.glowfic.com/replies/1820866#reply-1820866), such that it's informative ["to look at what _ended up_ happening, assume it was the _intended_ result, and ask who benefited."](http://www.hpmor.com/chapter/47) If Yudkowsky just wanted to post about how gendered pronouns are unnecessary and bad as an apolitical matter of language design, he could have written a post just making that narrow point. What ended up happening is that he wrote a post featuring sanctimonious flag-waving about the precious feelings of people "not lik[ing] to be tossed into a Male Bucket or Female Bucket", and concluding with a policy proposal that gives the trans activist coalition everything they want, proclaiming this "the simplest and best protocol" without so much as acknowledging the real arguments on [the other side of the policy debate](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided). I don't think it's crazy to assume this was the intended result, and to ask who benefitted. +I reply: _given that the author is Eliezer Yudkowsky_—no, obviously not. I have been ["trained in a theory of social deception that says that people can arrange reasons, excuses, for anything"](https://www.glowfic.com/replies/1820866#reply-1820866), such that it's informative ["to look at what _ended up_ happening, assume it was the _intended_ result, and ask who benefited."](http://www.hpmor.com/chapter/47) If Yudkowsky just wanted to post about how gendered pronouns are unnecessary and bad as an apolitical matter of language design, he could have written a post just making that narrow point. What ended up happening is that he wrote a post featuring sanctimonious flag-waving about the precious feelings of people "not lik[ing] to be tossed into a Male Bucket or Female Bucket", and concluding with a policy proposal that gives the trans activist coalition everything they want, proclaiming this "the simplest and best protocol" without so much as acknowledging the real arguments on [the other side of the policy debate](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided). I don't think it's crazy for me to assume this was the intended result, and to ask who benefitted. When smart people act dumb, it's often wise to conjecture that their behavior represents [_optimized_ stupidity](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sXHQ9R5tahiaXEZhR/algorithmic-intent-a-hansonian-generalized-anti-zombie)—apparent "stupidity" that achieves a goal through some channel other than their words straightforwardly reflecting reality. Someone who was actually stupid wouldn't be able to generate text so carefully fine-tuned to reach a gender-politically convenient conclusion without explicitly invoking any controversial gender-political reasoning. Where the text is ambiguous about whether biological sex is a real thing that people should be able to talk about, I think the point is to pander to biological sex denialists without technically saying anything unambiguously false that someone could call out as a "lie." @@ -539,13 +539,13 @@ I think he knows it. In a November 2022 Discord discussion, [he remarked](/image I got offended. I felt like a devout Catholic watching the Pope say, "Jesus sucks; I hate God; I never should have told people about God." -Later, I felt the need to write another message clarifying exactly what I found offensive. The problem wasn't the condescension of the suggestion that other people couldn't reason. People being annoyed at the condescension was fine. The problem was that "just learn[ing] to persuade people of things instead" was giving up on the principle that the arguments you use to convince others should be the same as the ones you used to decide which conclusion to argue for. Giving up on that amounted to giving up on the _concept_ of intellectual honesty, choosing instead to become a propaganda AI that calculates what signals to output in order to manipulate an agentless world. +Later, I felt the need to write another message clarifying exactly what I found offensive. The problem wasn't the condescension of the suggestion that other people couldn't reason. The problem was that "just learn[ing] to persuade people of things instead" was giving up on the principle that the arguments you use to convince others should be the same as the ones you used to decide which conclusion to argue for. Giving up on that amounted to giving up on the _concept_ of intellectual honesty, choosing instead to become a propaganda AI that calculates what signals to output in order to manipulate an agentless world. [He put a check-mark emoji reaction on it](/images/davis-amounts-to-giving-up-on-the-concept-of-intellectual-honesty.png), indicating agreement or approval. -If the caliph has lost his [belief in](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/duvzdffTzL3dWJcxn/believing-in-1) the power of intellectual honesty, I can't necessarily say he's wrong on the empirical merits. It is written that our world is [beyond the reach of God](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sYgv4eYH82JEsTD34/beyond-the-reach-of-god); there's no law of physics that says honesty must yield better results than propaganda. +If the caliph has lost his [belief in](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/duvzdffTzL3dWJcxn/believing-in-1) the power of intellectual honesty, I can't necessarily say he's wrong on the empirical merits. It is written that our world is [beyond the reach of God](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sYgv4eYH82JEsTD34/beyond-the-reach-of-god); there's no law of physics that says honesty must yield better consequences than propaganda. -But since I haven't relinquished my belief in honesty, I have the responsibility to point out that the formerly rightful caliph has relinquished his Art and lost his powers. +But since I haven't lost my belief in honesty, I have the responsibility to point out that the formerly rightful caliph has relinquished his Art and lost his powers. The modern Yudkowsky [writes](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1096769579362115584): diff --git a/notes/dath_ilan_scrap.md b/notes/dath_ilan_scrap.md index 1f8b972..f22edd4 100644 --- a/notes/dath_ilan_scrap.md +++ b/notes/dath_ilan_scrap.md @@ -232,3 +232,6 @@ That is, the difference between "spoiler protections" (sometimes useful) and "co (Additionally, I would have hoped that my two previous mentions in the thread of supporting keeping nuclear, bioweapon, and AI secrets should have already made it clear that I wasn't against _all_ cases of Society hiding information, but to further demonstrate my ability to generate counterexamples, I mentioned that I would also admit _threats_ as a class of legitimate infohazard: if I'm not a perfect decision theorist, I'm better off if Tony Soprano just doesn't have my email address to begin with, if I don't trust myself to calculate when I "should" ignore his demands.) ----- + +https://discord.com/channels/936151692041400361/954750671280807968/1210280210730061854 +> I wouldn't say [the history Screen is] just a plot device and I can see the real dath ilan doing it; Earth definitely shouldn't bother considering it, though. diff --git a/notes/memoir-sections.md b/notes/memoir-sections.md index 80ed473..96c330b 100644 --- a/notes/memoir-sections.md +++ b/notes/memoir-sections.md @@ -3,19 +3,25 @@ pt. 4 edit tier— ✓ make sure I'm summarizing "policy debates" moral from "Challenges" ✓ revise "too good a writer" to be more explicit "someone could be that naive" ✓ footnote about how I could be blamed for being too credulous? +_ Stephen Jay Gould _ edit post to clarify "nudging the cognition" _ Tail's objection to FFS example _ Brennan "everyone else should participate" needs more wording adjustments _ Sept. 2020 clarification noted that a distinction should be made between _ emphasize that 2018 thread was policing TERF-like pronoun usage, not just disapproving of gender-based pronouns +_ emphasize that the philosophy-of-language thing was MUCH worse +_ note the "larger than protons" concession _ look for a place to link http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/discursive-warfare-and-faction-formation/ _ parenthetical defending literal fraud? _ link https://thingofthings.substack.com/p/why-callout-posts-often-include-trivial _ the mailing list post noted it as a "common sexual fantasy" +_ Feynman, "pretend that the master truthseekers of any age of history" +_ Dawkins (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/20/richard-dawkins-loses-humanist-of-the-year-trans-comments) and Jerry Coyne (https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/08/27/on-helen-joyces-trans/) and Hooven (https://www.thefp.com/p/carole-hooven-why-i-left-harvard) +_ emphasize that the philosophy-of-language thing is much worse +_ it's gotten worse in the past 10–20 years +_ social gender, hair color, and "believing in" _ cite more sneers; use a footnote to pack in as many as possible -_ Stephen Jay Gould -_ Dawkins and Jerry Coyne and https://www.thefp.com/p/carole-hooven-why-i-left-harvard - +_ "if he decided after all that" exact clause time-sensitive globals TODOs— ✓ consult Said @@ -1362,6 +1368,8 @@ It even leaked into Big Yud!!! "Counterfactuals were made for humanity, not huma Still citing it (13 Feb 24): https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kSq5qiafd6SqQoJWv/technologies-and-terminology-ai-isn-t-software-it-s-deepware +Still citing it (22 Feb 24): https://twitter.com/mlbaggins/status/1760710932047577282 + At least I don't have to link the rebuttal myself every time: https://www.datasecretslox.com/index.php/topic,1553.msg38755.html https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/10vx6gk/the_categories_were_made_for_man_not_man_for_the/j7k8fjc/ @@ -2708,9 +2716,6 @@ Scott on puberty blockers, dreadful: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highl https://jdpressman.com/2023/08/28/agi-ruin-and-the-road-to-iconoclasm.html -https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BahoNzY2pzSeM2Dtk/beware-of-stephen-j-gould -> there comes a point in self-deception where it becomes morally indistinguishable from lying. Consistently self-serving scientific "error", in the face of repeated correction and without informing others of the criticism, blends over into scientific fraud. - https://time.com/collection/time100-ai/6309037/eliezer-yudkowsky/ > "I expected to be a tiny voice shouting into the void, and people listened instead. So I doubled down on that." @@ -2836,3 +2841,32 @@ https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1755624226550387013 > "Study science, not just me!" is probably the most important piece of advice Ayn Rand should've given her followers and didn't. There's no one human being who ever lived, whose shoulders were broad enough to bear all the weight of a true science with many contributors. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/96TBXaHwLbFyeAxrg/guardians-of-ayn-rand + +He's still dunking instead of engaging— +https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1760701916739194949 +> Every time I've raised an inscrutable alien baby to hyperintelligence by giving it shots of heroin whenever it correctly predicts the exact next word spoken by fictional good characters, it's learned to be a genuinely good person inside! + + +----- + +> I recently advised somebody to distinguish firmly in her mind between "X is actually true" and "X is the politic thing to say"; I advised drawing a great line and the creation of separate mental buckets. The words you write, taken at face value, seem to be missing some... + +https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1356493665988829186 +> ...similar distinctions. There's a distinction between honesty in the form of blurting out the whole truth, and honesty in the form of not uttering lies, and a related thing that's not making public confusions *worse* even if you aren't trying to unravel them. There's... + +https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1356493883094441984 +> ...being honest in the privacy of your own mind, and being honest with your friends, and being honest in public on the Internet, and even if these things are not perfectly uncorrelated, they are also not the same. Seeking truth is the first one. It's strange and disingenuous... + +https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1356494097511370752 +> ...to pretend that the master truthseekers of any age of history, must all have been blurting out everything they knew in public, at all times, on pain of not possibly being able to retain their Art otherwise. I doubt Richard Feynman was like that. More likely is that, say, ... + +https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1356494399945854976 +> ...he tried to avoid telling outright lies or making public confusions worse, but mainly got by on having a much-sharper-than-average dividing line in his mine between peer pressure against saying something, and that thing being *false*. That's definitely most of how I do it. + +------- + +> 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 + +https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BahoNzY2pzSeM2Dtk/beware-of-stephen-j-gould +> there comes a point in self-deception where it becomes morally indistinguishable from lying. Consistently self-serving scientific "error", in the face of repeated correction and without informing others of the criticism, blends over into scientific fraud. diff --git a/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv b/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv index e8c2ba8..3896a15 100644 --- a/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv +++ b/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv @@ -674,4 +674,9 @@ 02/19/2024,118811,0 02/20/2024,118902,91 02/21/2024,118965,63 -02/22/2024,, \ No newline at end of file +02/22/2024,118965,0 +02/23/2024,118965,0 +02/24/2024,118965,0 +02/25/2024,118965,0 +02/26/2024,118965,0 +02/27/2024, \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/notes/tweet_pad.txt b/notes/tweet_pad.txt index 2014592..562a677 100644 --- a/notes/tweet_pad.txt +++ b/notes/tweet_pad.txt @@ -1,37 +1,29 @@ - -Eliezer Yudkowsky has not been consistently candid in his communications with his followers, hindering their ability to exercise their responsibilities. 1/ - - +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: 1/ +If the world is ending either way, I prefer to die with my committment to public reason intact. It's been heartbreaking coming to terms with the apparent reality that the person who long ago once wrote the Sequences doesn't feel the same way. I thought you deserved to know. -------- -> 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. +So, I'm almost ready to publish pt. 4 of my memoir sequence, which features a loud public denunciation of Yudkowsky for intellectual dishonesty. Is anyone interested in offering advice or "hostile advice" (trying to talk me out of something you see as destructive, _e.g._ kicking up intra-cult infighting while the world is about to end)? -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. +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 reputational damage. -(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! () Vaniver gets it! () 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.) +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 in a potential reply, because it would look very bad for him if he tries the kind of high-verbal-IQ ass-covering I've seen from him in the past and the judge rules that a 2008 _Overcoming Bias_ reader wouldn't buy it. -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? +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 I think 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_. -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. - ------ +My guess is that that's what the mutual best response looks like: I deal reputational damage to him in the minds of people who care about the intellectual standards I'm appealing to, and he ignores it, because the people who care about the standards I'm appealing to aren't a sufficiently valuable political resource to him. If there's a Pareto improvement over that, I'm not seeing it? + [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] -- 2.17.1 From 588f6834eb8ae1272babaec5a827474d86a2540d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Zack M. Davis" Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:17:01 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 08/16] miserable day of being too trigger-shy to edit --- ...hat-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md | 8 +++++--- notes/memoir-sections.md | 14 ++++++++------ notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv | 3 ++- 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md index 8701605..cc1d69e 100644 --- a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md +++ b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md @@ -513,7 +513,9 @@ Eliezer Yudkowsky did not _unambiguously_ choose Feelings. He's been very carefu In making such boasts, I think Yudkowsky is opting in to being held to higher standards than other mortals. If Scott Alexander gets something wrong when I was trusting him to be right, that's disappointing, but I'm not the victim of false advertising, because Scott Alexander doesn't claim to be anything more than some guy with a blog. If I trusted him more than that, that's on me. -If Eliezer Yudkowsky gets something wrong when I was trusting him to be right, and refuses to acknowledge corrections (in the absence of an unsustainable 21-month nagging campaign), and keeps inventing new galaxy-brained ways to be wrong in the service of his political agenda of being seen to agree with Stalin without technically lying, then I think I _am_ the victim of false advertising. His marketing bluster was designed to trick people like me into trusting him, even if my being dumb enough to believe him is on me.[^gullible] +If Eliezer Yudkowsky gets something wrong when I was trusting him to be right, and refuses to acknowledge corrections (in the absence of an unsustainable 21-month nagging campaign), and keeps inventing new galaxy-brained ways to be wrong in the service of his political agenda of being seen to agree with Stalin without technically lying, then I think I _am_ the victim of false advertising.[^gould-analogy] His marketing bluster was designed to trick people like me into trusting him, even if my being dumb enough to believe him is on me.[^gullible] + +[^gould-analogy]: Yudkowsky [once wrote of Stephen Jay Gould](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BahoNzY2pzSeM2Dtk/beware-of-stephen-j-gould) that "[c]onsistently self-serving scientific 'error', in the face of repeated correction and without informing others of the criticism, blends over into scientific fraud." I think the same standard applies here. [^gullible]: Perhaps some readers will consider this post to be more revealing about my character rather than Yudkowsky's: that [everybody knows](https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2019/07/02/everybody-knows/) his bluster wasn't supposed to be taken seriously, so I have no more right to complain about "false advertising" than purchasers of a ["World's Best"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery) ice-cream who are horrified (or pretending to be) that it may not objectively be the best in the world. @@ -553,9 +555,9 @@ The modern Yudkowsky [writes](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/10967695793 I notice that this advice fails to highlight the possibility that the "seems to believe" is a deliberate show (judged to be personally prudent and not community-harmful), rather than a misperception on your part. I am left shaking my head in a [weighted average of](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/y4bkJTtG3s5d6v36k/stupidity-and-dishonesty-explain-each-other-away) sadness about the mortal frailty of my former hero, and disgust at his duplicity. **If Eliezer Yudkowsky can't _unambiguously_ choose Truth over Feelings, _then Eliezer Yudkowsky is a fraud_.** -A few clarifications are in order here. First, this usage of "fraud" isn't a meaningless [boo light](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dLbkrPu5STNCBLRjr/applause-lights). I specifically and literally mean it in [_Merriam-Webster_'s sense 2.a., "a person who is not what he or she pretends to be"](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud)—and I think I've made my case. Someone who disagrees with my assessment needs to argue that I've gotten some specific thing wrong, [rather than objecting to character attacks on procedural grounds](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/pkaagE6LAsGummWNv/contra-yudkowsky-on-epistemic-conduct-for-author-criticism). +A few clarifications are in order here. First, this usage of "fraud" isn't a meaningless [boo light](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dLbkrPu5STNCBLRjr/applause-lights). I specifically and literally mean it in [_Merriam-Webster_'s sense 2.a., "a person who is not what he or she pretends to be"](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud)—and I think I've made my case. (The "epistemic hero" posturing isn't compatible with the "sometimes personally prudent and not community-harmful" prevarication; he needs to choose one or the other.) Someone who disagrees with my assessment needs to argue that I've gotten some specific thing wrong, [rather than objecting to character attacks on procedural grounds](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/pkaagE6LAsGummWNv/contra-yudkowsky-on-epistemic-conduct-for-author-criticism). -Second, it's a conditional: _if_ Yudkowsky can't unambiguously choose Truth over Feelings, _then_ he's a fraud. If he wanted to come clean—if he decided after all that he wanted it to be common knowledge in his Caliphate that gender-dysphoric people can stand what is true, because we are already enduring it—he could do so at any time. +Second, it's a conditional: _if_ Yudkowsky can't unambiguously choose Truth over Feelings, _then_ he's a fraud. If he wanted to come clean, he could do so at any time. He probably won't. We've already seen from his behavior that he doesn't give a shit what people like me think of his intellectual integrity. Why would that change? diff --git a/notes/memoir-sections.md b/notes/memoir-sections.md index 96c330b..0dc643f 100644 --- a/notes/memoir-sections.md +++ b/notes/memoir-sections.md @@ -3,7 +3,8 @@ pt. 4 edit tier— ✓ make sure I'm summarizing "policy debates" moral from "Challenges" ✓ revise "too good a writer" to be more explicit "someone could be that naive" ✓ footnote about how I could be blamed for being too credulous? -_ Stephen Jay Gould +✓ Stephen Jay Gould +_ emphasize that the philosophy-of-language thing is much worse _ edit post to clarify "nudging the cognition" _ Tail's objection to FFS example _ Brennan "everyone else should participate" needs more wording adjustments @@ -13,15 +14,13 @@ _ emphasize that the philosophy-of-language thing was MUCH worse _ note the "larger than protons" concession _ look for a place to link http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/discursive-warfare-and-faction-formation/ _ parenthetical defending literal fraud? -_ link https://thingofthings.substack.com/p/why-callout-posts-often-include-trivial _ the mailing list post noted it as a "common sexual fantasy" _ Feynman, "pretend that the master truthseekers of any age of history" _ Dawkins (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/20/richard-dawkins-loses-humanist-of-the-year-trans-comments) and Jerry Coyne (https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/08/27/on-helen-joyces-trans/) and Hooven (https://www.thefp.com/p/carole-hooven-why-i-left-harvard) -_ emphasize that the philosophy-of-language thing is much worse _ it's gotten worse in the past 10–20 years _ social gender, hair color, and "believing in" _ cite more sneers; use a footnote to pack in as many as possible -_ "if he decided after all that" exact clause + time-sensitive globals TODOs— ✓ consult Said @@ -2868,5 +2867,8 @@ https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1356494399945854976 > 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 -https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BahoNzY2pzSeM2Dtk/beware-of-stephen-j-gould -> there comes a point in self-deception where it becomes morally indistinguishable from lying. Consistently self-serving scientific "error", in the face of repeated correction and without informing others of the criticism, blends over into scientific fraud. + +> there comes a point in self-deception where it becomes morally indistinguishable from lying. + + + diff --git a/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv b/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv index 3896a15..04428e7 100644 --- a/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv +++ b/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv @@ -679,4 +679,5 @@ 02/24/2024,118965,0 02/25/2024,118965,0 02/26/2024,118965,0 -02/27/2024, \ No newline at end of file +02/27/2024,118989,14 +02/28/2024,, \ No newline at end of file -- 2.17.1 From 32482b29a07ab33f5876eb82d5c3d80cb95cb9fe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Zack M. Davis" Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 16:43:19 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 09/16] memoir: pt. 4 culminating edits --- ...xhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md | 32 ++++++++++++++----- notes/memoir-sections.md | 26 ++++----------- notes/tweet_pad.txt | 27 +++++++++++++--- 3 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md index cc1d69e..0124f97 100644 --- a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md +++ b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md @@ -177,13 +177,15 @@ When piously appealing to the feelings of people describing reasons they do not > > But if somebody's hair color is halfway between two central points? If their civilization has developed stereotypes about hair color they're not comfortable with, such that they feel that the pronoun corresponding to their outward hair color is something they're not comfortable with because they don't fit key aspects of the rest of the stereotype and they feel strongly about that? If they have dyed their hair because of that, or **plan to get hair surgery, or would get hair surgery if it were safer but for now are afraid to do so?** Then it's stupid to try to force people to take complicated positions about those social topics _before they are allowed to utter grammatical sentences_. -I agree that a language convention in which pronouns map to hair color doesn't seem great. The people in this world should probably coordinate on switching to a better convention, if they can figure out how. +I agree that a language convention in which pronouns map to hair color seems pretty bad. The people in this world should probably coordinate on switching to a better convention, if they can figure out how. But taking the convention as given, a demand to be referred to as having a hair color _that one does not have_ seems outrageous to me! It makes sense to object to the convention forcing a binary choice in the "halfway between two central points" case. That's an example of genuine nuance brought on by a genuine complication to a system that _falsely_ assumes discrete hair colors. -But "plan to get hair surgery"? "Would get hair surgery if it were safer but for now are afraid to do so"? In what sense do these cases present a challenge to the discrete system and therefore call for complication and nuance? There's nothing ambiguous about these cases: if you haven't, in fact, changed your hair color, then your hair is, in fact, its original color. The decision to get hair surgery does not _propagate backwards in time_. The decision to get hair surgery cannot be _imported from a counterfactual universe in which it is safer_. People who, today, do not have the hair color that they would prefer are, today, going to have to deal with that fact _as a fact_. +But "plan to get hair surgery"? "Would get hair surgery if it were safer but for now are afraid to do so"? In what sense do these cases present a challenge to the discrete system and therefore call for complication and nuance? There's nothing ambiguous about these cases: if you haven't, in fact, changed your hair color, then your hair is, in fact, its original color. The decision to get hair surgery does not _propagate backwards in time_. The decision to get hair surgery cannot be _imported from a counterfactual universe in which it is safer_. People who, today, do not have the hair color that they would prefer are, today, going to have to deal with that fact _as a fact_.[^pronoun-roles] + +[^pronoun-roles]: If the problem is with the pronoun implying stereotypes and social roles in the language as spoken, such that another pronoun should be considered more correct despite that lack of corresponding hair color, you should be making that case on the empirical merits, not appealing to hypothetical surgeries. Is the idea that we want to use the same pronouns for the same person over time, so that if we know someone is going to get hair surgery—they have an appointment with the hair surgeon at this-and-such date—we can go ahead and switch their pronouns in advance? Okay, I can buy that. @@ -441,7 +443,11 @@ This seemed like a huge and surprising reversal from the position articulated in But this potential unification seemed dubious to me, especially if trans women were purported to be "at least 20% of the ones with penises" (!) in some population. After it's been pointed out, it should be a pretty obvious hypothesis that "guy on the Extropians mailing list in 2004 who fantasizes about having a female but 'otherwise identical' copy of himself" and "guy in 2016 Berkeley who identifies as a trans woman" are the _same guy_. So in October 2016, [I wrote to Yudkowsky noting the apparent reversal and asking to talk about it](/2023/Jul/blanchards-dangerous-idea-and-the-plight-of-the-lucid-crossdreamer/#cheerful-price). Because of the privacy rules I'm adhering to in telling this Whole Dumb Story, I can't confirm or deny whether any such conversation occurred. -Then, in November 2018, while criticizing people who refuse to use trans people's preferred pronouns, Yudkowsky proclaimed that "Using language in a way _you_ dislike, openly and explicitly and with public focus on the language and its meaning, is not lying" and that "you're not standing in defense of truth if you insist on a word, brought explicitly into question, being used with some particular meaning". But _that_ seemed like a huge and surprising reversal from the position articulated in ["37 Ways Words Can Be Wrong"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-that-words-can-be-wrong). After attempts to clarify via email failed, I eventually wrote ["Where to Draw the Boundaries?"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/esRZaPXSHgWzyB2NL/where-to-draw-the-boundaries) to explain the relevant error in general terms, and Yudkowsky eventually [clarified his position in September 2020](https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10158853851009228). +Then, in November 2018, while criticizing people who refuse to use trans people's preferred pronouns, Yudkowsky proclaimed that "Using language in a way _you_ dislike, openly and explicitly and with public focus on the language and its meaning, is not lying" and that "you're not standing in defense of truth if you insist on a word, brought explicitly into question, being used with some particular meaning". But _that_ seemed like a huge and surprising reversal from the position articulated in ["37 Ways Words Can Be Wrong"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-that-words-can-be-wrong). + +(And this November 2018 reversal on the philosophy of language was much, much worse than the March 2016 reversal on the psychology of sex, because the latter is a complicated empirical question about which reasonable people might read new evidence differently and change their minds; in contrast, there's no plausible good reason for him to have reversed course on whether words can be wrong.) + +After attempts to clarify via email failed, I eventually wrote ["Where to Draw the Boundaries?"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/esRZaPXSHgWzyB2NL/where-to-draw-the-boundaries) to explain the relevant error in general terms, and Yudkowsky eventually [clarified his position in September 2020](https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10158853851009228). But then in February 2021, he reopened the discussion to proclaim that "the simplest and best protocol is, '_He_ refers to the set of people who have asked us to use _he_, with a default for those-who-haven't-asked that goes by gamete size' and to say that this just _is_ the normative definition", the problems with which post I explained in March 2022's ["Challenges to Yudkowsky's Pronoun Reform Proposal"](/2022/Mar/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal/) and above. @@ -453,7 +459,7 @@ At this point, the nature of the game is clear. Yudkowsky wants to make sure he' On "his turn", he comes up with some pompous proclamation that's obviously optimized to make the "pro-trans" faction look smart and good and the "anti-trans" faction look dumb and bad, "in ways that exhibit generally rationalist principles." -On "my turn", I put in an absurd amount of effort explaining in exhaustive, _exhaustive_ detail why Yudkowsky's pompous proclamation, while [not technically making any unambiguously false atomic statements](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MN4NRkMw7ggt9587K/firming-up-not-lying-around-its-edge-cases-is-less-broadly), was substantively misleading compared to what any serious person would say if they were trying to make sense of the world without worrying what progressive activists would think of them. +On "my turn", I put in an absurd amount of effort explaining in exhaustive, _exhaustive_ detail why Yudkowsky's pompous proclamation, while [perhaps not technically making any unambiguously false atomic statements](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MN4NRkMw7ggt9587K/firming-up-not-lying-around-its-edge-cases-is-less-broadly), was substantively misleading compared to what any serious person would say if they were trying to make sense of the world without worrying what progressive activists would think of them. At the start, I never expected to end up arguing about the minutiæ of pronoun conventions, which no one would care about if contingencies of the English language hadn't made them a Schelling point for things people do care about. The conversation only ended up here after a series of derailings. At the start, I was trying to say something substantive about the psychology of straight men who wish they were women. @@ -471,7 +477,7 @@ Accordingly, I tried the object-level good-faith argument thing first. I tried i What makes all of this especially galling is that _all of my heretical opinions are literally just Yudkowsky's opinions from the 'aughts!_ My thing about how changing sex isn't possible with existing or foreseeable technology because of how complicated humans (and therefore human sex differences) are? Not original to me! I [filled in a few technical details](/2021/May/sexual-dimorphism-in-the-sequences-in-relation-to-my-gender-problems/#changing-sex-is-hard), but again, this was in the Sequences as ["Changing Emotions"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QZs4vkC7cbyjL9XA9/changing-emotions). My thing about how you can't define concepts any way you want because there are mathematical laws governing which category boundaries [compress](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mB95aqTSJLNR9YyjH/message-length) your [anticipated experiences](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/a7n8GdKiAZRX86T5A/making-beliefs-pay-rent-in-anticipated-experiences)? Not original to me! I [filled in](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/esRZaPXSHgWzyB2NL/where-to-draw-the-boundaries) [a few technical details](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/onwgTH6n8wxRSo2BJ/unnatural-categories-are-optimized-for-deception), but [_we had a whole Sequence about this._](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-that-words-can-be-wrong) -Seriously, do you think I'm smart enough to come up with all of this independently? I'm not! I ripped it all off from Yudkowsky back in the 'aughts _when he still gave a shit about telling the truth_. (Actively telling the truth, and not just technically not lying.) The things I'm hyperfocused on that he thinks are politically impossible to say in the current year are almost entirely things he already said, that anyone could just look up! +Seriously, do you think I'm smart enough to come up with all of this independently? I'm not! I ripped it all off from Yudkowsky back in the 'aughts _when he still cared about telling the truth_. (Actively telling the truth, and not just technically not lying.) The things I'm hyperfocused on that he thinks are politically impossible to say in the current year are almost entirely things he already said, that anyone could just look up! I guess the egregore doesn't have the reading comprehension for that?—or rather, the egregore has no reason to care about the past; if you get tagged by the mob as an Enemy, your past statements will get dug up as evidence of foul present intent, but if you're playing the part well enough today, no one cares what you said in 2009? @@ -481,7 +487,7 @@ But I don't think that everybody knows. And I'm not giving up that easily. Not o ### The Battle That Matters -Yudkowsky [defended his behavior in February 2021](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1356812143849394176): +In February 2021, Yudkowsky [defended his behavior](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1356812143849394176) (referring back to [his November 2018 "hill of meaning in defense of validity" Twitter statement](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1067183500216811521)): > I think that some people model civilization as being in the middle of a great battle in which this tweet, even if true, is giving comfort to the Wrong Side, where I would not have been as willing to tweet a truth helping the Right Side. From my perspective, this battle just isn't that close to the top of my priority list. I rated nudging the cognition of the people-I-usually-respect, closer to sanity, as more important; who knows, those people might matter for AGI someday. And the Wrong Side part isn't as clear to me either. @@ -521,7 +527,17 @@ If Eliezer Yudkowsky gets something wrong when I was trusting him to be right, a Such readers may have a point. If _you_ [already knew](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tSgcorrgBnrCH8nL3/don-t-revere-the-bearer-of-good-info) that Yudkowsky's pose of epistemic superiority was phony (because everyone knows), then you are wiser than I was. But I think there are a lot of people in the "rationalist" subculture who didn't know (because we weren't anyone). This post is for their benefit. -Because, I did, actually, trust him. Back in 2009 when _Less Wrong_ was new, we had a thread of hyperbolic ["Eliezer Yudkowsky Facts"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Ndtb22KYBxpBsagpj/eliezer-yudkowsky-facts) (in the style of [Chuck Norris facts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Norris_facts)). ["Never go in against Eliezer Yudkowsky when anything is on the line"](https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/Ndtb22KYBxpBsagpj/eliezer-yudkowsky-facts/comment/Aq9eWJmK6Liivn8ND), said one of the facts—and back then, I didn't think I would _need_ to. +Perhaps he thinks it's unreasonable for someone to hold him to higher standards. As he [wrote](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1356493883094441984) [on](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1356494097511370752) [Twitter](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1356494399945854976) in February 2021: + +> It's strange and disingenuous to pretend that the master truthseekers of any age of history, must all have been blurting out everything they knew in public, at all times, on pain of not possibly being able to retain their Art otherwise. I doubt Richard Feynman was like that. More likely is that, say, he tried to avoid telling outright lies or making public confusions worse, but mainly got by on having a much-sharper-than-average dividing line in his mine between peer pressure against saying something, and that thing being _false_. + +I've read _Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman_. I cannot imagine Richard Feynman trying to get away with the "sometimes personally prudent and not community-harmful" line. (On the other hand, I couldn't have imagined Yudkowsky doing so in 2009.) + +Other science educators in the current year such as [Richard Dawkins](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/20/richard-dawkins-loses-humanist-of-the-year-trans-comments), University of Chicago professor [Jerry Coyne](https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/08/27/on-helen-joyces-trans/), or ex-Harvard professor [Carole Hooven](https://www.thefp.com/p/carole-hooven-why-i-left-harvard) have been willing to pay political costs to stand up for the scientific truth that biological sex continues to be real even when it hurts people's feelings. + +If Yudkowsky thinks he's too important for that (because his popularity with progressives has much greater impact on the history of Earth-originating intelligent life than Carole Hooven's), that might be the right act-consequentialist decision, but one of the consequences he should be tracking is that he's forfeiting the trust of everyone who expected him to live up to the epistemic standards successfully upheld by UChicago or Harvard biology professors. + +It looks foolish in retrospect, but I did trust him much more than that. Back in 2009 when _Less Wrong_ was new, we had a thread of hyperbolic ["Eliezer Yudkowsky Facts"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Ndtb22KYBxpBsagpj/eliezer-yudkowsky-facts) (in the style of [Chuck Norris facts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Norris_facts)). ["Never go in against Eliezer Yudkowsky when anything is on the line"](https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/Ndtb22KYBxpBsagpj/eliezer-yudkowsky-facts/comment/Aq9eWJmK6Liivn8ND), said one of the facts—and back then, I didn't think I would _need_ to. Part of what made him so trustworthy back then was that he wasn't asking for trust. He clearly _did_ think it was [unvirtuous to just shut up and listen to him](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/t6Fe2PsEwb3HhcBEr/the-litany-against-gurus): "I'm not sure that human beings realistically _can_ trust and think at the same time," [he wrote](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wustx45CPL5rZenuo/no-safe-defense-not-even-science). He was always arrogant, but it was tempered by the expectation of being held to account by arguments rather than being deferred to as a social superior. "I try in general to avoid sending my brain signals which tell it that I am high-status, just in case that causes my brain to decide it is no longer necessary," [he wrote](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cgrvvp9QzjiFuYwLi/high-status-and-stupidity-why). @@ -559,6 +575,6 @@ A few clarifications are in order here. First, this usage of "fraud" isn't a mea Second, it's a conditional: _if_ Yudkowsky can't unambiguously choose Truth over Feelings, _then_ he's a fraud. If he wanted to come clean, he could do so at any time. -He probably won't. We've already seen from his behavior that he doesn't give a shit what people like me think of his intellectual integrity. Why would that change? +He probably won't. We've already seen from his behavior that he doesn't care what people like me think of his intellectual integrity. Why would that change? Third, given that "fraud" is a semantically meaningful description rather than an emotive negative evaluation, I should stress that evaluation is a separate step. If being a fraud were necessary for saving the world, maybe being a fraud would be the right thing to do? More on this in the next post. (To be continued.) diff --git a/notes/memoir-sections.md b/notes/memoir-sections.md index 0dc643f..755ee9b 100644 --- a/notes/memoir-sections.md +++ b/notes/memoir-sections.md @@ -4,23 +4,20 @@ pt. 4 edit tier— ✓ revise "too good a writer" to be more explicit "someone could be that naive" ✓ footnote about how I could be blamed for being too credulous? ✓ Stephen Jay Gould -_ emphasize that the philosophy-of-language thing is much worse -_ edit post to clarify "nudging the cognition" +✓ social gender, hair color, and "believing in" +✓ emphasize that the philosophy-of-language thing was much worse +✓ Feynman, "pretend that the master truthseekers of any age of history" +✓ Dawkins and Coyne and Hooven +✓ edit post to clarify "nudging the cognition" _ Tail's objection to FFS example _ Brennan "everyone else should participate" needs more wording adjustments _ Sept. 2020 clarification noted that a distinction should be made between _ emphasize that 2018 thread was policing TERF-like pronoun usage, not just disapproving of gender-based pronouns -_ emphasize that the philosophy-of-language thing was MUCH worse _ note the "larger than protons" concession _ look for a place to link http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/discursive-warfare-and-faction-formation/ -_ parenthetical defending literal fraud? _ the mailing list post noted it as a "common sexual fantasy" -_ Feynman, "pretend that the master truthseekers of any age of history" -_ Dawkins (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/20/richard-dawkins-loses-humanist-of-the-year-trans-comments) and Jerry Coyne (https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/08/27/on-helen-joyces-trans/) and Hooven (https://www.thefp.com/p/carole-hooven-why-i-left-harvard) -_ it's gotten worse in the past 10–20 years -_ social gender, hair color, and "believing in" _ cite more sneers; use a footnote to pack in as many as possible - +_ add headers to pt. 2 and link back? time-sensitive globals TODOs— ✓ consult Said @@ -2861,14 +2858,3 @@ https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1356494097511370752 https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1356494399945854976 > ...he tried to avoid telling outright lies or making public confusions worse, but mainly got by on having a much-sharper-than-average dividing line in his mine between peer pressure against saying something, and that thing being *false*. That's definitely most of how I do it. - -------- - -> 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 - - -> there comes a point in self-deception where it becomes morally indistinguishable from lying. - - - diff --git a/notes/tweet_pad.txt b/notes/tweet_pad.txt index 562a677..de1d024 100644 --- a/notes/tweet_pad.txt +++ b/notes/tweet_pad.txt @@ -1,24 +1,39 @@ -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: 1/ +### Option A (just a link, with just the meme denunciation) +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] -If the world is ending either way, I prefer to die with my committment to public reason intact. It's been heartbreaking coming to terms with the apparent reality that the person who long ago once wrote the Sequences doesn't feel the same way. I thought you deserved to know. +### Option B (thread with more explicit denunciation) --------- +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] 1/7 +The Whole Dumb Story is 87K words so far, which few will read, so in this thread I'll briefly summarize why I think @ESYudkowsky has relinquished his Art and lost his powers (with the disclaimer that this is only a summary & the full Story covers nuances that don't fit here). 2/7 + +Since 2016, I've been frustrated that Society has apparently decided that men can be women by means of saying so. There's a lot of nuance that I've covered elsewhere, but briefly, in less than 280 characters, my objection is that this just isn't true. 3/7 + +I know that Yudkowsky knows that it isn't true, because I learned it from him in 2008. But as I document in the post, since 2016, he's repeatedly made public statements that obfuscate and prevaricate on this point, switching to new arguments after I've critiqued the old ones. 4/7 + +Coming from any other public intellectual, this might not be a big deal. But Yudkowsky makes a lot of grandiose claims to authority, that he's an "epistemic hero", that "too many people think it's unvirtuous to shut up and listen to [him]", &c. https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1509944888376188929 5/7 + +I consider these authority claims to be morally fraudulent. Someone who behaves the way @ESYudkowsky has (as I describe thoroughly in the post) is not an epistemic hero, and I think he knows that. 6/7 + +If the world is ending either way, I prefer to die with my committment to public reason intact. It's been heartbreaking coming to terms with the realization that the person who wrote the Sequences apparently doesn't feel the same way. I thought you deserved to know. 7/7 ---------- So, I'm almost ready to publish pt. 4 of my memoir sequence, which features a loud public denunciation of Yudkowsky for intellectual dishonesty. Is anyone interested in offering advice or "hostile advice" (trying to talk me out of something you see as destructive, _e.g._ kicking up intra-cult infighting while the world is about to end)? -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 reputational damage. +(This is unpleasant, but at this point, it's my only other option besides laying down and dying. I tried making object-level arguments _first_, for years, and he made it very, very, clear that he doesn't see any problem with marketing himself as an epistemic hero while reserving the right to ignore counterarguments on political grounds. What is there left for me to do but cry "Fraud!" at the top of my lungs? Does anyone want to make a case that I _should_ lay down and die, for some reason?) + +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 justified reputational damage. 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 in a potential reply, because it would look very bad for him if he tries the kind of high-verbal-IQ ass-covering I've seen from him in the past 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 I think 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_. +As for my Twitter marketing strategy, I tried drafting a seven-Tweet thread summary of the reputational attack (because no one is going to read a 16K word post), but I'm unhappy with how it came out and am leaning towards just doing a two Tweets (option C: ) rather than trying to summarize in a thead. That's possibly cowardly (pulling my punches because I'm scared), but I think it's classy (because it's better to not try to do complicated things on Twitter; the intellectual and literary qualities that make my punches _hit hard_ to people who have read the Sequences don't easily compress to the 280-character format) [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. +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_ (not sure about this channel particularly); 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. ------ @@ -28,6 +43,8 @@ My guess is that that's what the mutual best response looks like: I deal reputat [TODO: maybe he'll try to spin complaints about the personality cult into more evidence for the personality cult] +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! () Vaniver gets it! () 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 + ---------------- Post later (can't afford to spend more Twitter time now)— -- 2.17.1 From f4ff5b088c1d55feb74899e4fcc92fabd249cc4a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Zack M. Davis" Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 19:57:03 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 10/16] memoir: pt. 4 at the line The "maybe I should have just learned to persuade people" anecdote gets cut because the relevant authorities have ruled that that conversation was protected by privacy norms. --- ...xhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md | 22 ++------- ..._might_have_made_a_fundamental_mistake.png | Bin 33178 -> 0 bytes .../yudkowsky-your_issue_is_with_asmodeus.png | Bin 0 -> 61505 bytes notes/memoir-sections.md | 9 ++-- notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv | 4 +- notes/tweet_pad.txt | 45 ------------------ 6 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 content/images/yudkowsky-i_might_have_made_a_fundamental_mistake.png create mode 100644 content/images/yudkowsky-your_issue_is_with_asmodeus.png diff --git a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md index 0124f97..4897be9 100644 --- a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md +++ b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md @@ -445,7 +445,7 @@ But this potential unification seemed dubious to me, especially if trans women w Then, in November 2018, while criticizing people who refuse to use trans people's preferred pronouns, Yudkowsky proclaimed that "Using language in a way _you_ dislike, openly and explicitly and with public focus on the language and its meaning, is not lying" and that "you're not standing in defense of truth if you insist on a word, brought explicitly into question, being used with some particular meaning". But _that_ seemed like a huge and surprising reversal from the position articulated in ["37 Ways Words Can Be Wrong"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-that-words-can-be-wrong). -(And this November 2018 reversal on the philosophy of language was much, much worse than the March 2016 reversal on the psychology of sex, because the latter is a complicated empirical question about which reasonable people might read new evidence differently and change their minds; in contrast, there's no plausible good reason for him to have reversed course on whether words can be wrong.) +(And this November 2018 reversal on the philosophy of language was much, much worse than the March 2016 reversal on the psychology of sex, because the latter is a complicated empirical question about which reasonable people might read new evidence differently and change their minds. In contrast, there's no plausible good reason for him to have reversed course on whether words can be wrong.) After attempts to clarify via email failed, I eventually wrote ["Where to Draw the Boundaries?"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/esRZaPXSHgWzyB2NL/where-to-draw-the-boundaries) to explain the relevant error in general terms, and Yudkowsky eventually [clarified his position in September 2020](https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10158853851009228). @@ -531,9 +531,9 @@ Perhaps he thinks it's unreasonable for someone to hold him to higher standards. > It's strange and disingenuous to pretend that the master truthseekers of any age of history, must all have been blurting out everything they knew in public, at all times, on pain of not possibly being able to retain their Art otherwise. I doubt Richard Feynman was like that. More likely is that, say, he tried to avoid telling outright lies or making public confusions worse, but mainly got by on having a much-sharper-than-average dividing line in his mine between peer pressure against saying something, and that thing being _false_. -I've read _Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman_. I cannot imagine Richard Feynman trying to get away with the "sometimes personally prudent and not community-harmful" line. (On the other hand, I couldn't have imagined Yudkowsky doing so in 2009.) +I've read _Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman_. I cannot imagine Richard Feynman trying to get away with the "sometimes personally prudent and not community-harmful" excuse. I think if there were topics Richard Feynman didn't think he could afford to be honest about, he—or really, anyone who valued their intellectual integrity over their public image as a religious authority—would just not issue sweeping public proclamations on that topic while claiming the right to ignore counterarguments on the grounds of having "some confidence in [their] own ability to independently invent everything important that would be on the other side of the filter and check it [themself] before speaking". -Other science educators in the current year such as [Richard Dawkins](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/20/richard-dawkins-loses-humanist-of-the-year-trans-comments), University of Chicago professor [Jerry Coyne](https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/08/27/on-helen-joyces-trans/), or ex-Harvard professor [Carole Hooven](https://www.thefp.com/p/carole-hooven-why-i-left-harvard) have been willing to pay political costs to stand up for the scientific truth that biological sex continues to be real even when it hurts people's feelings. +The claim to not be making public confusions worse might be credible if there were no other public figures doing better. But other science educators in the current year such as [Richard Dawkins](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/20/richard-dawkins-loses-humanist-of-the-year-trans-comments), University of Chicago professor [Jerry Coyne](https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/08/27/on-helen-joyces-trans/), or ex-Harvard professor [Carole Hooven](https://www.thefp.com/p/carole-hooven-why-i-left-harvard) _have_ been willing to stand up for the scientific truth that biological sex continues to be real even when it hurts people's feelings. If Yudkowsky thinks he's too important for that (because his popularity with progressives has much greater impact on the history of Earth-originating intelligent life than Carole Hooven's), that might be the right act-consequentialist decision, but one of the consequences he should be tracking is that he's forfeiting the trust of everyone who expected him to live up to the epistemic standards successfully upheld by UChicago or Harvard biology professors. @@ -547,19 +547,7 @@ He visibly [cared about other people being in touch with reality](https://www.le What I can and do blame someone for is actively fighting for Feelings while misrepresenting himself as the rightful caliph of epistemic rationality. There are a lot of trans people who would benefit from feedback that they don't pass but aren't getting that feedback by default. I wouldn't necessarily expect Yudkowsky to provide it. (I don't, either.) I _would_ expect the person who wrote the Sequences not to proclaim that the important thing is the feelings of people who do not like to be tossed into a Smells Bad bucket, which don't bear on the factual question of whether someone smells bad. -That person is dead now, even if his body is still breathing. - -I think he knows it. In a November 2022 Discord discussion, [he remarked](/images/yudkowsky-i_might_have_made_a_fundamental_mistake.png): - -> I might have made a fundamental mistake when I decided, long ago, that I was going to try to teach people how to reason so that they'd be able to process my arguments about AGI and AGI alignment through a mechanism that would discriminate true from false statements. -> -> maybe I should've just learned to persuade people of things instead - -I got offended. I felt like a devout Catholic watching the Pope say, "Jesus sucks; I hate God; I never should have told people about God." - -Later, I felt the need to write another message clarifying exactly what I found offensive. The problem wasn't the condescension of the suggestion that other people couldn't reason. The problem was that "just learn[ing] to persuade people of things instead" was giving up on the principle that the arguments you use to convince others should be the same as the ones you used to decide which conclusion to argue for. Giving up on that amounted to giving up on the _concept_ of intellectual honesty, choosing instead to become a propaganda AI that calculates what signals to output in order to manipulate an agentless world. - -[He put a check-mark emoji reaction on it](/images/davis-amounts-to-giving-up-on-the-concept-of-intellectual-honesty.png), indicating agreement or approval. +That person is dead now, even if his body is still breathing. Without disclosing any specific content from private conversations that may or may not have happened, I think he knows it. If the caliph has lost his [belief in](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/duvzdffTzL3dWJcxn/believing-in-1) the power of intellectual honesty, I can't necessarily say he's wrong on the empirical merits. It is written that our world is [beyond the reach of God](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sYgv4eYH82JEsTD34/beyond-the-reach-of-god); there's no law of physics that says honesty must yield better consequences than propaganda. @@ -575,6 +563,6 @@ A few clarifications are in order here. First, this usage of "fraud" isn't a mea Second, it's a conditional: _if_ Yudkowsky can't unambiguously choose Truth over Feelings, _then_ he's a fraud. If he wanted to come clean, he could do so at any time. -He probably won't. We've already seen from his behavior that he doesn't care what people like me think of his intellectual integrity. Why would that change? +He probably won't. We've already seen from his behavior that he doesn't give a shit what people like me think of his intellectual integrity. Why would that change? Third, given that "fraud" is a semantically meaningful description rather than an emotive negative evaluation, I should stress that evaluation is a separate step. If being a fraud were necessary for saving the world, maybe being a fraud would be the right thing to do? More on this in the next post. (To be continued.) diff --git a/content/images/yudkowsky-i_might_have_made_a_fundamental_mistake.png b/content/images/yudkowsky-i_might_have_made_a_fundamental_mistake.png deleted file mode 100644 index c588441aea191191fb4f5dfe1902389b29a22351..0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 GIT binary patch literal 0 HcmV?d00001 literal 33178 zcmb5VWmFtN(>9zy2=4Cg65Ltb9fDhMcMmM??ykYz-QC?GxGe6jFZc7@_TxL}d*8EX zcV>IKd%9=p>Z-1~DpWyE93BP-=F68a@RAZDN?*Q!$9$egLVf@I?Kw?+{qhB@)m&Iu zK~h+l$j-sm#N5jG%NNebL}gjac?C4Squ^ak17oCI7(p0=R4E>o)#Fj~vId2MdBs&4 zgw*!&;LLoc5%m+q>Bv7e`M9o{t@c`?+P9Pv5U`cnDwrf;vyll`?a9kgvtMPKTR@qv zo4|+l8?btU;*`eCS@>nStw{L0lU>yK->0N5TS%JIK`wo_>*I%qP&fd~iyX<1M(Kkz zuQ*NjmPfOv^S8!O59Q5HcHN>ZzTRtD0cj-Hv`S2*Xw=PAXzfsbq@js8;t+2nN?r^o z)}y$oU`~2_rhX9FeXSvQzgp-6#)(}gLOS^rMJ1B!vg$7+{(SO)GrOv!rM^x$j%UCjJC4dmh?t>*GK~?a}ZVz#7rB zB{^~zZXr!vmi3W2FpY&UhmE7g#Loa?_hg=#4e^+VzLe~5;yeZZWG=T_g3Y zM&f}fubQ{u$Fyv?GZnb;_+@VG_-4dEjZ50qKH^*n#yxd+d_>{8%T>)N4~?PI$HM;8 zMyjCK>&84OyJfDsfqV<*3VesO{|w2PB}COK8E2*#`hMZ+Mv# zD9%}x2?JtVj0E0lJX_z!D`ub`%pLRs>mhzG<^o}E*v@`>eF52Hv`A3Uwl2mml~O?@ zZP(x?-J7s;mxi5aaXBb6NRcppAu)XQ;zvnd}flY+0zc#C$NH$~@+0_5BI zZ33L?HhAeJ0VOG{Af^6UO!XN_^ciU*Mlrj;eVWWz`#ce_UJX{OuTICA& zBGazc3&Gz%)V1FXKM1<^KVD!dpVt={lMz-vh55UIw7AHZkAHk}I*Q^yOQ7u}G#tNt zL0|g(R(;(al>mJfLOMyxib8^5F)?Xy?oago0Ss&>QFSL_TWf1$8>cVA4#xUU#zsW0 z=1yir;*zooYQ6}VU%n81krWa9>9%^B3G`InUwQ13{5?B6ou-7lS|9+9(>-XRpcPAG zslr`fJm12+BuCwPUF`h+3nsnHv6gRIxVhw-O{W12b zW6KqF?}RJ>VNVy+%a(FxmrW@BKXbXXmL(c0S(k^E?wK8q2YViXC&?H7(d?X$T_14_7!%C zjU2E~*lh;S>{%!{6Bu53^I zXy2<*=(2aqcUGCbp1tAm+8xWs9jVDoU=3}nL{F<-F`}K=}abZORY7+?Qnlp#8 z-6BZO5Ps_C1|SC%%>~O)7;dz?lj(XFMbi?>wpEy_+3lb;2XRP(x$}9OKq6u!@2*!xGdSKS$Q9PUvls^rXY1i%%bY^?;V2X=g*X>6~ zI)JqVAGl69J%4|+_Hi!Tz@Mr$9de&<#=C^y<)lusyhxEh_2qDX>l6FZyJHJlJZblQ zUAkLt{f&sv^5!zTYt`Pk?fCZ_%h4cVtiue0uD2nNbr{rb9f;Xb3eC{70U_|*D*OK%OZAB7taE}8e^+q2xN`*fi1m6^p9o`HKK)S&e?ExRd zfQ%1M-=HwQM}Nkv!`$NA9xhMNDPV(y}&Y%O#L%<5Mt@9MGIM3*v!*gEaonw?!KL1`4`iGb-&B#|-_0tUuf8APd1QJoI_1gB=_{R3Y^*GQ zVOomwe8VeT+w8?~dA@EpomW-JsEi`)W#hn6JoOA$v(zbucWj}4vOst@q@AE7KgHLx z**hD3bKCC;kZn!c)8JrSf9GCgN7v8Yx)Vd@p++lf;3LWoRouE_HnHNICTman=i0FK zy3YbS7WxF_t;jW0PRy8MVCk33r?;XkB!ZC{xgWz{TEXk0-T=2BPA=U{m~k?`LwTHv z@!DSAACEU!24gntP5ioM_KKZ@$-wWYpumn((6n87OFBprGO3%IJaOd*t)I;N9ZQiTiX?@d<3!6a$+n;vMFooV!2MyMV zY#Zb3I@pJqx6|bfpWn~M#YeqY8eHl8_1jjqLmCfU@c6q}m?K2{nfhAT`7#%R7ViyN zQkJMT@;p(i9jwvNrsY;&zPh^3%&Y{qbtE3F6W$EWP_gc!6Cs+)goMB85s)$4z({>D zN2yVyKV4sws;2qrM)xnAxbJ6-3v6(IV4O>I@x@Ht?u9Y)7x(p=b2-GsFiCMz2PY6( zn>aXqd*tIYKbLGdzuMAWM9r1$*doBVo^ z1kh`?f8P(Dx5gbL5Pvcv0qMf4$SXb!2K!O~8&SP)VP%+g#QUNit_U7u7QuZy!4$_T z#oQltIz8`%J*lAEh$E}>E^199QxOQegPkOln@>G9MekM_eya-1KE2oB6)&@#QaI0- zgEDbKQXOTZ%W)qcBfl$Px9sm3Irfr~q(3OFAk^D}vTc2K;+|5Xq<5<$-zei&%nVpz zqJRfDkDfRyt~))#J^h}PU=K4>=E>qn*c);;+Z+4o8>F)JI%s2@fyuy^hkI2jy6+QM znDFAh_j3sxvyHl*^i72WwI3BrD@VLKsk-fve0BcUzgXvrm>aJg@iubv&mj1z_I&6P zs$*Ob&R51#-0l0ndk?-}^yiwdOFwN>%Y-WD=6{H^|4Tt$R!9+%4n^*6X9GC5Y`wa& z6%t{xryNIZGx0OEe;*b2zQw}D2xRfP9`nCXb>qGgcs+h?w0R3TAQhjq0Y~(f=+j!e zdi;$l5pA79+-U$~$VxQunn7F1Q)2x>0>vFmM}_S;HuV^Fjuh;r7ElIDqq4KigcjmEZL#reGr7|9)!&`%&M3=+#M*A;|*LPh0LC zvb`9foy&`9y}D;ZmFLh!`zGy+2PeR_F`R*0C8p8#^<+kH6xW<3nyuP48diLWaTKmI zBHb%PsJuK8xDPKpDvAx{ik}x>zPRjNwi}!leTnTjwe1XQhR$s^G&C>!2r*G(-H5Rh z68*Q$_Q*~d6OOs*FIB+3?~$tQiK&rW8%W=A-Ha>`~LfC=?38=F?U~n-469JJKOz7ZP~uaAEN9e*}wF=_KB}M z^J?CnSBO>z6_n(n41aZeSVu<_cS6F=jX%UI{3#_@EnAKX#}pTB_tz`3cW)6KIxS$9 zCZ+Ymmc;hg(wDu_VqCZHzU3aS5l}-x=(h6uim)5a+W95@VYe~Qwn-e0V@iB~r%d4kfzovon@eP^&4nuN>> zC$}~8)y+}#R?ABZZB}*7tDyQhbevHvE>2*tJ@h{<+0H;{BdhZJ{@I22tLKi0C9mK? z{};$%2;gHofMP&)C*cW$-xnBL>sy6QP|9r${6u@Cn(h-MJp4VZ@bgB86JEe&=Tmm-AgcFeQt_@5+$eD0; ztml4AQJm^c@chE3e!mB zhB#5aT7Kuhz!cr(iEFjbje{*8K=m7&;t0iRFS3w{m?ZZ;ZVk?C~CLGpdBBp1=Gk4}o# zf@*o??q%qTsve`r>yA9pvz?{rN`vMHh74n?p(fpeQvj~vlrK6U_797q`wtDwt2W1e zJ>^ksNbL1QFPm6G1cC($AunHWbU%fulgvX?~0qeI9%yWdR)#XqfYthy8mpfkSn4r+UbHGlGU1$0d+D{~Pb6z?ustegLx=dB%S< zJ5wo3j3a2nZFRG?-Nt~TKkFH&hA9}=&!mSW&dr1M1NOTokz_|*)Q~B0G=GN*1vr`$ zfhFa3TA5kmYq4ihm2!`xHy|9^2rO+4RqlBdv@b8W7eb@E*;YGZ1KcnQyAARAm9LYjW{3r(l7}yKxqr}N%T(^clCkZ#g zq`iuze_G6Ej5|c@frD+{n*n`|v9kJ(E%*0Uy+#ap*&pGuY!yV=0o*da2d#uRyMPx7 zL>tYq#jVfvaD+}*oi14}JK#Ee>JTeGDv>b2ka+?$sUhg5g=p~N%GI_O0Mt4F5Eul=0;f&EqI-)vt+c*zd0s zl<~U{9wpCqxcpC7h}f9O-+h|e(iaz1=Z~Q>&dxmVK_FGvf;p5TkA<3BrugfpIi zNz8w5Zb2D}TD{zTZu>c1FKAwcvgtu+C=z%)9a}fO1DHAi?PdP;smifJ`>%JI52;Ui z+0~E9(bW&MkdFyOu*X2|G8x~hJb!V$SJb7+u0RiOC&cX6I){)}?7)LA3aO}S(C*X} z=hI6o2=-t5bw9_cVtV~dc3FPAox_`L7uQ+4`q<@giW(x-so;r7&cDol3PcZ1_8Nc5 zys}$Tgrg|ln=4a*XM%Vet|1y8=ai<~nY@qd7szY?Ji9rk@u^JOEaRp3=u}Q~l-&hx zCuPcA?p3K_b##YRxUS7;84BS=7E3PR>d)M#s?fD}?8O_m&VOlbqDKt!n0N{~yvvs* zJ?~8K&JTvUsun+g!tUm&te*JOSDapg8K^fAaFK zes>5j%Kn$90YvN@5!Twgxe3UQ77j+Zy72x;XYv=Uv^-5;axO^844>qv#ye5x#I> zXp&@V&RcKz!ynw?grXVQt*8|%N$1xoa{SPa|Bi93@-?1=+1RKDngz0I8SHMS(GwQ!Z z5v<2uhDd%8gvfhqQftHfWh2ikYD8tY9e@6UN1(SrxtPl?b@ ze$X}!UDdh|;SXkpolEj$MhbP`WTZ+K9qDsoo*M?~E!3jyS;W!DD@2<-Sgu%1JsAZB zBtTcy6x@INmL>xf$4Xb%)*#>b817Ll&cqKd$C{s8HJq9?p|NqLVw42a`+RQ>kuS$$ zX@y&;EWkv}V02G$007Y!d1^_%&;E}ui9un}is$+U6$$P)d$+ix)u2(0#w%PP6^ zTK}ctKOwO7Q_T8%ZOIWMP2zEV*Hkut_JX&zXc2ElbR%#)KswLd+`Q-F1{EDWkdz8V zEgh_?Ek5a>iqm1)cYJPOAa?ta*M=-L<4Q61o3m3+HXw5~bD_S8KsYbVXwz3%L@dg1 zJVn9iUDw&^A(HZhpNU zyLxK>G&L$`1++n54R}tq^PqPY%YGQYpMI-M!IDh}@=ppwx_xvgMd3UD!O0Us$L&j; zGe{*sov3h>Nl5DSSUp)nRO0CIhJxXv#x6M&?gYvz>t)LQ{-b)RemNmvNy0Y~@|^B6 zaieJaKUa?*;`gokxAN?ML z@+E8MtG2>v0>@R0u^ehZ--H`@;n~;}6Cu}1l;O~lJwRO$i6gRQQc;w_G<9yMJjF`! zlgsf$jBw8l7Z%zknHEdUX+e=BKO$ELyCIvXw5$YXt(!qaJ_W7(xe?GEgFwl_Y-q-BEpegG*xAPLB^iSCXwLQO~VaC}p=G;^8f2m9!S$P)9rEL1RfoWi8~ zIgwYXQOJS!W|Gn0h_3K79*z z1jR!TZrnOTL?XZ1-2tIBqc>Xcwy2AUqs7Y$WamY;(0SY95SW*5mFc3-vd@m({y;&- zf6v5J@}sv2)|(6qJMS4MIue(k=ti6$?~)^1CTe^sQjLO={7pPyvnD2*@EQAsBhg;? zHL(No`AsH^Hx)$q#FcbLXt<^`_RX4AaT}9K4nL|F(V;7v>74;b;ik*`19CGo!)K`x zHo6G6V1Bdg)zNSzuq?9BLTVHH73prle4JBT%)Ntg!xp7iR;ReR8mJH<3$?S>$M|~K zlyrzT%TQ8KKkJ17qpY7|+1t?omyUJAZF+lumF2k87Ua$Mi5gCE=)H8?4#(ARO6L#0 zG6WLuMu1kJ7b~)1tS5jQYcAgS`D;jOF}Wt>k`7zoY99T!K=aFHe?>QcC|KO^zU{4$ zw@s@}qy77fsofnUa+{{~93qHeu)1h34cp8~=pZ~8uVuL!QR&~MUu8qWTPFt4+7G%D zGG#6Nz9$Y%V%*e~uUK91fxOh?+rF1!D&UR`kB|)H2=3eeT2~D|roo3lp-WhLxIIK> z8CK5{8@&~9SE+hS?Tx&1Bbghf9quLiN@ut((`~3f5$8Dy3G-b}ZSqQPFh)*Hj9F5d zM4?q@UL{$fxe?Ao0)`ewsfMpJBMxZ$kK4fK?Edve7hhw=9LpKmZd%B`r!E2i;xeC81{Ra~<2Se_ zdNZOXwU(MhO@V7}@o3CsT$?hJg-SDi!_RhW9`k%f(Z7+YM(aua^Ag5eDLW+NYjUU| zqU3S0&X9%Q=#iy3=o=DKvVZ(}&hPm}&6ErxV9!nZV)%6+m7x5`599ss93@@9qx!88 zYaQ}#9((oxT}YUPgiNO~oW1!Z?DPLV=oyXA|LKkF(+qN#Wx^QPdYIc{281$_V$&wY zIBh{>X)8xME;mx@H`}tcT$4B~-qQ6&j~O_7(a?)_xa7BbK|pY1;+WAQuEkRd@TxVZdsx0 z4$iBZs4lJ>U2nAvHy4aUGUXHdbkQWgl&ZQh0^Z8U&So_J4ErGtHQZLkFd%?AeiGaw{(jcl|{)bF8!X_Yq|_DjxiK zRgAiWeZbjKQ9{qN8&9dZxzPs|`fdVL0t4h?m>M-radd^#>Z6rZDyw+wq(fYwC@+!mDZngOVFK_G0WkP`KIZPb+hZyT^TWvWSEI z#$CcVN+dIF;qdgdM6dM1icjZOiVF*3GZVuUm*(yf$I&pfeglQ_V{h9qS9=6wR9&^vK{N$Az~Z-?djaCOpqooMH)PaFn~y){|`{4)mVDn+g4`pVy*d z!&EeJ^yQ9h=cmxuND?=9?9NUj&=9Vy%xM2hVzuD|GF6`C@E;h-Hh_eJ+m{s41jcE1V>^eYvMptqbzA5T;@n05f5@xZv+x@kB(fBtb`>3g80x{=s(&2iRDqZZr3=pRu&M;7g$ zI5#(vc5r0w-Q`o@Y8v-sN8A{S&6|J$X|3{eQ6!d?rBdEr3X2OzOoJ_~-{_zd8rL96Z_O)z#NJu;~&)k8q9@i4(( z0}^x=r5X8*8l@!*ALwxHSzpFDc&lCz6d$rCG02Lp{_OVG2p!>Fkr7W=zCHk?8NuP**3ThhO}6rbG|GTwH>$bqfyuvvmQboCQ6#!-#J zveBcuVvO8SpMsWyQ|y;;30;P!@b;_~b8>kh4R7RtxqS!Aw-wsq#Wg1WB;f;~d;71s zSZ3upo?Wh#^Jg+$Ne zU{TN?^zh;F&j|(_YFtXN2gLx43yXxz0bCDs21m3ACPqKVn7;8QJ{d8L53~>Y-~CuI zq8lfwqh!QVO74>&5noJ-pX_7`m#Ikf`zva+kvvo;`+e4S5z&huUV3mSen_O2K(9BV z@=ce+^;q~m?1Jcv;wWC}_{6@urJ1A}tYg2C;{Ug@q^dR5PYq*iS%olBdc$ zNDfQm6DE>=;5R=oVpHG9P9%HXno}tC2#6H0M#acUhZ!cL{>25rMw}9V+oo}-#fW|J z=-s(k>2B^@z`?Aj0rWZ;l^wFf=~>%2{4i44y8ZQNR1!) z6AW7ukv=u$sQmrjoiyqu$ikJVQKP)ca8gU;fKQtGQ9*Q-R9Z3;ECa&=r$HujL%9`A z{uK=q;pu0@(C(uB_uE)!bqn6U#*x?;F6fEKR5FjnoB21cy;m1Lm!Oydg-%X}%z>uB zTJjG;<~j$rV{neTIgk5C1T|L<2BHzg@vs+WjaxTtGSgTa&X@4I{k%+(j>}%@X6+&q zdgjmllwMQ@(cU-W_>qt(0z{v6o1)J9$6h$>$FF)@sHF zefDq-c$cpJPRPuu*wA6 zkS~i4txbW9<}GRyMb#)ySCg=7gRw3CIj-sKXp!!prQP zz$$;!=rI)7{3eksx}vMpDL_-XpWly%DaDgIy?BVIcE?xWXxa*yL0(ekTe@c}e^rJ~ z62si;?KFo~bvpdx0Tz?4JhOnItY9&4bhlNjX7FwZ-H57X*pNRyr>v(fkvf6hd|qiV zu0?#rz3y{e+ff^*GLX2u#=BLctYb33#T2DJu+l{AsNenFPNSrnH8(OH&#qRVVpfJ= zbTO@@v8{WzyK!41jOHaE+W)w+iO=~WmAcH;cPX^N3icieQcIViU<0CFgSxC9l}QoT z&gZkK2{)CFvR}grxGrTQyvb+=iv(ahpLf1PP2`FJa;vAN0)}>#AQP^Z%2GiGVJb;{ zJ}F+f^%6=uvSFT^Z`!=5l`6VjEl8b=oetX{&71@jI)LSZer+^!MdWSN2r4PbWe|!M z#D^+}`wqW&XUwW?00$RB<%D%>Q=ZhSo2n^I?Y8bW2b(oWLqo?Yuuaq=87h}hS-VN^YRs;k=P;q4z@)@A9$u82?}Jjd8!!ngg@*+yx&^=)DYQtNIoELVS3td< z*C?x)gGVM&4PY;uH6!S#rcX!Ey zPsZep{D%qO7oXv>+Ucl}j;$(VpJe6Q?4-%`F%mIw-oJ1PRqyzMQBFfz7mb)BnwC;f zSJU9o3|?hQ)%JCbyV;hYy=yiu1Aq(i2uvwEv3J+zEGI|fRh9@XXri}KL$3npg;l^G zmKS-}!BgANq|Gfit*HdI0o>6Yje+uOW$t&*v^A2F zW>GJmD&&Ep`^!3f0Pl*_(GWBx)ZZR-50eHkx>W%EA@Zq;B4Xmigs)i?UKI8lIcEqg zvFv4;wL&aOgS&thpPhAXrLH1KywhU)dxY0RI2q?8zQnXF71Q7K&Wjr=%6Z0X z&IM@Y75N)S{VRI`xkgO+KM=_47oyI5P}>=f`Kf+Ac_;5+#h!2ESI^^2fB3>QE{f)a zhd-Lo>qD3U90K^?kGKe42CjS7o2TSu#$8jGjbZNePW5*OAD%`M%!yndIB^90a#HMH zc|RW9&`@e>P>;+mw(_C@B;+e1X-)X493lR)^x7^f#&4q^eS{yu{|JSifo*5yH$B*L z*kl(?{cHx^j(NAcl;6czO9>fP^dsB!qgDOME&q_%uJIaafozw`XTie2s>N&YO?Vm^ z4_nGrEK>+7RyePO!s`ISE`FMu`^M-FShWH_cbW@@Wk+8S<-mr16v%3eqU0jF`qS&7y$ z)x7zB3zlFhr1j13Uz%WueZsxkmL~7LhMYG!yEjUQ-J(%V$=DGNxSwlOJ{|XL$3EQS zRUU}CfL(IdQm%e)Y7nBPsA)~)Wq{8%bwOki1??}_J8K|NRcZ>f&aUIuX_jXuE})tI zJ)!VWgqwq}R#cSjaY>ax+T<)5tUBj6alkpEtJ7hPH{1AACUS1th>zOcveCetpuiHL z2u_SD7>kl!>%(2BXd;M3CtUT9X`wM=i$`(YLar2>enffSY$>t130@Ys3ak56w^$~- z)kH~(O+=oBFyE*-H5Qu--Cfr9!o!JGHf}#)DzNJAwDDKC#6V8aGZyLd0Zv%iI+krX zr7lg;V2-$!Y0oTI#xrNhs)Fco+(Nlr{jU`r{{jctMT)6UXrs4=BC}dG-8C_J;JLB>HU_qK-96w|b|k&OsPfsY^1XfBf9qYJ!#b5@@?DCuu7aJ*SI_yn zE<&GnH0E~o96#xpkgMv0h8gbki_iJ3(!8%xZ{U>^Uj3A^a`(K-=s10DMmAxKEPf_K zGJ`|CtwFQ??1jqul#;8QoktqQskmCPs}AE~{re6Y1~0U-ep9NH7TwW^*w2fEJdQ)N zQYJ+2l>_Y6#Kj%{?vjZOl$PO!Set2!+}(tmbM&Q5_b z8)zTHE=o!0tuM@=<^!gw6;o3b|nWycU}L$0@(g~I>9Bky_)2?xR&kPb(#iP z1KcfZ72PwJX<(?A4>=#up(V*o_faUc!kI8rN*Z_+3o7RvUMbWcS&r7{13-w@j1Z=qKgco#9xaa#>Ye zBg3FHQ)D}t@zju=fU;>6yqKz62Mtg8TLafEr84{*xJ{?|>s#%Z69c<+gl$5C3w4Y? zmr=ZBxlhMJ3$9vSIMf_-)|i4|dS+>ImhqdfVzn=_J%Xoo5xS)g`=A@!;&O@G{m(5k z7sXwf0Y;U;p`5}LM!sUYpok*tgi6ntQEEvt z>|G|4a-!Wv<}A-YkF2%M*&LQUrt3QwSsD|C6IycF{G-G)26&3`MJxdAK+AGJ6>smr zyx=t`hrrz1M*k*!4GO6%Bq0~-4h1R-ir?mi>D&SR z>v`(JX7gTb44INCx7%*${+@|xJaAL#T90c^wp#B7J7+FFCAYZuHJQ2Gg_1x3zw-Fv zvgur)bu?i6m<%q8hUPax@ouqgx3eVgV9Yydz_G-F21>$r!?>u{CK&1!lfD(`01-yj z6&?!}Q(Iyw{)Ue@(Zqn`M-*gvd}l~DEEGA-e568X-q(W!pIIO39?7S0(VyovyVrjC zF!=5n``~Cmr#yu}cq6stZ!UPm+_$JNdK%b&P8S|yT6w@v@0Q8=g5r~;%1GGsSQhc5 zl0jbrVIKoFRuj@%!ZY92J|**lWjIJRvX#mH$pDc zH#8SwrC4W#nKq$A5*)j%C=5*zjpXFznmkI=ihsPHo=_ZDbBN_ES<2O_sZ_1QnQJjv zoZyQb!M|OA7)hy@PUIW9>g*@B|6yO@{mff>kVlz+=A4hb_a$s+?e2)?@*-Kc(Lt8FCnDp-j*C%NxeN2L5$SqvQhHq0#d!hqLCiKCg`= z6nl=`qQcqNH*KAu5JwiPsJZ&Q7O@LJOhcB8e{z5_4&lz*Fyn83@THNlEQsWGgfO+SxJ=t9B0p1|JB^E`s z`Xe98UE{_90u#*j41EN=W{(*IG2YP7qu$_s(t&pf_1}d*h@m9?TZ@G4=Q*}gi;J?` z;^7V{Tb9)}DYxSi-aNP)vYLk}j=#IPt!i9|pSqmp#?Od9{E)9&+IcKxnC^0?oA)f~ zv2!K~N@?vzxnZYWJm8FA*`1-ateJP8tkEL~`a}RGSw0ftWJh8`M`zIM(4u0VEQur! z*g9|xMZ!lsnSYToG~wapoBLY?v>I___IRc_b%3*zV@^lpi`ttn&?9_p+!Yd31&0;6cQ9Z*mPIv=lXcoiB-bG%eC- zJzGjUs*hbXdUgfBF8`tGO;p&TrvI&;#%3#*dv?#dKJZ1 z>^R3-CUcb>h1|^4iLh7W{2}6JaIE!{4Wg|*AL}pHe(cgg8l&k6vY02+u%BUM`IfIbKg6ZtdjHN+qy$2 zM1%@t$qbKBFtFyq;Sw`HJt%o_0`VDrVHtC$iASbQE~6atNaD?b#8k z;k>2+fN5JcEM|3PHNwNDKd2+4lA@(l1;;XlyOTtPoC}+op=VjX=N;@cO${s_`Y=D$ z4DjjP_(eZVDcXEj|FJnK?W$G2I>4B3`aw*q7%ruh%amVtx($b7IO+NGXNepM4+ne) z_f{1u%SZS;lNQzbG2G+O!&pfhStdCwTrqhJ34H#+!IhH>N-06M-Z^s(=Nek`riy(^ zZ5?Anf?{jgRJ?X1_MX=!mYLS4Yxo6(+Ey0f;L#1>17MXYMauDi3dYf*f>N@PencD? z!15fWws4IKIOReTw5qr(z`>8c-m~k0f2MB9i)F)-`&1jGIVG_ZUALDU95;Z}sowe< zy6h%7mYck~NX0OMauU?N!Rxu6N$WRx2SKRw{y*%0o(qYKhqphcqO7OueY4`;lC$}t z<&(dC{&oRmBikY)D6@VUII-5m=Ca~(4W46Qm*xnZ)5b%*pT&)o{8buQrlnwE_r&x5 z;T~@4^#R%0!f9q_Ci!v}o=@w+^a zokOWB>rYdI5&t#bjWAfWBZJq(sFI;xu&uFlLwG$arl{808@FHFE7-8^@DyyV0_{5I zy{h7?%*WVkB?LEc+oOTzR^18Hhd zx2lrJO5aL3ofIq`Hm!U7b*MS1MOy(?_MdXA+UuoDg(=cZY4+j~C|uw3Nr8jK^%uHZiX-$onFn-zG?DR(&)S84<6)3BA zzEpx~@fTMo+@kS7EkEw=KoaU2Q4r=&1bgqSeX`k>7M~)aT8(xiwj;i(KDV0&dNUgW zUu(AHI*S64#XnZp7xOu%^~!A{X+$!_IB`Pli*S&!zZ9z%{>vZE2;wHiN|CKFwh zx4{;z2*asPC!)lE%$&4K9iIh6GmYgi7O$ zjNF>^RJ*fQK^lh|-dNqk3AFMC(KwB^!(XFtf^P#nO+d%U8_|{Unqf}RrMy2Q=Y2`D z-UE6XQkP}>p0+tsH-jF_s9@Y{mwyM1eG?~8hC93vvuXoB@uHG$Qd8BJm;Y1h84{cV zpYOdkY|QaXEBJCk_)e|zOtf4(UDRbzYLU0Re_dN#WrQY-X41297?>Yc`=h9q)0=qJ z?lVfMg7(%Jf;wexL1*j?Ff!e*ewLH%{$93JS6Xc9-nJxW@AWn7G>})fne37#M8~*% z@<-1GCA*WxXpKl=e3J_{a+uGQn}zjLDE2izx=Q}~3#%w9?8uYyzDCrIwtD!r`*tN= z?fZ*pQpw-?(*}h!JqdS09%s#RPL?_S_`3kU1uaWOh7{TLHUD+WqMDJav*h5JB82U5 zzO{++)asOS*6$R zQf^Yv7?81$=oT;!QMBF8hqHC&D)sc9>3X%APEK@#%wdjlO+?P)a=Nu7&pVP`%1>-$ z^{uP@g@B=pHHiA1iO5#CkTa-JCrFPVK#ihkZdVi;Z~VblzGz@YY>|&^^KlQkd*N@C zc(O#8E^z0~=D0-ikQ9G@sU=|lGj*;9BH-XR>TK|SUN$dSb4GoDjPYW5Gpa{R!J%73 za&fiy3gb@B)R7Z%dJ3L;D?Cw2C=1SX>q#-L+%16tne!@Ov@vY&O6Y923!5o001d1d zb);1}+S)MiGegP`HsOXHd?gvWMzeP?O8?pN;E>`HZBr(_d z!<^R%YKVzLa1J$8p=?G(+;MnD=E%eNGsxB@TB?|voh&J4fuhVd+O34z7CG89kziF9 zu1NgJf_Ov}%Z!mz6=NO@MW#aEvZ?H=E%|nn?(0euMQ0P;myjs>EQ61ei1L>KuaQPd zkGim37f#)a=lRiAKqi+lu7f5yK?2bkSC42@JF>bH5P~i7nc@f8vl*Gqu*b|{$V+sR zFn6BFLR}i(WwOz?ea`@Mf2t4iqFe{?S5yoIVEiWwY>S`yzcU4UAVRf6{>?7@l&Jrw zJVGpJ8aPK5Mp?W^j<-mSe3{ru9cMKA6y{mR0O$#*Z=@tNvA0^NGf0j+^@VivEgy~yXGKcne8<}hK4 zim%7qVKAz39+n@-o_FnuvJnVl$Ncp-#5@C1Vg-@+-pIv((#EfWY7b_`FG6t0L zu-Zc1M2Jv^ZH4%ai1sH}@|e@gWu-_bia&*%25fiYMlwPrYtE#tgW%FnOI_g0I^C@8 zY;tFW5sXeQ{PP`hIkF!NiGBf^* z&~%%vZ=1K=1G87G}v!J+2&Tw#>dGsVO zQ_svS-ZZZ+@hYD@b_kR*ZAI5(|0*8n8~E@U;v1>kL;tzU`~LP7cd-oa!a6(y01dPf;sjG+!tfxVZV*-_~jHTM|>8iDMfoGgkg#|H?RC;(h=h?Ko;XC*m@8Emt<6A z5Td#RQ2NwYuxLPqXh?xv@~cWZ3|(6R)SbeD4WW{j5azX!nVN&PzUYAnc7nVR=k4o@j_#-1DvUpZ0#dep;lT+;ssv4()Psgi6{ePC8E`TqM?#iMdhP5A-&8*0}@{g+bm>7-#1 z=5rm1FhT#)Ip2mqa4!m^dYF{4cj2sY@W@m;E_4?iQrqcC8!0w1t(jqA&A2QhQql&c zV$cjcNp~hNn>F{L$e;3zO{bOS$0QcGrYODA%7$j^no;P-XT0$bHWImwI6eA+Xi8J& zyddqZ(H_6t^EYU;>TBDQEl0(tAv~B;J|uIpxAVY!3Nyv+UK{GZR|n`tUlQ7p{#v$? zdGyuk^;ADa9sxdhF0@a(=Y|~~b}rIP_=J%^M%=tEta&f%*#hjYf{w{>6O>^5fM31Z9`8{k2*A|^A+&(B)$7T)}zp6yHOzJL?4q}%Eah@~7i!|$_gj7*x z7?m`t;wqdVZ--P8FVxifvg*>_QN=e*i)@q!u#Ov1apwM?*4{Fxu5DY_PJ#sw?ry=| zHMkSp9fG^NySuvw3l718Ly(EP`@~^l6aC2AYn^@0cXrjSx^;ieA7fVUL;C2Wx3@k0 zZA1ABOjAg#5p9>F9JD0NxUH{s!4{2$IIK`&o?mLKv>xTR)5 z5Fh$UJ{fPMZP$Kt6O z5rjKjQV6LR6Q8RgdY%Y3v9>YPp!%g$hyjC)4LdjE&dIq3TEdAn23cFtMPtb2v7-j&iONbK}P!OhuFfdp7>xAJ-yxcC`mt; z7@8?-4<_WrQ?mP%H{A}0cALY`#;+75H9g!x)JqhdL|ZTX%I)=}?$`0II7YsMw`FHh zC&thyd+I(5QbeTT+P=d5n}c?9y8P}zQm0D84}zSlxgI)~TxiP$`R0Qr?AGNAj#;Dc z_-5B-4K)fLb=sOcE%AAe2Nc^0KttylP<@VxI`UK{1%dquUU46vsDebibDfD<=W8dt zvAZ2kU9^J*5qI7?|B>-R%V~NHMNYV{`6t-lW&WQHb*V8p_)d`;hrejOcBD+GC#u*z zBDoq%6;yZGx@xKj^H(?WEk(Q@u$=kiw9c=gM#SS<7Y*oK&$?@hd z+aO|xJ}y0)(0b|P4Rq{0vdI&Oe^m_HVTNDu+b?r6gQo{TO4?mtG`2(6hy&NQ3}3To zv^w%qzabNzukNA<#obL!uYNhi;;C5hanIy$9CHkWE+R-%rD)uch&m^p3Jh|!dp5Zs zHTJ2;JNIi9`q7?(X-D;v=NEDM=&eCZ;zs#p(0YiuawD=YmKuY~0Z}pp$eRl}5?Izw z@OXpGcxF*h!uo3%mkN0711?{+OyY+iO>LIV3NNWsg#S{*j{-n4N(cAU9T@YAP?D701%62sc z_DR>K@ysJ(Sa8Ms+;))k{qdT!0O-?lg)dJBedBGm(Au>8&}{lFTivm?YWCTROjJt@ z)&~8>*O^_yr~!d2n4q@zX?*=X{Pc~kVIwQv*SEG3zTI)13eEL`$$dwlEgj`h!u4YH zR6&=zFZ@#a614QZULSSqrn^?yE3*}P8>>U0pUL0uXwhjHm0}bNl0FO)|6tD=ed8H# zk9!WmIxsKkBi(@GgQ_%YYCN|AQ@eRhr%?Wkgv{f+i1xJ;#|66YZi6;@TFK}yv1(eb zclO(nDWyXP8#45M<6?bjGuek0MWzyX{AJGBULCW5OtVnN6^FI7tr&>v#(U3?rso50 zzry5lGialZ)|KF2WftqS#XX!LZrt>V1ro!&1Mi2#@e${NfJ#mqp^4)Ai{;aYNHOc{ zD*xs6-9U398-?a+55A%2u6-PEwcE@RP}may(6gf@U_=a>VQ=GV9Y&j%z)xp|-BuS; zpuE4Rd9+AJcy}RAS@bzs9iKWu+VH7tds~63dTO>g5Js4H(Gp zkx5deQT}_f`Bs}TYk(}U;rroDq~lkACmZ)*zL7|F9i*n^4Z|Hlu=0xNba5zKNV!Qo|mlYqH-nKUkuYEk<&iKC&sg z8}hJbaQILuNi4XKm;_dubD4F<>?}`u6$|b<^WF9^h=I5ZT8MxWCLePCyf2k^h4!)- zeGH%*?MR4ykoTVqkBpTU;1+%Q%`>(yWvn!Y>QfOn`3O|XP!y0lIiNW{Yj>NI-=Hyv zmG8i$@Ig!;X1Vsottf4FF5Je2IjiO_3_?*-FMGfxP3_Kuu7p(I$p&lmoPGWFA;u0{ zsxvRWfrfes*P&YK6I}nW9z;zEj^{I?(b0Cj)T@vGp~x`UKhwhs#a+3CE~KX^ue`g_s7IQ}q+x2#}sv_N~6oe;cn~N4KKZ6JM z`mcLng)ix}P_FAxKd$SF%~8<+Ws*)k7XU9vwSvflP*82=+V!JOhFob9d|kMXbhvkZ;seIvA=*`roI zg3l})>lDR7JhJ7{kY0z}0)A5kuD0>(L}HS$7XG0R>lRAs%(Z!QwN|i!FQ0*xNejHU zoc%9*B&*1{R0qGef42M_Uc@~cx=;)ZhK{H5*#B@f4^t;qvibc8`TOR>4bF4E&MQO zB$b0v*4KZyG-0wS{*KzHPy=AmBt#-W23%j>6Wbt5R?ZHIS+9z- zMrIPb3WVv+4kN|ISFjbV^1JEL)%5XXxC!^y=@`{`EB! z2Zwg4Rg@2rGQ_39Iy*IT`&BB@`|bHc_DLa{&V1;q#DDcr-ca}Iuq1R-PK(&|W0kTM zmQa@X*v%)zl$x766g9}Yw_I;}*q`XySk8hDm$qC~5`kE@l|)XpPN%Ei?w;tbWh63w z700CK{q+0VDJpTN58i{$CCPQtx`abe^x7L^{?$CQD*H#iiBfSR#vn@+W5Sm6%5WzJ zarRgNmW$&--+f$(zy>dT7jZc1JjTj1d0igI^krb)&$vXL)_76}*J3tmbf~?D+VI%% zjNir6G^g5Q!^LSOtKCzL+~R44?=4)9>>9VNtv7pkSSgF53zP;gE-z?qn|`_YoOQc= z=C&34Qc-VoL)6DhP*M% zhyLxMV|2=WX{AT5Aj_&g9Vj5himMfOu+C2ZvpfI193176zjI4)W~R+zO_7CDaL?fo zO{h4OGSt|J8wG2mQU5&ia2>zXdF_Bq7;Z{K)38dzd*HMbi<4~@<#QZM3_GRdM4D;Z z)I@~C)q<_%Ilsp=uq}iI?40SH6i6D-XaP~rBkCE*jl`5f2UWZu16Mk(i|=v&O%Sb5 z<9%CPSj1lY;Y&gW{0MqQTw=eVWD!Qd+ebMLFX>h8wOwc{R6wS*;kBEOKO2V(ZGLFA zwM#GR>O5vRF*-riVqLDe%$|LSi*tkozH5XktF7IJ>&S#*D77umT=O|GEfu`We!a9n zN9SXm@}L)e65y(L>U6aQX2Y5okScb9KdcH?+6aF{!Mn3%GfXDmWyh_H)YPikm<=tI zekcsxiR17$(NVf{thDG}SoAnNzSyda0KS+X$S18X#qIXflQR99SSs6H})&o-%u=(_H|B2OtW4_xd!HiN4hU z&L}f1OEQNc?5}eTU!3Dxpc3k8x7?R7W`20{mRj*$fL;Z-Q@3NEa6HBPGRqBG^;zJM zCeBw_l$(hN^kuyzM`2`u_J+3`a9=-TPMSSSF=B2qRLE|y7qx_NV?mv1b)qq*U7zo^ zCC;RpmZjy=@?`$4M8|j-vAE`7QWF7rsx_8t+?W!V?hjw>Jp_@lvW>k?k`mN%UwhusGBC!-FPJPm- zq?{nSp#)D97GB0VIcp%|>-8~eZY%|!eNd{*sbx{gVcY-hV>o19 z9D8nd4yalr{9(9qRI;!`x;i6sGGi@n%5T$ox|#)tb`^%L3K~As)2n_&U$Li`f1T}$ z^vILXrkuMXz{exgaqovFdufZ>DD3o#u&Xz2nKJ}A?|{{!g8*S8M^Qe_aIDSN{A^o? zCj;6k#OS^uyMpEB?0V2Y(-=e_3mkC~s)Tn| zUsXnN%VwPqi8d!Yql0!C_R35X7?sx1s#i{p70L2A4Xk*By{dytDI+@YyFk81+%H>E z&Co9q;<;Lxeq53gB@-zi=BKb7T0ci8s;7hcK`WO?O!c)?`o37-pH-`X@vR;B;&WHS z=X%(q=;)VP#YV-DF?m{-dg)Wj7!^9V10x(o32M~g4e?@WoM-9C1Z8S*`GK!qFy$>7 z;RC9(G*qcK@k(a+KL-lqAIrvi#f>Q{WwTCK^%H)*dPdLgMkZXIfhSVCMY1C2=)N}+ zRBDoDA+Ho0O&yQ24^sEprR0w7UXa?+wR0GxjK=aPV| z(2#AIdj>Rno^jCzBXpLi@b>G|rikhcQnzK@MCy&eWHI{m>DhEeIStE|FUyiS10R=g zGH~hHv4c3)iVUxxgZkK2dEpa@#D71%C`9xp>`^%725-L*}1}YnOmNR$W zVw${!kilE%ugo%KvUPsJCGV&{#6+->r zIFrDSouZ|=t|N2aBkvXtxIFt-Q%>QaMkzCNPFN0iWR3_?(QPFq8=!?BAS|Ft9^hgn zEOGo66kaPvolg8!W`-Nu@uU?FmHPTYYi#T*l7wBJeGi;;_`R_<#@ z(oP9;=J-~f#=%4qJ4ZH0%*=V&DE17C&64HP6oAcNw;-=wj3`Oxz9j7d=4dMy;WEx; zQmMG+XPr&8agbs1#V*-Ui7}3chkz0wKUUSaA)UB-A_AVm!4*Uxv3o{4a9Di2cW}XN z8BZ&;Zr=A(o{WaLGClj;z$h zlxO3TPiwAo)`lhZY-Vz>CbZ3J5bS{1C(gPr9Y0SE-!WsB{p9{WsRRiJcE?lMBXn0Q z@bGbRa=))&_$x_~_081Uf|&C7EQYhvIYokw++q!7Y0R7so^#?NJMa3MJUWhsanEI^ zZtI!m><1%T>!J20=n7%s_1#h*34)_nUKO6_%Btoya;g%fV=Y)3jH6DQ*7Noy9F>_( z&{h?5YR#QJZ&x)>Um2y$){834h)@b-J`28_k+t;@$UiVRxMM_W1=Q(mt!*GEBB0R`TvZ!8Mf#9mxxd5_! z7L;ib)NvmnkME+Gaof2rZJ#(J`yfywdTjr+QSh5s%{wWF&9#+bVcv?ESm>$+wEoZ; zr-w2<=_EcJDr3jZRq_DOL{8uAzWFH;fIJq54B~G}yqgW{qB{=-ph1=Dk@42xY~ef~ zKV9G@VTi&_Q|8;68Q!^rue(j@wM&>+cS2_>f!U^9kKG}4Pw@QE9cZ!km*WE-Q!^fQ@tZga;yihTM=A^2G z1ELW&zQ7f17 z{%0TnL>J^0T|!oA{63cAMkycnWG99|uY(c4K!$igKH z=p?wiDYx&@AHq(g0_~{pZ#$)pOT@qJl5Y`}9X5_z9zCMS`xfOK1TwI>g#SVgB#&x= zrjBSS%5Xm>1^<3?zUzP$OV< zD)2;CZ;v!lSE^p@QwYL>wCA>9(=X}A62q6Xljp{6=iq$>7Ex#lAXP8 z-)Y%qXFt7Q^_E}^)P08V*#tE+Uj)O7FvsyYCcbQ%Sj@J43esN+X*pKy(9gw>`(;oe zYF`IXiz>PPl%G!i^uTmV4{$JniH@UmXGJfu1So}J@3v+u+rM6Xlnc!$c6>^65Uz#B zY5SfO3mL(`^TtDmTG2!dXCc@)Z|LQvCVFs>mANIno5EzYd6r8@fO5n_gM^?uNXQcB zb4D0dUIFqR1+9MW+xpb!x5&pC(27o$$k9-FK74J(7bu7zZ|9|{boZ6pgDucQfhs62 zki#_~DFHhpr_^+j8CFJwzjO*)1Vm4aKGVOh?7*Ep+d)8@1?TWXq67$wwZeZts`j@i}m$1w@7lpt6{#68BEan$b$RRE_npvtw&eYrgy(A17T)2Q$*&Sg2#8%DH#}17V;{A?$9YEHd&M-~AruDx z1U>>+4>B_|A=G(;hVpW!(i9wZ!lB(MGP^_`Gg1$TFs08%ud--w&S{%wWF{~WZ(hya zT@mcZIAut?2~7{n^De-9f}PZ(e(S)?pFE;|wZScO5*uig2xv4#=OKsu0!pRybbwTP ztIINL-k(=u{a|N%so$4QAaIBks9$~r9h^$(&d6T)1gnI*CFQbx?~pwTZhP$DzDch)J-Uq!y>` zHNjI>*=v9P^J3Sx!HYOehN#_3B3tyYkx!`u>?b*dQO>t_=;9t)y5iq{CW|DyQ{9l0d#BVNA zKbQ)GRsZeV18GVkt?_RpL5TSO+Sm9C><)w++Z?U%r+>Vv0{*0L2jZFL*e4BGVHLfZ zQz3qw9`+FN4c2YG)2qB*Ss=8+ds$fip%y;%kEd}s=uiCKd zSc}Xn=f7K8$Gw4iJ@#H{%z~0Ld0I@qY6<`o9FJ|5BMgE_+y}FqTA#Nr%xz5v!2KfW zw1OoYK9p67xqrLnJYim*2Y);x_DsFcTH^JJqa_pF=<1Z&1xQ4MPh~P@p`4=pV_o#^ z(#yrq=&=PXz=Z9qFKIU7uGh15v*pp6YRNWh5>5tnWcAkn}I2im^6RJ-I`>0Qn zO3&Y`#0POrgR%_0eV7<3lIa{|Z+plN8rcjEg@$&L&_jmQZkU zj9zE_zITK#u_%ko%SIAI$bluU3%e8~6r5fBb>pN6yrm`U7;qT{yUvGiayTs)H%&w5 z{*YS)q(zn0JqQ(l+T(bV@~ZF&U{kAwU-5*H@}u=JJ9RQe{P9m>vKWb2xuF{ByyaxJ zhW+bs3=2LIDo^D)+YdN7LB3$KnX%^^Kf=OVd=#vQ@ZNQu zI(Bqr)RBjwUYp5O$iTl|qzfn^z5pF&7BziN0jI=Y0q?~fSyFBEmfhaG9S&YY9J10d zDF%dw^b<3g6uXOZN{5oj2;KfDxo1ijcUEYe7q{B=MX5o?{;wR|M>`8+`xg0E)-Tfo zz_S1qnFjTPegoteKS-dsM?u@vlzbXq;mezSAnsKvCC{z%*2pQ9x5F*F3Mq_Mxb+qD z4+YZeS>lmx6&fnT<$2*g`*^Io;$fM54AZLi_N69=U?By;5n7g1i51}D0<7R6g{!Hf z;^3-3Ey3nyt^iw7QW^67;TntdlR1$W%pf!W6Wf{q(S!-3$inAJ{(75)x^#_Fq#Cyw z@R&&X&;yVwtK>&b?tZK*Ph-%vxSg~mt+o3yfjJe@w5Pb(%Z~VR-V@TT({n$}ia9I~ z5bo#j$%=xB^?a44tQ+Qo?wKWj>62GYtBSK!N{}~+3k=`@QW8` zmtW!!&)kxR1}v{5a=)2VGOsiY1ve_2jZUGVDV2-|^ZxbS?OiLM#vH~Nh1%MT2d8KF zV~>!S=8)aD43F|(ABG+~K_lc{Y0aHqr;`x`NX&(n`3I7Do*|p0iiO^8?8}Rvi#!M@ zRm21NukjTizJgk_e#%0=W=T1s@nm92`0c-YM~MBWMgWiS{oeb)y6ds^{s{B}q7cdN z9*vdUjoVLmQxg)fgR0KXS40R&!#H34Fv)9pdMDOQqHoN^dz;M1sYe}CYB*!kzzfrJ-rxRjZ&xL7Y1!27nXBK*gU{{p0);9rO#2vV7R?M z=;_-B_hKc`{X?4)I+Q6XtMWW|3b`!$XFB_L;r~G*KE$r5W_F-R$@GdJ|D%I8yzn#2 zzi4s8su{XQZHm9w&AZ|3^zS;H?r~|1(0rc$Qp-fVHek}0`@e)`xQgq&kX=>Nfg{0C zx7!U`VpUU(dpA(xfwXOg#EaxN^nvhd<9K7Q{dN5)yoA)Lz}`9h9nQPczmf$~DUv0s z%Pr{%89I=y%-{`lPB?Vi!-liU+WavG597KYNWarLY0^2|9Co*|e3PRLtNd3_py2tX zPRe4OJ2uPCipa4TiY2oNzRan$biOOiM8xhkI+)zxSkE3w`W{#zrTiIvzuc!l!ytAU z3*J6WWm)QHv4H%zna!CFO`st&zkZ$0-@cM>^&!aJSl{I7JgNM}lf@Pdi`9ct>a(%~ z^ZgcDH&;Q4^Bvr&ui^GAa(XROw+rhfe(rCA?X_<|z#osMF84W@!PmjHh~A41bGC<# zhX;uE2=vgV-hqt9z-;FMcD`NrZ$MC`~R=lh|&YF|dCb3|yoP#UvpzpXQ2Ayci| zF9Z*Dx++S_k9b^18xRj}f;~>niez3$XIi&~P{C+A(xY>d#xteE3|SR4ofJ?ouFFTl zyjSH2GisWU%OOV_gn}ej{e7se6rBynytpD`QkCktLI=jACU|IAyQ3{I=cIbo!{s)a}MmUQZ* zEOSh7@48%(JA#cJOUca9yyGGC<&Q{JdX^;ZIBB4ha}cMy3u*KlnhG{^b<(KSIbZio60?!Ijr(0|xhC0{lEBmU9DL6%sAK7d z&XmI)`mv$|nGvynE#5a<@D+PK@p`;i79}Q+`&KxIXWn9`@NAat49=-3DTxoF+8vEI zoQ5pu!@9Dc5VGlVf<0ZrU-V$@D&xASWU=4o?+y4VFK@_Gr}=aDL+sSD<{7tHm^Q`G zK9bPaA0G1hXm(-_&ivz>mmk_1z92p96vy78EN+#6!C#gagbb~dxB6;7O)z{-cehCI z=JgUhWh5v7Cm|#R1c_o+-KzfYu$WcBx3Qtt{>OA!ZAluLA4wm3iV2hoe3RO zPDTYp9<-b5d9nzsrM>3^u(S?+)RIaaDn0rVMQxM-@7#o7UuBxD(i+#Ld^CNUbLVD3 z>f?LC4yxLSa;RV1N((H$UcqkIJKEuMdQjun7iRc7cIn;=zx(fHV)E%kVJrU|oBjW! zqRjs+MDu?idHwC>|L5ne5X}WOv7N)rZaGR|IxR+3oTt4tdg8r~qG1ov!LS0o@H5`P zm!y?YMM+`eYqdW^>5Ve4f*u@~U%kPL7eJ1wYu@s!Mzk6rIAwk#_{0H4gJRvr9{nLc zMb~0@rz{UI+~O?C=dK2ruqI&A_MyB? z*q$rI_?kY^5owC&wnlr3g%yShY&fS?apk$2gB5-W;!wOye3DXqooz39y<(%90q|BrLj0?34KPpk;dtr+BkPqnUg7>3&ai}QU7#{^-R(p~q0jPegUhOyx z^AZH;6aA8mW&^{ki5dD8%{R{0C3I+=iKbzy@#GLhD#~BFUCACI&WCW8JB-&SBtYBqVh>a7nuwQMy+w%?I9T zyIL;be%=+wL4twJQBB(za6#(u;$xf5WRl&*jtRrz!=+Nseh7TO_iE7xvf=$k7VXC; zJ4r;Ek@wUpT;Lm)wjWlVP6HopmLw|j#YkB(r3vws5c>q1oZUlihSLjYkx%xxfMj0| zVqtyBVaXNB^NcQYz-gH}Hus^*Vfxf9!PizWL54M;%mz?-fBh~eEa}kd z*y73uMm;AmIy94S1g}=&0Pz7G@UBxjxH*7}M_kA6hUUiXZu)U%WJ3DJxno|o%TBN$ zisyet#K}$niavi4!NB?18Ad3#uvlB)&yE(3|xmwCWPpTwRi9oK)r{rczBmIQN z!$vHw^VD6O$CG@}2J%`lK0i0X&wA?2R;Nu3C5k@PerhjPIM(rLh}#ddVjh7SWTbQl z*~b^iu#%B$XPIvRdrOBYa=d8y{nGUfduHzN<@6KsKX|^D!P}bm>)ZAT7WQf3$?;}6 z*kl|TM^8?Dta$SF5Uo(i5W)qaO#r=yVi8dVILYL|mA2k`SR795(DV{VYo7w_6Q7ci zUJj0fCo;`#>kCv&Kl0CsTql8t7&91^?Xa>B8uo!j07T0}Qxsqulcd98+ zbku$WPT>qYpQiATn(f$?>Br52G&}@Lm+uc4tg|RrxV!@m+=F!#3xHu^7uGaD`MX!= z!dK8IpN7Hrg?Ht{s82b9XyS=Ywra!Bv&yzE7NxzM1qf zS-bhi_GB4voPT-JbBeL({{(DV=vkMx2M?_JyA(^~i6{~vE9IyjqDZDQ-$%9Q=x)>( z4Cm`gJ6_ps5I;nDpnJyZ$vvbs*u{J0$_J*{wW2fMsK8=lt@vSRjD{j>@Ju!OV2c z+t2XW$3%stM)NlWm<&TZGb16^PDbsXiR*7HqyQQ*cuzd{)L#C4ob`WmqN;E|Q$wQr zj{9!?gq_c?Cx0?ZYFYGmisin9_LvWus=}V$O>Of^Hg4vxX$xj>4Qu$Uoz#~HdumyD z)T6xuOjjRy9ICYoS}EXj&s-Se+FadEc0sH`(2wM=if_^h~cJfZ_Pvu<1_DzSHixlQ5t4~|KHcqyQj z$@}qHnCj*yvO+^xs$=3%$#VO={Eiy7M`zYNL3Lwia{keZ4cqwoD8=0L340RmNzcKG z!X|{z!@1l_O!nDE)Z1N!oQBJtuXxU7nWt*Md`45 z$YV`=`QCbJ1KlmKvl;gJSBldqJ8Gc-@FKfIM%PbmFaRWdYLBWPn@bA;B2f+(6%_(J zhpPt}>{Pb%5n8JX>5|a5Gut*ho7x^HUhQVrK5uQB5eoCpDTK9z%;%z&YcB)sX;~MT z+81wb@C$M~?{lwMv-RDdeyhxi?Sseod~RXUD*AF7Jy#B&9SF0mZlzL9hkcq%6;q!m zWaHQr1$`6Oo541d1(>sV4`j(GK$!-IKp6|{~FN>rtaoeE_V zYR>hg-b0_mtQF584OtyJIELN2{N3}ag;IS?Sm}qZCL}_(GH$dyDaJ+<>{kWxVPL+# z9ID3+d0I=WJO+E$JrB?Da zy8-Fw@<&+i4iH1%Zsb;vpm&2;k}gF=LPBPU3p8p;cc%)FUT2esc@|ZsS!Pdp zn*EA7go6}{oq=EW_J%Fvp*Tx!s{CaaQbTh(`I)a?vwof zWE4*u$na@MiPg(GE&1_iv``0(C7?A1z1Cm<@YZD8;)P zNyQD=Pq>OQx6FUjw;@=Ia73L_#F;cr2h&VuEOY5rlm~Nb-^Q$15b~spFkBjEKSk78 zCf_6pcC|--S5TQwqa51R6@1hWXXrFwJJk;i1{}Q0SzUspMjty?w=_<@MP6?E;^~J@ z!d?0v_sFYE$}qRX49Ao9&sNzDSW(zx8>P?a-<~1h20lDg2?7T`tWu08gH+Rh2<#8u z+-N2H*@>o_M3cv#eYhs?BXYNJnnjf^W8ybA>l+l?7-DLr@w+iIApL{B5J5yg&hcAGv!Xhq9>w$4f5!L=0y|jdod5aEbIY zJ06qoz(hf}O$SgNM@iMb9VOvENG(;)Zlx8`x4+rtSK}6p*NP1i5hdMZ%Bd|T()C8h z7wV49(He#@uHi(as4$>Pen-yvAuu|*(5RZeBOjAyS6AXBU@8Wh5A5A3{&Y?p!_SdU zdXdN=^Y1FzJKgWnesRbt~}$YQYk7lT-uw`YV+`x)vAZD+T(`s$vZ191K?I_;no zB?Q)H|3T)ruD*+=H!;%OuIK0RKLjUB zAy>sQ{JulOqqhGC`!u$-yK7afSQ~b7c~fTZxrp)N#4-71(2k)InBk|N$-Xd)*ijMr zCGxZ>Af~tfq!}~+V`yX|g?@9a^xi!TY)Kc&9T~^jntAVMsbMQNBMc?roeZ%0&jR`_ zqSCOD<>K+WRHOJ9qE7-wrqPN?3$WdBW=is8jCdIf(h%t`IK!h9c#<;mXd6RJ(E#iU zbgYmIvPd3;e4ejesq?80h)ruw^6bR&UTAiqQs?SvebP3^#_(;5eZg#0J2T+#6$<5v`&%BeIf zhljg+sR^$gUfmA0Rstv?2`V2WL4Lc+yzP5>b^vwlt+8TTZ5Lg#YT9eg;m|>JJDj;X z`*#A}j-!OFOzCYq{jJ@S3`oA^_OyFSURP}b4h7C!y8*6y@ARq{oW*pCr=V@$*!3ay z!h%m*CYc?!MW?l$qceZSO>b+Mv&|XN`t8L;vqQ=Fdq$N;Qc1_T)jn~CL8+&x6c{2W zqcpT^@FArHBTl-LNx+ow_%f{t12Erg_-Q%VWmJyWdOn@0W_Pn!8b?Z5s*{Lh_k3$0 z?`W}E>o+fiqN-x$*+9MTEz#eSkM#SA?xPm-{A(Eag^E3fz0cNF8SO1KZ)_SH9X4Cp zgm?J03(P#siG~wwC>6xN)t+WRYx5XS8=lZW)uS3VlgjFBP5V{(fstt7^HYgnKt~fH z2u@$SPQ}aWFPaUqkgVK;pj=!p=5C}yQ)MLZrW94squN3VnT_R$>zJ;|=`Qv+s^h@b zW4T=;(}7wd#wd}+6HWVMp%_Lz-vP|5t=eZDwGj;XCz>pgI<14!wnW$+B{ZYDOKoYp zw9ErfXqPJ7DAO}Oc9q|(8=6XIm5fpKd)?`XTFozG;$%)1*@&rG*3m}$>(VJ>j{4P# zkZ0FcMjV`zU!xr^gkWqG9?XvqN$$INtP&)Izt4{7N25KC5c|NyI((@!R#)3vH(g5C zBx@@6V=`>W8hP^ZA6{Yu!{*m#GUB8bwEP`<8lKtE*@J8ZNGzZ=2<*#KiYFrtcT~Jl9D?Azr&iC1-+@@Kj zzLliF*oX`DnuDgh#@VRe&)WS;+Z`b&9!cu2S-L!PEgb%Z3m$MxUL*aJ8anDyA@?giSxg)XUa?v@Vmw8J}lRQqC9 zOA+3MjA$c(ABlj$@>`8)%}1AQE;(|2x(+*Ie8s|VEK=uv;`XohmIN`kwSCa;LV8_Q znvfb(HT8{yq|=Yl1EC7YU0i$t#@I{jDG<3XakAfz~2d@s3g~C%_4LC`8(?Xo)8|LrhD#x=QW87%XNqB#aSo4r zn<|QFDYXgMIUUQ@?Y!6>Vewck&^R)g)dL&ldo=2j{U(R~lzugWU#1sp8m1cEcwG`z zy4L>)1euz zXB~2{vOnX-VId>S5mDFX_=E(d2zb+X;)A169>0ca|0ARw zkak?{I3lA?N&W{VjtzrP7mw6=tarwy*3mjn+}1f9&920}HmhwgtPgf|gICnv*uR-* z0QL@Q(`)>i@YZnBk$fZOlN=aRUM-SZKF+*#4Y!B&C|i_&`T$0s74XoBjra$)3D$>O zPi$mWa7_D$&tXWZ7F#zlFY=l{cwb1bxBQUBB&WxV&BdMZ>xg_ka{JITvu6j&(JTo6 z`e1m2y!&lTnR^+N2=D7Qc6&p7GKc z$#o%ZjT7Y!Uf;9qb}iR`PNnjr=N5H5?d6ap;Fdc=VGLrVz2-;L(GwgjMCgF*$|1PV z%l3?s@DJLWy^0 zaX??4OK^c>Tyx=nPR^2i5d4^^(<|67GW3J5DW|JQ;IB;j8#_Jzcli9oaPdFTgacOL z@8<@abqJlW)vGfPkZzf6=K<*60+hd3-ELtuS3NYtJ(wg8XWfvtA6m24l^f`8-bfC{ zwqd>vsr$tA(m%7}{q`GgA}G-lt^$jFd?{c^@;qahz~^f_DAr@iT(}1!HOKr2IkOAG z#XG{2HZ6Xan1GvwQ4&u=hS2(FmC%*{whILSkD=D#L%{X=dV7}F6v5=bbI(ZGgw-$g ziDgOj0;*ibN*BKpDUiVkg|vk67nUIk+%|ErQJTCwQe;pAF%Pec`H+9m2x<5@1=3ug z2DvbNHQ2lK5rp8@;?s6;#@&!~+5%{}TK}yj(F?TlShP40zSEsw5bz-UrNFzisxdye zZM00Alg;nK0)Ao7;}qQ8`yJ)|v=96K!jB~c0uzf~2r8 z3CPjj%+kgb0Jx%)lx3}F6|ndZL$`5_Ofhniejpj8N%68S9}QcU)+_v-Ra~Y;OKTeq z&C35aq;ZTs8U4pDpTJG4#X(zC=Y~q+19F9qDlTcnbadinTgqb0G?Z*p^M01wy3alM z8oG|CD79gI8g)@_BO3MgcpEdp^MuTG14C;v#I^SZJbG||fG=Qu{#z2#AibCF8?WWj z{9y5T_Sz8crM%w3p;wsA-*YAVT^hqJy#f~_7IQrfQ72pwV{k0~YnUGf6(0@)+hP1f zC>Mjnx4wPyyBcGdKK1Z>oMTW2S_Z`gWd(-YqM8AQU_M3ADX21eVW%~if&7i$x|U9r zwL~-9wQ*Och5ESgOCJWxYDh4Weq{S9&s|Hz*qhN;=4;7=7H-p%aohSYIRxwA(+3h|Ei{#)eo5$CGR zLfU7akM_CIe6qbsP|U>Ko7wB}sr%qLpX-Bk&3>xl3+y}KG)vF~lpKK+X^d*mbx&$V z#azK(&l5hjA>)|;Mf&+q;T(naflxiIUu79-06BB>g_&W{;^&m=k!{hJ5-C-5vNlZ~ zvYj!Ihct>6q_rS}wkP&Rj!d%O>+Rnmv;J>K6uYwFQYqAm%-2|_S#xZz7=e6H;JScw z?HV70q(E^h+rCoYG_J;!B=(fF39}ezwO5M;ZLHgqM3RL%U4jPGr)} zb}keSqM`F@3?b^=g*+ouJ%Q(#Q_z;)4>KZ2LemKVuovFnN~rB&iT(FRcxOpjQTPMs zFF2&!Xf|)5?@gbbMKzp-?QLyM?VJH&M^i&*Qxg(5OJ@rbaYrF8sDB_{B04*IbkPtsm7$NZ8-*~7xpsc;L|T z06Sdy|LV{IS9Je({Qn{Ii2Z+P{h#{p7o`8t{lDbjq!Aw8BC->x)5so|qS9*r7#GST zqob1}G_HUbW@gsr=T{$2|3>0Y5KLrOe)}Wv-+>sMaAh=poginKQOACy$7%hbb!SYV zNs|#c$n}IGVP?hvm=`Ahq`gXM&s7iihN81`>WXFkzljxmcLN5I{T?>O)ygyujRJa? zzJzUdIo{sgE%UBuXV}ga%KI$5WNjoLy3xmvWsyN~BCpzne4ytf00iEeUcj%Z7@^5-iJ-yxym5YG@Ho}d3+U>mFHGmP??=3CL;<-aP7n)YKIaPWm?uI;J%;zrBG z*rR-`>Lh)Vlg*<%;+e1{p{zurIU=bpT*aWk&u`*EwZ z>qDRSD^{n?Q$pO|#9bQMeexg|?d=p#d!@xgqvEc%5SR1LnzyP>sA8`F-J(m(kxC*6 z7}IUti$A0>f@>?%$|E&u$ z(r-YRUK4qo@ddfYH|gZ@E#SL|2o}6SpqESa17 z6`##FaFoE5*Z=qU3D&<@jnr}@<1iWlt9JK|IMtt%UsilY<*vF~&da zqJkYjIFY%Y&v?n!`*eOwcgxnfij6?zsS#9@?(1I~wN+fAkC(%d%?p|OS-e+w&E2c! z^LZ<(Uu_5VX}Q*}eZpDDX(@x6-S=#6yqDrN358KV08`Q_<3W|T?6szGFBblhnE9e9 zC2Ne+UNwJyH6Nwu`+C2gt7nbVrk&8L^mb>~!&g>dFUlgHX;YkXwLNR_gJ6+U7+y7H zEPy$)$D_r~YlhK{%B^!>8OPmM^v)AlKG)4kwE+%7cgXZfDA9}Nfx!>kLi9GTVKm_6 zAh@J8mF!u-jeON%VvGBQ`M|PbhM3>b3f}+sL;uKG<_LO7#lQ@e0Q;gRR2Aqle)k&l zPoPegY&}(skJI{VQv}%s1baL(%;4tpDPm#5Me9=EAXa#`4PsBRy z=fb1xYfYH1U)hZR$rlAS;0D0r`VAUZ*5is;a|_anSVMoZ+yU5a zn}*g{*~wxf$CYi~f2X1p+fM>^N^;1T{+MTvr1gk7npLh{U96tT zBkS?6?me39=@RI9UU%gR526vTb{-$9)^fvy3*RV>A=|gPT_p5|qP0CvE01h*Tl+E{&pDw@cZ4E(2!+AmHq2;8#@%|9M zcaLiQBX?p@Ka%}dg0U<-`8H;k=2QUi-!q24ds$!cdOJVmwRh)fy#3KU2xC-*mGQ!jO%zgBwg7tl*?02jU;FEJVEF6ZZK z`gXrRDdCKv5LQwGxiew&Oj38Z>rZ2`1LW%d{R|ys_@1lTkSlxnv|gU)O+m=z+GRs3 z#Yo?3T<6)t({`iV`Lp@dGciHYXPQVeIB1OA?k;A<>dWp|$220`4{VrNpF&pQ|3|bK z(O#FXn+e2`YtKSB$BkMKJ0|3_k4{hWy}VM1;AH40jZJT6{owKLpR7R8iCHMIZBLF^?ziPa-!~-kF)Yq*;!uY8Q;-R1&PUFZ@QO| zwG{GO`t?yOZUOjKrGfGzjQ_7-`Hsv4j?!C;DeFoc??o)X_2d*z`i&@wifnK0`+#4{ zD;)boM6V_)GAaml_3VeGth)&9Xo$|ajK;%G_(lG{k$Ptoy0;$u5yd}kIDYGzDf>@ zpLKRN36XY(QNK?Lqh8bAHX~Pf?5iGo?Wu%a_hmyjdTXqWwpZq#C(Mt=Va}Fjf5?%n z41%phb(AgD%lhEC3z=kToAdPfO1NOg#HE7xGKBZ_{5e`ni@@> zZ{?Zs@}+X@f}n{krSU1+2r}Ikl0T=lC9M3w58<)colwwni2%2j>I_WbjX1YT<9T6C z>QjWzEe5+E4lFbUW0B$Vz%_97YR`=HDyw{ zwsUS~y6Azc>{5gkSUf)F6GV*OgpZ5<5)c<(RS^3*hQ$Z7NH*@Ir2NTG1{eKY)03#u-R zZWv*>7BN~2uJkfC8?4F@Xne+jhw(S;LPFW)N$)5|*7_QS`qJ`-^R=_KVoORW@K@?X zIM4sueZ!S6|1q&_!1m7&vuX``oRKv%!K>=Kmj(8(HVY-D(wO#HW3gcf28KF>WY9ks z8C~t|?Q=%PB9Zpjy=UkzQF49O)@ow$@$ui@RxBSTFV-Yb3sNq1+2H%T#B2Ma?*$sDP;Uw-}=%fF(dXCsF# zl77A4?t_r}%;_pg+BhH7{X&SE>DvTUufsb$=5(cT;8e5H8%=ygu7~7N$>_vC#}c() zM2hRJFtvgj_M&o+dL4ac@{a(Goy^u`Mil#(o1$_*#IP@z#3O80KF(60o~VNc=|Msm zO>-d|gYEs^8pZLkX;U|*jaecVR|6w71s|Athg&5d4GR*uE&#x|yjDK@q#P0}idA})YSGhm>(2QtFqp|y{oA>ax>HstO$e3x@#NOZ!PVh`se%Br|nMtMd zOfUzw)9vdL&lYZ=m$HYhc_wWV6FZC>p5>z>?Q;w{^a3N}R{BD%A&U?KoT&d=^L-K( zj(!`$=#_|QMAd>N87DP5E&mYx`?%wI&5#SlgMyr(g&c4Kwsi=R0i2W()b|Gk1qJbI zPcNC-psaqw_u*|g@7MnDiUzrY6r=KCei@sQQ~P^$A7yo`|dOZ(kgn*dM9v6)}^HwsZiV+GUWp4E~Nx6Vhr52I~Mx4%K0Nolk=hf!o|MS=Y^Zld!kr|Yjz9ryCzroGOaJWODE^6$%E!Fk8NjU2CQ zc+bTX)?YA0K$%(mQF+xJ2}~_yKfZIM^L`G^ZH-*IZKIuxFjEiM?>QIUcB-r{~Tt+n|E4bbXcssX0F=u4F>XUX;^q zGB6}1M>a#_bHHxDiJQBIS1xWyCsTdeQjZ)5CG*8Ko7^bNe4L6Sw5VlQ1ipWcImjUU zLq^>@W&8yIWEsk_MEXR$?mmYEJvhvY{?oY~z`mSqmKU%E={asuR*(xPNlv&VH#Q4vS71MaCjd&%wcwdVd{C zG`8C0sw+iL)Os;>J0kM!n|IBdjt@G_Y?2eDHb`dlpD}IAxN2MHc~|T6UFU1;J-Uyr z8x+nb!V~gV-APq@2LwNyb#481sEvb@?r;SZZjAqtyL|{1W_}ys2z}4^TEh`pbGfV& z8~e!ED2&=~$#lTGbHo`rhGYQ$?kYECj2YG9spk+_7&POBIJAO&uqLsZo;2?0Y;8CV z>;NF8apm;Yd@A3Xo7JZm#=)TcNbco!I~<1it{xwqm~U=sbsjbRvet;pmP8h^-Rs0p zRme$9%Y9=|an-Eje(%oT_m4=0Vbj}4z<3v1fCDV7>yoPXeM{cTsq4=S)ULAw%7A{fEk~Foys@i%4P$#Z>_==W7Sec_%qEHw@ld~2 z?~P;O!t~O$MURWv;~d{sLM^5v^p`@Z7Y!LdGP%>$%$3)jJUW&fqyW3p&F^R9oC3#p znfBkhg8d--qcHO8_oWo}ohs~!6C$GGLMz4Hx=v&JG3X;dsI{#LK%{wOKuc>&YjHMX zWuZ*asBUgHGVuLBXoZvWg8qH-!LzjGbCtnYDv#LNhm{_qr;%B4F~WN1DGG7Y)ExGhCyH_riIg=Tp262I-nYjT457!n8jxx2f& zee7`I=+!GnqN{c2LDPvVV~(vFV7r!zW(o+{O%mtX?@f!@Z*8I&pzi`N3|_@w@k0s) z{{yY9Jxy(bbDvBvitl6Qo*l%*E;5s1`!fAnw@5t^nf_N@bOuXS>W?M8j2`bdu6Z7x zx{+t`J}JK2ZC-Bj*5a|JyekZit1SFa1(qTfGrI)|Ieu&2e}gfx@O+$PyfZ;sIyZIy z!hZe2SYG1wd2-I|KQsK{zp^i@=yO*w~0{C+W6!@Y#tg^M-3HIH85+e|Y*{ z=m^Sq`Wd*3gJg)odE!cT}_q%pm}XGu6JEYEZGHcw7tht=fsHZa6czy)85KG9x314jfh;m*;L|GO@ES$f&N>zj zHqpnASf8d3U1jeI{s$L+FD^01D?_&N8|HV+p!NbY>|;2k?NN`~9FYY>P7MgZpy9-P zYsVVdMcabiTK&#P&CJYPH8{5rTK!Jg4ug}2<>l%n2l-pnHuNYe3bG5*fBEqs$#S?~ znaRI4!D+C_2pBjtbBgwJ;o%}9BOq6kI|F7r0Q3#Pe{D^#WA^WOx$76qYyyr38F00g97k?wAK4rD+>;Hv$uL2Xv` zzl_-8F`qtGSF_%3dc+qC3UN`C6DMApT3VZ0c6hpGlFxc+E3YS`PZWm@ZNfV^pyX}+ z@&&A$6=Ub6KM}`NvV@m0HlRVDTzOlHXczJD4db6`@wK}Injl<|NwXBueI7Ww@q4k% zr{8wpUv^Y*!?)nkJ`JnTAbk>KQ|`>_cR5q_z`__NhohFACp^_G?$i_#}&P;UOFxRVrpvY z)80;x6KVJ#6qjJp&d>fSAtWVT`=%@~mGnAAP`S=_E)m^hkS3W)m71LI$rGn)Yr@MZ zdHq*+7L{JXul`NJX|RK@kz);3@cB8Eq}W>p3Zg4a<3+kEZi@ZeKF6*+Wh?O@@@tdY z%TMQifeIJ*_;)I*QHI@I=ZQdUYQ@=I!d zzcweMi90*?Uyd>_j~zPxf@KU85U5BSibtka=hmhzV~@Ixz}=IRcHFwgFIUGSDNOfG z7V){BI&6Rj<2?6r3lcJNrrf^j`VAGnXCESTYrhOM;J@*<`iCzGMA+V!z=DKSi{ml< zO(^w`3=aB;o#+xP{}GZ&0&;rQaI)PVrJu^at}c z6eau#QN>OvYCLBcmcm!{T8mh1_mD~~dtk5eHM1Y`qR95^7v**2EX6^r%t+;|aC~Z^ z{3_b4;%$4sD}COXyMRzIU*RW&pt2Idf&LIlP?`dL$c>LXH!Xxv8Xtc> zuJ-~Hli*0OJqBxIEflvK37M`b6!7rCiPF}%oh!)ymGCpLj8a4Np4#gPEF(XY|Juo; zZ){`R&T{9JoPkP@o6!%AtNp9$qBW)iAY!t4k_|wqo7FyyVKjV@-Rje9>{}PQSM))N zhKJRwUg~7_2G7hmy*ykpwt{6@ZBkP1ksBNIxb=9U6<#9$(<2h`F!X{?pi=93wk zKkV*1EQRbt+@g1$!Ya0D3oF0Y(X*=#w-!8Y$0yE7i>wkfjucK;_$eu{^(%0iF+mpY zXg)2>MJajk_1M`}K~2^rbhuVNzY23^&s)jQ#xE4|rQvLUwB238IsaBvt9Gv#+${w$ z`TI?a;viDhl=x6~JV(g)1JGie^K`<6GfDq$viAFAS~7rRx-xo&wn@P=AafEf#3%wG z=8d!7u72pyUPCtgsRkuh) zL0 z#iU&x;pgs%x5w45-%81rV~G_6*z`PQChylE$HVt`O)#1cwdV2pFo1j9=E-joUhp>P zR|B0b`#vMrVTS=^2N^?)f!s3xc6z%M;X+jX-G4+>umdWURIY(6yW4R>>yV__t2*Tw?O%A7upR z4uKfm2S$y=~sG@`St&rM44d_FW_?l`Os_)|6Om$!)1Mrcuu`AbmmuVsw0RL2 zbX8ZEBuxPgT|}AZYX2j=J7%PIeU-ZZo4=+gMJ$Z2dd*?8(!{u^OxduP9`_e`6vum- zF3}^sk$;tEIU}i+%kk+fq4JYzuU-&!(4z59UwJWpy$~(Z{x6R0xUIlXyZ;XIB_X6kY)bN z(I`RvShA}3LY9_W8E6%WkAqa@J>c2z{!~(=UX0rPP??er=P6S$Uz9wK20v{zsWt_S z{`x`w*K#^}d=FE_E9`w$7zJKAvHOJ);f5Qh$8l(5A)K0;gMYU+;`!q*`YD4=$ zPMKQjE{gw~3vgQB0wdawt%eUEY=RGu;7w}DxD(48YV!53sgSVDrAMN#RB39ZkD~PE z1{#U+Xk7I~o25If;;0F!#^y}DTvN0&0e~-D>915WMUWHqw2rP;mA3U?!{09bJD*&J z>4`kNp9gAb@{(%9{`tn}r`PL>qZJ+Kb6i8}X&^V>RU&1^hSa4&z+#)*N5GbPbhH!z zHW1E+75J$!FMq#!n=1NNi?g@a#Uz@vWoM1{ev|Ml7x_?ktFTtk2$%BYamB!^rqy6a zQ|->P;xK+ZdzrSEkpHTuTGVMr^=K(oOtPr+ zA|mHe$ZYz0t`Z3gtH6=h&;&|+g#pIprDlqD;_(7&GHy*NywE>O0$s3@*0Yw<6yA(; zcHa_laV?(-Xomi+1HqcXVgr~yuA{{|t>s3}Hy0F0mD5hk^ptYE8{2m^jq~+Szl0NY z+J7YRWlT6MTe(mK+aKDX_>+?ff)yR33N>i3FMqeI>0gP(jk9{4@~YubE}WI5l`D~p zVLI35viTJ@7;ePxrn{gIi}01S%jx@?jrIh(>C0j^7FZD}N?`VI=Z|SLcNXO@b69bP zl9NFU#lwI6R*`tnnf7iYhwx|U8CdOgl^u$a$8^Y^NO3~U$a{JZA-{7F$R}`(XD>XBYaK6u>|qY zBE;Ul`zqhLRcB4FgI-1A7O=4Pvj+XVEa$a-OhktT#{wrOHyGuop{w{r()jq3eYt+l z^WJERd9TMuJe&=qfQ&K6S{(p%<~{a!y${}i_V1>kKg~tY$Y6Ze4z^S`W^pn^?33M& zpVy0K+@R#MAE~fA_o7egt>^7%SrBLahGnk&^r;yo#>UmIq9CI~3YFjoP8j)SxzF%G zU3J@Z$M>(uA4qAOu50eLPWvgT{3WO(eie*b)A)U(d#z^hIube5w0tEPctB*mfQxMI z%n%g{$eWsm177mWR%J)NtEVPhW<+bF^Te~TDCa@>r!wqtrpvNT&ON5zq|ly>EoX|W zl+@iYoTmcrtU)hgwZU*znzmdy=N?1|m=!7`%jjp7L=lW@j8ysQxHZWNNh^Mx9Q~wE;65onq9%DX0^}tvh&!ypBtm3{&-{hSe}zsTo|V^CB=vn%M9zA6@vWO za)ZFs)dXQQk8!Dh_ikmp$Mz6tQQ??F)G^4?PfqM9Jt|Y!c^J;+6Rw4>o~M@DC1>3w zYBa5El0d2s6kts2L8;5WSizp&4eN9V9?Bd(CGe|t-LBA@N?$KO@uL^uahXw;{wKUr zJ9}vDbf>**kpII#2-LW};#^M17kg(3m z89C*GoT;*COWr-*)K6G{)hs_*e-4RMT}opKz1u}SJj_5U5mt^5hJi_OSPqN?eD4d8}k& zO_(6aOXw=Y=9Yn7bjf;VF5^lNS@SkZY-_2%FM$SIAv@(VqdsG;dTb%zgX6n+0pDX; zggyQ6eA(DP8jkSk+6AhQ0H4R+-t4cV7unYk8gHB0;YwAS)~VS~zLCH7g>Ahb1E!4h z3uLUAM#d!cpH%|B8tvxPD7gdvh`V%sG4fZO{K?sGDgiWdxB22EKvzP!;wRNdf(7%P z#94PmIq9UeWa?I*jiol&X8Hq}UG-ig1#6Ep{JCTpHKj&=e%ZfD`>MYHfG}I;Yc-Dj zJM`O-tb8R?zYj%dU!E5o{Q2;x$Ext}4owm*gHK--!O7D$ds{vQjJ(U0iK9cFoOy3w ziFwUVzUwjO;h}t+j@Sq%KkHdS4s*3_Od;QP(HVmAvrs-NUmUM7ukEG>Py2GWX}h^h~1>lrblKn$1>aIPXYD>`JR= zu`zoNoK)D7`s`3T_p4FC@;w4Kd#%#(e?Ak8s!<*$qt-cMg?3MQfyzlaf93Qul&!K- z(z4D>XPCqj%SdP&>?HIvbd6H19G%oZ4qkJ-nVlvZWr*ZSBHoTH`p_|tck=S5F?x9j ziw#7Ys)hWruGy(`J^s%zJ+YTh>=s{vHxKjvW{664>f0V6U8HmW9i+N8;OsImB3?ux z#T0AiKxz_^w#PqF{$-_b&9*O8n`i;v^BzNQZWR6gY_7>-MqBgn=#;0m{)RirYD~fL z!-kW@MsIKoW=RMIq{D~ot883D@@@q&5m{MFg4)!dAEg^ZIN{nio^-5+tpnJ(g0IKD zX0L32FO4UwY-U2$M26KE1CKas7AiC|E+YgUx>5c@CafPpUj%f{xYD;xtJv14Kl;B( zxxtZ3I>D9DCQ9~NmB=M@$T;>eU$*b40~c?dYYtq5uja3)Z!iOM`zNO^H!5msZ=2|T zT)r>vPENJm&J`_trA$`VC7o|qwG(ngf_g5GSG%8C&HDQKRtd4cxHv_PoWcPO1f#ge zcjw@Rl@(;4iZ^*r$-!rc=RU3ao|X&MII@Z355I!1oeAcA6;wZd)sR+Kvvtl|-!BT3JvAG^m{~q<@Hid=E{9nTyryl${bgT?di=nKCj1^nYtn)t~y%=v&vt%eC%G z{Ls^LFhvF^KOrqMz#KP|IkEy>BDGt~3P_Dw)}k>f}|^*C=mp+VI+zKiG1znK^_9YI_(f2<1(2&Y4{6^W*#bOD@H~xBN&7| zP(Xn=$ExHE$`9CR1uTc7Jss@aF{W?d5=y__&IJTIlD&^r@aQ3A{1gHMFzOZ~%;Dl% zFz5oh1reNg7Vvw7gVxA1dd;oB|BR!dSQgV$^MunWnLae7C}cft1tOJV`m?FwYr*z> z<^qC-m3Ql0-5lzZV3*B!>S`r8nWHgj<#kQynCRIXrn?qpLnG?%9*2nh+kBgZeopnJ|A8zu<~xDNBx^q!z|N@j)x0eVsW{-v2}{PT%Xx zKRX0c1bwS*FnScWm*m^?90&e^n(*PVY4kM~4Ky&I^d_Zu>5z~GS4B{lqnT$mjyI{Y z>{>?xshV0dZLIgqXf~!#%F)Ec9YO>Eof;V=D!OQ2@+GX|_0H1O*$*3aDukSyJxj0q z{<^`6lZB;GLC)dkFXa04ELoFFpkmVCNo*`t4M|}7&x&ptvb^HxH78GuGHT`UwziA- zsJ+}c1M6v$sAvn^Cx14deAa7`Ka+1l-le~0G+r8we$L4?EK9(JRe@@n8|LMH&S>c- zCS1o@s`$hwNuT_m{gp_s`z(E}PeaYVNTQP6vY5+2&B1nW?d3b<5x14{1_!K75K98ox?7RpsczhX?KiwWzTC21wB{OjFnXtjIdVBj=e{*_X(nkN=nB+uN=?DkHmH! z-oyv(obAPF#AmO|QPxJdJbFd=b(5FgWR@47$WC~&xb-MwPwWHfEgR~k%$w(3A7?t( zZ0GfruP}48rnKU6w2Ro6Eq+TT-1YT?E=NIr$hVt3ZLO;g?1RS!maAbFd=B{ek?@q| zyOMoNv_EGGCFQUvJ91tF0E5QH&i8y>c^hx53(S<#^U)N2ZwqSCzaJzO=FbUT~oDFRN1JghoHMmW;jHDRa%3juVof51;l zBiWO|uvD$i&$ckj@yz2cE)+xMMtkoz@MdorbtL*Du0 z-Q>V{u7y79-3F-4>xP?g#moE_JNPqJ^mA z^sv~J(o~eY&kslU9z@ABJFP0mN=*3E1f%~!n*6cX3p1)aGav^QDF+&k3vaFS(~1!x z$B`8~z7`ZH{Cih|8TJ{NSp}_l`*G$N_9Ha^EBHj!w(T+CvJcIGQ&TJH4;Nt>+XXod zT>>su!~#SMId37_o;8rcqTuHVp3Av9MAPxK$Ci&74xWrfFJ z9$|sjMUx$-WsD6UsknGHS*#b|azrWDoO8t=ehnvf{luIeUB$Vjc2Nbs6`lw@jMm%urqB z&;i>@9@mqDVhQX{*hOA3Ip8yVMt*LtY2T!OA)Ij$VU=!!RZpX3|!i_YIjxG_l)k7eUzCvopuJ1T3 z3a!KGxWd&0=m>B9(YY}|J#Yx@SVxknUk(u?h?=v2iq;w6JhCxV@*tfmy6yc=S+ThT zKGzsmw>r(Jg;17!!;9Ac?5v+EF%U^`xmLL5@^c@|fFATiUtsdN$+|2(+CJl_;vW8g zM8FZN3aY9h^!fq2Smta_Q<0P&IW<$`ry6pH_Kx2kvpQotD=u@d$k83LhqPky+m;`` z%1E|zO2(6HU=s47G~&PJpk1B43jv+=^lj@ZwjY6iStm2%$(y=2(iswZ(nw)WSIA|z zL&MLRI-&g|I@?wkfAf1E7?Nl`eT?|N6v?j+swe!kO4Y1k=KSNpvFZ){rRxcLwhzZHTc^B$1XR^P+2LKv_sq5mhyM^TgB_I#@p zQq1R;$M}OXfl^9!sRX`GTc7&!{suU2>CO-$J`f$dQ9oTP#5&KlYD;47+`Dw4OcELp zRQak)&XPl)8R&#n@z>7}ukUET_HXpxXXLeS8mA=dR|Q+17e{Xjg)<2m33k1xU`ff; z>Z%Z;3GzyA8Jz^)Roy1*5#pSo(FgE~{i$uo%NGJ>P;K{nL^5h+mm`g!a?%|)a&JRN z&A@;nEm@cR_&yB))T|@@Em#f4Z{44XH!Lr9hCVUE*L)Fs#3XomRP3 zsyWF*Vk%)iat!&CW!H6{pA$3U%N+fqVwnbiUyV5~x~dnA^T67b=W=Osu(`%k5c(O1%M&0Go=i zg+^>cCx+M-kut2i^K!`vRwZw4;9>6NEm{? z=)9JVqS4SV=pZTOtUO9&hH21Wu(y z+{Y(O{VBkpmTlT$E0?I3V$1z1{yo&(HQ77-6?8^k`i*<;i=FCrvuP(hMS|kjsIDc~ zV@q4hsXItYB^3@uc$K1PaAe<$p;&gjBOQ8~n)L;W!%bBx-r9T>HY~w8? zZipA*PjEg(d<0DD$NN%-%!d-TMycdt9In;3*(w_RD%TRZ5)kGAp)|H(4J`#d+xi(` zv#-9BvnOSweK{b&p2=!jb!DF^UNS}EaE2;sw26}2H}wIkAcIl2$kfwvb!@W=v^s`p z^1-O9dv$W(XwGNBC3j?McH6>5@x(H>LV}c>Wb#W_z4J|*$3rby2os?@NrrF`D6kny zXW;Zbfkm#cHnsppqbw5Fs?en3pZlmkUE;J_`#7tIO*xkeX6dL@(uG5p$0yTy7;j_+ZZVw8<)enrtN+aHZ(3odzb{$HfzpiC-BO^Ej%X^*GF z=q65&Mq4-Ag$AxZeNVXyOlSC~u??-~tT^<~F;!MxRQ)-uIk7NA6smSQNnATEE2pPe z`k4~Icq9>P%zMsbE~x_>T97|6PqvzdKr!=#idjYc1*nURBBCtQHa$)|@mu&-b`gI0 ze8hFwWPl$m+ItFF=Samr)@&uIU~j#A1y9HxeRF%6pQ%B$(EMLIRt4ddpid7fZFNB$ ziI%M3*9lum)RLVtA z0^8y0e8q9-FKyELzJ&3tY>rS+cwaU0hsIaR2+y&Mm#-9?EelwzlM*NT5r4#6DeuuD z#=^`GJHptT7FY!U@R<@4L+)QWkL~P3V=(xB)cF%LV1*?p&D)HFNvTF6rH&6A=FG~7 z@svwcl5T$`zO#l#)lTEHmzuWW2aCppZq`qj?*5lSL!XZ+-Tl&Vcgag#1{RZsm-dDe z)@JCuc!$CX(ef zcnL!0H=9G0w!fx3YX;W40kmsB(~iiY0x-S99j}#3^6}7|4~OMp=~(8bsR^00K^_I3 zF~u)r3FcV+N%YBA04Q4}%Y)O;qP=G~js034tAo;E@YJ+(heX21Zt&VV{z1oIVdzDZ z&#TtF6*-h@#^i5=2N&prP#ND*#CMP+ zN6XNjiaSt5k{nIvM?4Ri%U&0@58FoOM(L2Bchjn*yNjP{kEe`%Mxn~O9D(zIgX}v{ z_w5_hg1`eZ+HO1;>(sdx0J#FCOuw0auj~%kwmTPrKYt#6Pu?9IjXDSM;2)h9c5*qC zG*n0TXnrNkbZFK24)T!EkDWoJZ+K5YtiA+DgZzuPgj`&#BS4Eg)w=2zEZG&ld`#t# z(IvMA^h|$S2Cq_;Iz#16N0JQdVX6AP!2y&)`oFwx*DS; z%}SLGR#B0>3PFbI#54Mcmn_;wW*9PCmyj#mMyq3siA|j30E?M2Cf0xKeqPE;B}|?i z>u@HvvgKA|4TNUWXYgu(Me{V;-SX>S0m7Ms5nJqF(LmIaeYZk~%u}U*%3&*-!m zTOV>Ufh-u;NQJg=|oAH1WcN!mtD(%80bTX$?Xwrw@GZQE{= z#OscZX&f&#?BW@8c>7!*ho!(W_zQMw>q!^;~8Jw|mHfPHpv&pYt zEk=}HL>(wCtCp;5G}Zq+tX#I1pfcT6WZ%0Vg|6@;>^f`~!%=%Hj!*sT^0XjVf=Rw4 z#>OzEYMzXH4jtq7;{D~}HBQpS;YsxxZZwsux!sC=`}Fx`gZ`EaU>v~4?m)RxBrfx1 ze+JS)?dvkgg{j>*c^OydMD!raJZ)AobumoNy~NAO8oBIp1!17Bsuu#>KV4t-zCRyn zqdW!Zl2dY!O>*5lOVF5B(oniiG>da+le)^w6lr@aQ|q1F^3+dxwb!4Hj~;}7&u_@x zTq5wlpt)S)7$~N$SW53Suy$*!A)>vQJj|>=zEv)e($T{hZI-ycHkDq!fl7glp08WR zb}e{=)}AVoydND=e;7`~Xk9Dklyg%cdg#JX$!YD|+nk|}sxhy#Mt>?20MwV%XLD&~ z)MyPI$Tf0!%JVOg_2bE+?VT%|16u-RZHtxbIvw2Q3%&w=3A?(_7thglw4`J&pM2SK zg+h4~%&H9A?${<})ZS?Gt)Ejq<^4H&YmrAV0hD%ZNBR#I;8+oNL;1T(^c8CcZ|)`i zYF2jATa15Wc0iT*2<7sq-s${I0q4d|G2~p~f_8cb4T#35E^^VhNp*fLkar^a?mW@j zGoLUxlezwlMsQbpb?ay#;Wlzv~F|B0O6`B)gc zBi^)3dmN@iTWVDxT_C(%#01(tlSXq%IK?578Jc$_XI_ILCl0n-w~ohSRb_-eW|b9G zWU~>rv_SvHSt9kMhy7xnJ5$2W)mmBHL-TgSyHaDXMUtbLX5Corgq9j!0=o5UexO3qeF5Cw zJJvVpfKnyE`A?Z};0qBl30{axtRyq7By^JYp#xr1Jo@|7(;?<@ZyTFc@22+`YpGYF zKFF#R1vOcJx$zEpv+q3n#$0%&ss{|Cv5Izdl}ujdS!NB!)jE~a9lXo7d@TXfry|tp zweQ1h>oO|;vxLtcb2Z$JIcnp3{bU)MWjV?n08R4oW4wa~4j zN5$FfrAG}9gx=Kr0^d#dr4JPBuI6l`PfY7KZc$~z>@(0Wn#klffsLa~4~L+ME>nCe z8oATrZPuiZ0ohCQZ#IG$1o41hS+{AU@#D4n@tXJuyp_0{NNfmxD5gWnRyM&y@T(5# zaNUv$Rj6s-RB}NO?O$u&f0UuAB_t3Zc!Pa!j7NUQu!N@w35eh!cp=dR8r3Y8Z_3fI zCJWx(%XcvKH7`-!UqXU1Prv}-{UDs8l}(Kr6_w8z%;qOMm@jF|{=uJ*p0QI}5grBc#NG|8)WPe$3&y;^N&^WIcx!PtsmGQJ6E|4|hc+ZCc!#M7 zN#qZV3WTQj``oW(a&7U!(O-zN%itPC3(HteIOA3WRISj$$H1}ZsC-Zmx?#JQzyL2xh7tj->jFRx zF#Pr3f)DSUx`c@TscQkkUjHBEF!ogbix&RBmB#o#%3;WP1^)Ma2>NPD zTt@>DLohiOb6$s8o5{$PXj;LpDgVLg2DyE|@=Ol(xZ!Oghw{Rl)9(iXw}Tx1Y#YI< zVR=D3F!9o}s|{ye+d-9L3#aYA!=4Xb8FTe#J?v9;fd&7LLw@(BK2==`Bi^niXUP8t z+bb9K@u1rC^@LBZTJUKu{u^o5QrbuIu3Ke}Zj6L2<#pCOB8B`aEiOZznDG5M_Az<% zI(#u{UMgKF4h;Elf&T2o!goxS-SaWU>n>J*>1WTW#^3?EQKgM#Ve#RzlHDm(wac?O zZ0efu7ER4Kr5efwC%$>xt(Rrntw(Od%LQdZYqPNPh04_|jfKkkrV5FO7!u++5KMgm z8@OBR0g|*F$!rT%br-#HON{iFoyzTARuorGjZzCr-Kmf_h0~C4iNUcuo6#$`v)(yXerm46w zO@V5Hp|FT(8fjD2J)-4R3mO_9HeKn{kU*c@*WnqskzZy=fa@lzPn%~b?EMW`1!7|i z>lv|Pk{+2N8VyUYLu!_xz@Lnaj8=+_-yhYn=c)IUeD?(?rsrRa^ymeBCw8h+DL=7B zh0OkdwNpsd*-)k5g4r4VzEd@$I46%3+0fP1;L+w;JuGZ!qAk!YXl*v8?3e{7ylc%11) z?0T`Bi@nZgV58I;_oXD%?vP7U<*5|KVQFAih$FYoc5u>%rN2p94xA{DIrU2uu?X1U zaz&dfV5|H$Uo|Rb=^6FJU;jsz^vD(AsFbkZVc;(9S94o3G#C)$l$uSenzXE_q^U3{ zLs#mrndeQW*hCl2S@tw$7VI3BVS9R&i;6y9R79Oko>}4j0>8)kiBqP!m1NFb!oELY z3B?Hj2&}1BT~I?Oqsg|SBx{>dlSBBC0`^&HQX4B5CL(v7=0z>al{TYffleXmsYXCj z^b*M!wBw8#P`mEe`-jP5?U`rWJD0X`-iOn(6>%tLX(jW;$L~U0%BS}cgFdC(6)hLf z{1!VkDhuO{3HXuf2M;&<>JTSiBrhV)7G+S>@>)KnU!B#tJEarAZ?SxazguFT-!g=X zaeXt*R1-fj^K(r>zF`6)?u#bjj_>xjnPYc_cm^F4#SWt`!%<288v(Q6389=D0fv&o zbZF2en1j-)hf;<7#za|+_En)9-)Lr@f~Rf=8ClpmK zOB}O=f~cm&LXo9L9Cud&{5TR#yn$gzz1R0qz!wid^|Ge~x1LM9L3Gx@`=9+cdy1YbGqzJ$~8+WB2AB!a)| zrWVD-Xg{@U3%e@iOG;3A4i9Zi!QpJVYX|vA{nYl%{*SmJzRPPH->YN61gNswU#>=3 zPSE`2*kVL1v?vm2BvTD9}Hm&#?J4ng*269BPiGC^?pH^|w-M2H9id<_K`)3*EOFbI~$U&7& zR&{E$wz*g)(!V@qbQZW#Q?r%L8=+^G-8HJg;WGVDP8E?k?i2k;kg08>T1ajvtxnZS zR*Ys|B`_p+!&VKe!_`iBNHmEdx2HHMat-byS1Ez$&zB>8=GN3#AOHjKQOnVPuw8&+~nkQsP199P?LQCK)pFyU-MH8!ajrFr#{b)Wt5C&QwJKHN5buX0#jvAIF3 zqRaji8!={R;46E0DhXVr50G|2Kuf&Rc5WHXsqd`C^=MQG1v=ksFV1y&hPmHdCFNSe z4F4|lwVPC+fHA*rrCVq)!^4OE`)>ZNYL+(>C1q7RJ_EH9K6_K*PGdaq{O(gl6^w*@ z(s9{y1G%|$4T^$&IGjW0Ss=UG(!}glQw7VnD*vqE6@f%R0Sihpu>7gyw46DxiZj79 z{0ML4mtW%|f+a1lr?H@#cJ>)L&M@mQ_t<=QScBffZJng!HHE(z6jLcOMPI8XwaMC} zDxULlyW=M)`i60~d!Nt|MPf%{b6o9)`#F)l;g3;Wl4A4DD<5Q_85C%;X@T;jEo_c> z{P_|Uw>WmcM%VoBw?k7W$t2c}F}e498wv-9kK2*s>BMPgNS)`u8<|wN<*xE@?hLKg zZ&}HjDm0`U?WC3~os8l{48?PJWJ--PQDCD4lFU3`(>}@xDqia0lW<>z7OX-Ow+xgk z1!^n>vbP-JE7NPH|ILwpm)PH`6fZL^zaKwS8Qc#zx09R0eHw9sg$R*KyV-@PH?Uu) zFmRe$(T=d%-SRz1Knr}g-O&_v?V&KZzi~HGPpErsDV@sEDwYZ?z9JumE_8GQ2V~b5 zYEoOTHG_z?wIV~D{L*V^(mAF!KEch*d1;w>DNrf6aQ;DjpCw~EJZXWa-Rx{XPr`tI zs*mEO%$3AIdx`azt@I~u)0m*-`d_CXk*~ebVk7qbsI0iT#vONASh2*kN(h2GEy{EH zb*?1V6ZoH^;pC^{vi1vk#WN-3Wm(YEj(w0gO{R~rkwsw&>|Z)Po>vM8L9~@Usl^aGHHoeK8%l;<+FZN zLGJQYkN>8lmu{mQT0tadD4f*@T>rjox;9R?d6U<$$V3|F~aw zC9xD%kaSdQ=<9>H;8s;qKASSkkHDmC@k9}(Ra#kL14OPhtbh&kofoUgYibzeB?a>| z=G0bSQXh!v4K*xHlq=&>ZK$#zDL}73HQC*0vyxtF7Zto#2o7^PQV=-w%S+xlM?0b< zurwuI+^{*fYrg6``kUlB1br|68o+hFOHD0^re;mk)Y=Btn$b|zVP!!f+htl01fP8ZDEa%t>M(bW0oC2d)UHCmwl6a9A3Nf3&*+Cr2b$N zcS2j~>hbNTT36OxBFQ`tzz!&*^QI?RK;!lCtOXOr{P5t{R;d2944GirFm ziLHH2TNawNzjFe+9=NQE<8p!Kc!vY?qE`^H$A7uVTko!)0BcuEka37bAzz4Q(G1!ZSu!f-{}m4{C%1@xF6Cz|S72@?Q+x9L@43Ob zv=OTDZ#d73LDb&W_cYQv1ZkHA(R17#wx(gEoSL|76mErcl+%u^Bn&D;WU;aQ+~hc| zyMr$tf+(;&0D2fc@|0pH(Vag@;8+vVch7hicCBO?%7o5KZHMvwu$?WPp1l*(VQfpx zlDq(m5lI zUxdV;zLh}w;5PBmQ4>0f$Hpeg$9|TuYqmNJ#HqAC%;35V2>1^185t$8s&9tfY%r7i zuF^eL(QsZ}CeF=3_RW6Wc0qnTM??Vibc>^mwQG}j55KL?w%h8Zmwl;{%*X>c!gC;| zR$ZCrsZK1o3`$Ds?A&sA;se0&N76RoskZf{uPk)6&w^1}psH#cF zR`-ob^fIaC@XaBIVGlRN-VK1_sW5MqAeldLi2Q;DLLQWv{6OL|Ak-jXC-h7)w&J2D z6sL%-Lm~o9oY%Hy4Z9YwS$^;zBB~A`S z1MD9{`IS}S7{R1-pY6Hr5X5Cu&4SQMDl%*D;1ZW3Epet zQilhWc`*Qz(LU*V&zgA)6OYdxow_QY1)COYETdvf?I;_$I2e{~8n57~lP#n^Ym!S3 zxq|bZIy%|!h_uv+IA){R8rqK)@9#L^>dFAzprX&(Hhn#d7a z%Tye>}l`vozpBF^u^H5?L78~DKpkMb)z z$|2pK;JVXb0YC| z8BXr2^1iPmmau2luEwVI;=pjn{B+JJ_rkS@z?cC4jlrAF7_|r&3So?E5dE0!mHD35 zWu0%6X5`O#>W$8mq-K0`6PH-kGk=@4ii2bEflMjQuojjzFJGY{csOv&46da?fi2CZYeXXDN}fa@Fy)Ly_g2-!vVOM zb1RLZJfnM<@jJw!C1G}ZY^8k$d%}}~>2PiFRvY0dy%l?*E<<{)3$0SCDq4$9K1alM z-HgQChQ@&S@6xdYa=Ohctyd|f7a!|p_db11B4a`#CFn_SbPHroGaL;Tv;|={%B&y{ z0L4xaxU}Tm{B_f5Ia>Y6#-!&3cd+<|oCB!|eOlS63~klW``aW;)0q0T5OxR1Xum~=`O8d|4>oZ_~gcX#@eUH=&$=aVwXtGW@fmV zZsB)z^SyWbg)owCum*mR?Txki;j6&g;-Q+#QJxOkG>@6XUkCj=Y_pXrq%rG6N^Nz+ zBg5&t$AMqwa&n`Xuv*0`EGdXR#s!odqV;-)ATCxp90X5^$DC_gCz5HeX=Rq7#!nJ{ z*0L6ih(|W4bgAyKO{8Wy@X)=@AYa_wj!ux3)5-fSsHtc-_Sy4zeh?gU8hS0Cj!9KEd^(>@yz7b;D?&K7Z?xyO1;kyI+uSJ)nH3kf7$ zJo713XdPB~=1t#!9f9Ffm>#M$v7>2ZR8L^D)5{_#DXHwrRa7Cv)cLr$V<(yETRM>} z6P-VQxXBwyPN#2nk7^4{OUg$NjUrF+xFlxq+g`!`iknOs7FN1~6vymP9C5(C8JEY$JDT;_jw4X9O{Z9x-8Sa(Zfq+wTbPAfHfSV~$XEl2dly(8up z{+3{P=tn&Cd40vO&Z>;e%WMRngg7vzoSVscpae(=)k}6DQeAoDp=%Y_CtiYDKt!&N z{ldNpHp8lMJqn91o5DG{3z;w&AZ{#u>{9g<5kI-vniO|-9NQ6^P@fi7r75m+99 zokpr2m+SCW(e73?vjUBP$ZYR|&cGj|Pun)3uBCRpVRSdUZD^DY8{pJ7*3(ip@-a|Q zIRuoNHzz{OD|PUVy{fIuoJ1LHRilq%o0bq4DN`I73Y|vJwS=^UK)(GgUN|v^qtmW$ z`1FN81~C?H)~<6Qm^_%u*PxtKpakPCd?@zw&=PrCd4FU*w+dy2Hk;XISiV2Eo%=Qj zGTgnewrDfCv!rI~R3c5uyldF9v!j%k8l}!0%z1n-Rlq1?1WwPdRd+8!!`}gn`-AJ` z;^U0%FdU0oP@F&=jD@8c&||WVL?SwuAyp9F)RtPr8V}MG@cR5NidXuI=LjLbijRyx zJRQ$q{2njimJ*PN&|D%!Mx*OQohOvi18iwoXv9khN8td5;9}5()lT}v6y#IJ9Qw)jaay#V^foXAK+hcNyw zvqs#0^2BnP2GqzMO#F@@K9#yW^lhhX%levwv*qWW0F-!i?bA^dreZG1o85|;BXu*Y zNnk30k74~l1Nv}@vsw0Gv#zMF8jC=O5FrGf5r)CIo!cQMZCQh$fd{ZCgb3enYBj6r zD20j{22XOt+ty#aEc@W_m7O0wB>c&)T7i<08Tr6r=l@D=lot7Hl$I>`LS2{9}po43isKoUy4&A|?*4|7T#r{&Pp^`U28*sI5#M^K#`eWuJBa|6>WgLn z;IMn0(wGfO=LCKSGnA^O*ASgo8-FOHc#rM~mFdt}yNT$71FSiTrZK$97>)S8`SLHX z42dTbHKYf8CRs|(;IW2%`H~WtgFQf*fXFAp$lzD;wkem+!>T16$2UCtyxL~!E`7F` zd(f`MYI(sY(I2=Z(HWM2tVq$4cw9a3GfNH zUA-&Rm4zcoKxZH5hmFN63Ajy95I@~8&k#7ond)eJCKS^$n5Hl^gsf;KB;CkYlJhup z2(rNBU*Y?+BlBM17}3Dl-%Jvb10YaZ7F9mcr{x<#2Nh%+6hm*_wM4}%(J+vT%<+jX zQRcFmR_H;-%I%LdcXvc>qaqx%K^6oTC(bwGRg7;-hxy$X``PS~igPQO&bZWqQKLhW zfpMF3NQ=5i%W|3l5fCq6&S1t_k?8*l*3Hw&SxxzL4`07-pk!#o$!@Q|;=Z`qXY1Ul7k?ycZ?I>B?BbW4@5-pI!1#odb zyznD#YbZ?A2m}c=e?sMiN3bBo4_7Q{*etJQ8;r#Ec;iI1eBVK_e&TYcWKDDx@HY6( zzD`A>V>;?lNI;6@VHx3=ri0^+zoe!3^vyv1K|%!bz^u5$Z6&6NeIfUAX;tTYwmfws zlui#v50NIj~q7?mt+7GB;1X^JBDix~mMDmHXok32G_T>X%WJg>sht zF8%bcos9#n*RUF!A!Cl-Yi(o)fvgN|nsWu1WuhBS>&E1sU{dgViQHH&LUvCBH`?A{ z-R$4$cZp{11$~zy25plW*ZUW~CPXcmu~4cUv_F2DJE+lUQa&pn)xl+>fm<_}K77k> z-JehYn!piRLH*%au%`UZm15+P&&GI3H`63By3?hwYq3vVI(Sa)H3JEndq&~tF z;WTNaaf1ytOWWl5gEhN>g``XFF9|skK6NUnDj3oO+hK#g250lf@PTb^{fh}seV+6SU%xW5V@&~{F!63^rjV=X-GvBwh^svylq$2Axckdj|90Qx zJmdVW!vV*2OBMdmj$+--;}TXX=^(n`)o7&oZfS=R>HtKn??*#3+j`Sko`SUKUz#|g z7DuaqEDqf*AQ`zRH&NsYaN(_4ymdVqDaGa_EmfOWo;X%KHqTHrpEzJOO;!+wpL3p^ zNl#ZMHa%o1T;AfU0?9)&fktCb^ z$4j`)VJ%;=G;L~gYXNsDJyQa^XU z2wuDx+F2dJs!Ul^W#WnnGX_Zyj30zMYxc$!)pVh9&Lz?4>GK^#-8hL5(WvEqUd0v~ zATr&TKaEKY=Mwm%kT?|yfBb~|Q(j1pNNzN26xhpB&jq0+6Sq5SSXqhcPs!xSMuNwr zRMe4fF;#2GVdF1Hl-Ht7&c1Ke5>Jw?DGFaDC8G#+Zi{aeN>0%-c((2J$1{tF5MVeo z01X_+cFe?;5ElLEa1*8eu*o{JQAS7Q2bbNa{!U=Tw3}2B8jG-bVzcC&kko$C`A76_ zc{t31cQH45EwOE=n1uVjG$|;_Bzq*Jt+e>NB$zZrB+O^&gw0Bt5+dBrs^V8$32>hA zo!W)Ob~n?CvrWul$z8P|QOSsUNJt&hllm0N(ylG?5B&A2S=HZLPLXBvap)I&0 z>re3SOKCXk_bVMDPBnRoWn>rrkb2`LWdAbO8n=fb6(dorQdA_wG^R{Ym_JG#=p++P zn_;pXeAz#^`rvjOUmlgC)%ZlNUm| z)U-*#WalP~WXMjW)Q|nk^Pq={J5icT_-IAgAT!%Gn%9de#Z*yP71~Q+(yQ}%-iKDF zO6+s7yrkZT@ZTT(p`&$87Rb=*NTE{jGtf^zs(F0xN1c)c`H2+<&!?eLgGXaD&WO*_ zDL*Efn4sPuD->eS3qz6jYq~VnCV4XS<&Oq5ZQw8#$amVU(44nUeh;40^Xh1tz6_k1 zIc7s%6!T-{ z+`$gON8u24aANeLO}jL`2?bhkd2jbv1(GXQti*-kL98ITG;OL$;W$2@~# z7;vDzEz*Y1?1s`I;slP`-}ZaOi=({y%*{!eYM|{*T#Uv-=W@4Vs~_52Br7NL11K2& zeZi3WBV%d(D}ZlImX*7BhAfxJ)53F2UOnxw#HyZSKu9)T-TGOrR770z85B1!AkK79 z)AUEooB!F)DvTn@k7i!w)!`8wM+zK>^)TIA4)f;%l+al%-zrwxN#`_Rf-nG%X}1>Q z>l*3rOMZu1sH&-%xgoI*tjb-g>Sw!LkwG!b(sGlU;dB0PX#Y~co#!St%92`w=~Dv7 zLhId}rEj;0k!n)f_Hyl2jXLW0#ECsA~)?KVnSXWqOM;HT+Pc8V&}vMV4v_Ulp23#G&wpjHTK zt#)Dv!bc(JmsFTU>9gRLdK2%|qZI%Cwfc(_>Tc_*2eyh*;>$1ON@lCYY+Ei+AE*0V zoQ6qYe34!mC0rO*Mm)#P6jn#Q$}fj?GjAB@{mvoD&zhb6v|ls{#5SkOT+v@d7pfSMW@%D z0mek5J|~Yb#6JX~{~kCG9gCrbVMJL~Zp024w_LGk6fQVI&AbcY2K~WRbL1~g+wFTL z)Fd@5ORUf7FWEDg=)}kn067>~HBec46;Mz~%2S+Q4K&kuabG_zD=Vm<{oLWZY^`vN z3}NekOt6^Mgj(CSi-P=IGu#s3DQO!xcLcSmMtVX_Zq}PO17kn5zv;{|1eBn-jP0() zi8Uqz02C@%i`SHtB6$D;CAu7I(pZ2$`vdYD>Jk*?=T>YhOw36H*tKD%cmLQ}=d(y3>gOWQ2SXliC21S9vF=H>Bg@C(!8 zTCBo3ICMZ&Qk)zjCC~|1;co_=BPqSuC8KOAjJ2f6c#3xKC|vrPmuobHm%mR1*v`3rz*e&{k($ZPz|BeQ8C zstrF>P78D4Xnmd?$(lTVs@%TI`B7G6-&8jcCQ_y(e(FpV!(XcxUrA#5#A+7+cto9- z92@|1NkRE!sUn>-1_y%0q+|BXGu;64C5Bwm_j3xIq%^5qFjN7TjxOvi3fR)i?e!## zf@cl9A5k@fq2l6t80O(?gtlwUw!rW)Vu0fel2Td4b=uafZ4o;zc?{rD#vV&to{wT? zhNuxKZ7|!!7)*#pTJ~NY?u-ji0GvF<7k$vxPIhU%Y0H6jBxAdU@!Wj!NFqgw9A?AIc$d3<-%7 z2M|ornA=j1`0imBjb|%%s2qJ~>x9qU{o>om`m83 z&7-aNFNREqB`suZty170F85SFVcTh;f>i@tw@?$cD$N{?66Hlo9h_A$28kf+^)Yb1 z-*^#-3$0wSV{?Q7~IrYdRmQjmax$<$xVGG%+4j|jpN z@`jM&NZ+vuApm${vBp1<#7LH+ld^23i`q(%0emI8t(n7?a7%y#k+8+v2@*N|OBf*>j!P$X4fKm9h<|UP0hN#M zetqhmA>$Nl*KRRKB

VOSfy?C=3Lj5~;hq8T@M#P*v)7swOV)Im#XiU#a(}HL1UL zbFP=vPE1?7*^f}VnqG=$-vICw$wa-xnkKf`PzzFJA$$(}!>+lf-C30_=##9P z)7Ew5fk!`Zdu?CJ8w8H6H$3ug@xP*k5O`2mHs&NHEPU(d!jJl9dB^M|@iC2wGI6A| za~$o+)~bNxO|OCc`Q%YX7M`iIZjR-(JF>fvdUf?t6Hp?d+kP(cO)MyKn-CS${jYYf zf?8vJS)rwci8TRTr(IKUPg2=SO*`-@Vp_9e!q}Y4br${eTxSVI$#pRv1e5R2_WC(+#z~?q0*7`7Ra98I=Ax?}&tXB|^0|4@=@QJC#2XO3kZT?aG zCx2f)&+Ub_lRqTr4WB)O3H!_FLYGE1~TLgF6So>i@A8`-+lsQ$CS z|6^5jLO1gu{QY(O|JB0Sq5Rhn5%{6=?`;SJD*qZH0aqyh4@2bhf1miDkNp3cF8|LL z|8GzHFE9T89?JiW_*Yf@;PtnUDiw|o9U_94-|g2B zP`#LPh=2Zna&M~_1ZwO1z5UKpa}oa=)brx9J?i3!lMpseAlZSB3Q3ob39s9Sc60*` ztV7=y6X99EGPj20zvfv)GIiWqG*j2$3F6B$5gx&_t6ewk_C&}dBX^O^t&{WP(>onP zc>ix7@9qn<-|cwEhmohpZ%5Y!P+hNq9`~mgs4%~rX1$;Z_ zo6MbK=?2dYX66C(vnS#-osPARi_4>Z7bs-U;n;rGEJn3lyMv5-k%maa4FRF&^<(ob zio0H29Ap)(f4sePnY=d)zjo1nyl137(8`7FV(%sHrwv#kuhK`oQr(}>uROj;V&Jx2 z4}Yj5-xR=OLjJSthgn!UZ)RHST^sHbK_;0TOFKCP1u+N%4^P4bQ(-8SvEB|9QmgP@ zxhF&)PbxajZk&5{CS|~dfiU(^A-fCNgW%v`TCJy|gO5jJ$%~TSq6HeUbe&h;0yHXb z?3cr{Z+4Fp@86CeADcotu#w;qxPNH=yH(zouI4USxZ6$}3+Mnko_BNQYIS_O(7azl zUiFCN4O|ZWoD@p3*-2s_8D_eKw&9zPx&UCVX)p=Q{{p4OUipH9Bce z558E~us5oIO*+YHrF**J*iEA(2&lmft?@qdkZHKlPoxLK3-C(#)wb99t9k!yg~t+t zVrzdTi7MNK-&#ZQP1HR-qpvNw?iGY+v%K(Jf%ER_VXabZCEg*7BK;)8a#r>7$5jD(1C5rL$^P84uQe!Ai_x^|@Y0@Rl34HE2zs^^pG(<(ka}TIIIMZT z%6aKH>MruseE#m?%|rfn6PL$&#y84|Z5b*=+wP(x)y8CO1s4}2&9IzDCeGCWIvo$* zZCuTT$bV0-*1*-At_{>A?dQSNs2F`v+exAA%gY{aR>xZ}Q1Q{1#3Da$z$+r1M}pW7 z0D}JnE(yVw&`WvQ_qVl9U*FGw$E)drkGi8JI8=S<0q=vG$fByk2>5#z7jU?(3dDq2w(p=O#rTMPVy?+!Lzg7l+>GJQ4bLQupF-cO6_NB_g{O|xDU_vTOk@-R!r#jw!;_ONy zweE*gGUgYJ?<)4xSJb*rCIDnQwIU6`qQK6 z(sM3z>yD{#2lb_^2RB!~4{U`FE$Z5!9r@~rS|6Yl#{wMr`ofG-8AtPm<1pJ976Z-9`pWqs;WYhvCj|L zeCm;u8BX&2a%lzT+_&J!pQlD>QP+R?=x>s(e`DWGMg%o z>p|i}do3$FLFvMfvpE!i<|OpUcP(v@49Ip{yz8Yn{~h^QlnJzYchG&JP4lvi^FD0O z;9UsaaOJSwOMT4P2;@i)5YKPp{aAGbP4l=*XX)FnVo_7k;K_4qf%Cn^lN?EMfNJH@ zA~}Gw-WD@TY&p$Cs(2z_Vfk`@dOs;|IIrx# zT@30++rY1GoGr0@l!T%403KaL9$%|)+x^{5b?`#cYVMXEo3N0JDj(#=+Jf<%md1Sf z`rOM+F9ZLmx_w%(Gow?hXQ(V{8Gr+jKD@nE@r{m5MxF|$R@3D?OwLF4@R7R7a81<~ zeFcoKYvkKC=HFyHSNm{sas;%fj0Y7q=8gGMZ`G)XKFN5lLHHqX5d#3V#cFs9t45lL zfbQ1hmeZ-Kr+?X>&Mgke9bVI`$U7rhhILxdcVY$k@*OM1s z4_ybDUE0pO?#zfYDRC2v@A=zn@|4eR97LcF5xm3;cQ<7vV^I;Vzg|?l(?0~(#GGDa zC0oIE57IRSIxojptRt^Iv~SjX8hd~n><;*YY**@#=P$^Mj?1u z^SpoIN9v1O!TUq!%LxJCBVMf~pysz(USD!N1s=wO`nxW)n5%5+kbdJxwQgm%VyUK% zoKOblV1;T#0a7tW(MX}%ER$2K&9%#+M&bRZiayp#GrJXftBRP*(v2A~0N#h~h~fj>i^Trh5c};p@-!iKbSZ~@yTCl+XRGg?F{I-ML5=7)=gppo zTP_b1k@qnnL7AAOOy0AI+byoOlzE%83xeVM#{J~Q^KbsnCK(+~=g6do>)b~P`ccjuC@1Y6|ViXxu3&<{{_(3&j*rDh^Ra(|&420LW&5P5+ z*a2yyKvf9@!A_QoklSUbE}+d3_zHmlo%;uiM94x0@Czv;Z*{ zow}$;RKT0<_FKPNZq0|Uju4VW0Yket+b3lB57u*=8A3(p@}c|PFK-Wj`m`tjTTD|B zz3s#qt!a-_6J}`X*A-bvtcI+X9*b$uJCzAtJkQJfc~Qk+yX%f!r_IyoO3t|#jkwN5 z@69hP2>_nsvnB%KCYFzjDo%$cr;R(Co3b>_tj;XbarTNj-~wgq!vYQu3?x4SBxq?O zGm&NMaV+7k5cQ1>A5+#D{lO#+d(;1*J~#{f>F|7Ln8|Xv=}ku8QgEH7UXVx+UIRxg zQlrZ|y6LdW3c>sAhYhWWiJ%D?A`^kN~wAJ^5H3kk!vd)A_Qh@v)%^>MS#d)>n^)$i+Qsh1FnoWcR-4fS=`M^KCG3B*cjrC0l|S~Kykc0y;Y5cT-tRXW(5&_6%dZdj z0c^Q@b(6Bh@T7g&?sOCx^rZN;ce-%6Zq~so-%cM-6K6Sbo7q>LYmd5v8(d)boGw*Mm_Cy1TT=!K$ zx~0u)*+h^ReCq*|=E$567mTlL$;A@g)D zhBH`gwwa?ETA2|E2u7|mgDZz)aC&9P(=x&{txz3Ny4}q#~o2Hh= zi+zWBBDaq{Pn-G*y?K_gAr$_sPY|tCa`U0hC(cj$gi zRs?@P6TPCEnn+`5Ets|83r+6Tx6$ zV0drWq=5W-O)%hjF1fkhz^@>HSjQXU0P3^ziC(45^{*iEeeS>gJ+5i}8U-&L9ny1H)qlK9(@1|Cz<&Q_>dux& z;i``3U*RQgJ6WXY)Ya&hv-%x!{OH+HqR*x1>%pA6!acq;vCv4kMExyro(WzODUBJw9Uv*Y8HUyY@6 zJQpo|1iKGce@{+Mf_w?Nx;9YBO}e24Rae*V5m706ioK`N9n`;f#G;2+N2G*3JeFh9 zTk=g$&$*=+?@MOHjsYDU<8cv?gW&#D3YmY)|Lq>r+b#C{IMsByTfzGP^GA`c`V{X$ z5d3T|l5HGXi}^a16ufsBXD1mUoxlH^YrtT3HdTVklAc zD#Jm?!1C#PZ-J;~@nD$KroYPS4DhH4&L6`n>gvlKu#m_Pz-TyR^m863cOXS`4Lz_% zm4ySM`nK`i3WqMIYyzN!z^`@~8eJ5>pZBmgy=VUDjL#N`zr;U5kbnK6euX_uzt&Qw zQgHLL_i%;#0QM2%t(%8WDCEnmz3BbxgXWUgLo%%U#Wj_Wv##|;bDOJr5dYqhOnspn zHO)GWk%G`7K`=0VmcO&;8gYdpOF|{%Ye?Svu=heKOYhOTDZRy!H%jU39ydLQ9B;g` zjXgQ3`+N;OkEK)Fyv-C$`e&`Hi~p^-LKb~z>FpBFX->wRXJ7GXWVY(RxDWut?vJr; zCiswW5YmI&sjRQxXce$X8D84^f(#JI;ep7(+kz{HBfgg&D`wqG{GVfML|@e&NC9tx zSBthQs$UOjY-t#4_5r6W9O6@OL0rdO-8E~#B?YK#rPI6Pmpdd|Xlrk{N1~g+V#GJX z#B;qHi8Nrf^dzk?^wwV22gDUsR#WQ~z&uiptlJ!8rn>A7lec%w=VIG>p5D7gzrS7P z9XTq=#1|_PJk&qbCj$uvu6p@D$T<{AY;0U1RZ3Ws)iF==gO9RWD@yB@bHAm2%T%La z28MsyOSy3ppAEU?l_csJsRGKHiGVK+f473En{V67LD0vin>q>~IRSIi(VDWp$UCga z9SPa=3x^092tebHuXp+`o6wA5DAI6NuEJDHxM6Tu0KKUO=WjzW4gt$iDQG2#90X|L zVnNeaMAu0Am|)kQdYGh9{8amfTL%X&Pf(| zllaUoFV~$pt64mE@&wkNbt#>!yHjds{s=~vG2?5AX<@Wi zm!J}`R5)VE96RZpUqcds){B@tcsb{FKOgtLw)kgfHIDB#Kn|a~N1AM7y1N?+@Ul&P zppxc-@8V--_PAWvSmL+ZdTPCM+~bgwyZ=LHK4y*rMof4;h5c;~wC?LEAfQ#-KYE*Q z`0fMM*%b2Wi9r1im1}r}v~13jWo_+Ogrp>v^=MTTFx2-A0Lb3ZA?V;SgOwOvs-Jpi5f2Sl(JfSbwu31XxtEm8!kaHU@qFmbo%^yiU?3R< zHD?M7QzCE}2>_Pg)0Z`7bzPNjEDx;CKp$+-Eq)fsS$68Lth**pqf#H`@lWxBoRS%J zJI;XJLy*AvLx)L6{ziXC_e4WlhTQSkloiR?heA@ji2z(oV2uJk#ERDZ(aWsu;QuO{ zFtM&;vf9XcnV4{{fhUyxhijum)|eVt4PoM}S}Sv}tC#{~b$mQ(Z5|$?OFhg@)+>1f z4v_nQBNYnvS9*VqWdMfY(%_|jS z`b~%mD#4B5B4+=y5XB!OH8SGg`}B!UTE^%jwU4hU%Sqpc&N%VTDAM-jR1fXK*$>Wa z%eT5(>zZ(aO1$nfwJN!=Ra8;)$pt1Cl=Qk*MsLxIx%+2m`igx=t;45r8er3g>OP;Y zpA%i(?86z9q(erp+kIcZZbu)TOn^+m`lu6{@CNX2i~1&v0ZTh`m>sq1qNso+b#;DF zU)ArMstbhJtI}}^zyNHic<9546`W;+#o5-U=nLYL;mf2V7mgdQSyIT|H}~|g^xI$4 z@`%JzUWkjJ9D*D7xeAHM6gzw|ZI#L25eSXy)OmQ;(265;GYy=&E%vI%?Lh*kO~1N` z4;-}~WjO_yLp$QsQgzhe0K`WA33e@1;xxgNeQwEShdrGkr-*yAxr-V8Ddozu2?D_0 zT7^^TVPXN|xDL7!4*UeR&Vh?EK;= z6esq7{A(LlM?e4=J1*xo``CTOSog4~0CqDSgy|)v6jkFhJT~UzI{3B>R2*2os*N=| zP_wb)oQc#0tr4}4S#TT;jZ8hG5>!{nU`BCqRq&%#o$va}W3T`rmS&tN92!~)$`g}| zfC}FiJt(64T)xWIvC^-v^UeTYw58;0zZ%wvy&hNmCDr=9Z@6*?N;V@ArbQ~~b&s>9 zBct;9lteE^MM#=Sl8ggZ`aU!Ys&jnL^2}xz@}!(}-QW~_yGAo>YE~w8p2_AH5Rocn z;C9PS;opCupK7f;5h$|keM^Vl6x`oRvAv`FvF|JRLZ<0*mFaWYdbH^hFu^sZDU*i$ z?Q5*6>>_b`p^3jXf*c+2RkH$j{; zzn8rm-ZwlyK2z|J9IYtr)~nyiV>ORwCAkNG5%xDJpW>TVx#8PaL!Tw|Qkgb^AOhb+R-G#fk zXl4ru0A9(qHjZI7kmMY41Ztu#$=o(n(PctyLTzT8OI0&;!Vi>>sG)VIKFsKH7Aw8r zwR0v`(KOPXj2jWYjPn`y#&K~$J0r5WUco?MG-)uZs78X;yRa|V4zEi-ur^1z4%^^e z4cax`iIq~atg&lIs<=xcz8Ugmit#3Ca&_vi8P@F{QyPr>8@A3cX-EV>K6R_a+kRji z)hsg`j@KL#NEOsFGO(GRE<`_DZXY86LjMyR!A>cwi!d1~>>%RdiNDFdf18_Azgn-b z>L;YkX}WZka+TImV*>yH#}icDHgEtOV{fnNB0)eX(?^x!i}dc8LEFXRpF-Lz*%hpM zkB_MDg&UXyJZht!XYEya^LrDlo^E2#YWcj|?Ox|J^fdb&}~^5`;=qUI3O`St;8uPV`V zIQGxZfx1NjiWbmZqM9XoEIz^Vrq$-=VEs3$t4BX06sd_<$Tb7kcD(Y+CZ3~eEP=Lx zsu2aMyCnB~R=!fg&*XahtcBM?I&E98-okXfLwE-$K#;x(L+YA`t@F2RyQ8fuSQxWc zpTVe#{@m^hv7>fXsMnX*(PU)*);w>!MiUL{Bb2ZgMiE3#oeFFItC96FciH3t9ztCZ z(?xjYwqo6tl{zoKhr?9w<;JZFxipEqvdfXTLQ#fBP8+v9VSg|A%J8)2k)nko%_c#1 z+V;$UJ}-zh(4R9T=!PLlOja;vEHjOXJgnfLajRf2!h$Gk_@f3aLcyrY7I1tR3IHS} zZIs+Y6xd-$rnaFN{#+7l)+3k&8$bTtS!MEa_FP<`F{~lBsxviaJ1x%Nd?%GBv zf>LAerIego_dJ~+T4$K}2w7=Ygw?Z{zp@ zY?@fxqKwL*S7m~T?^9@ZThA~5qk|;&L#ZMHx;Sd5bB&nRu3+b{Y*YQg3kfi6ZG6lKe=ODpPV0|}9SkH~%fP5!MZ~Mrx}-rvDfcEmExpbW zoKda??M9k_e!k_JiBYj92an})y!EU4rgT~k5P;GjmFNzl3nCp4UHZXY74M(*wB{{b zpCkZ4XK`1V`M`DtgPZ%?;Ue*$vW=Q_8Lzj9cfzU1fBumlfPpt*4FLe?)rEY^SY_f# z<9kF5)w9bL@o8SIAee$Ml)r!kgP1E203=7?cnK~d0fg%5ixzDtzGAd}+=9P)Wn|6D ziT8TJ>|B@UXPST#Rj(tR>$|Xfb!yUDlwmVTQa=tS+;y_vG6z-Ccrc~v%K0R!Ro$Cx z^{<|t0JQjPr&p=(Q?^a30r)MJrQXyB{j7`r-tn_5irziQ;KBmcHyD8Pjkj`gd7LVS zmZZjQ6?M$@1c+vO&6?brYdXN+JKqi}H)0+x~mas$C;odPAX zXr^%kiTWi#(NgvCyAFX?YQ@vD6BILSAe0##1exB+PN4mTlN;$b#1*1Rl)R}|plF9)mz6oppX1H>rlOg$S3N9O(Nd_z^$&{8*ZK$(K zNKFo--v#}C%dlj>k(%m=kBFa6L?xp8V*NGK;J560f4lyXjgc^<7xC`e#%BAvCJWDV zlF0?*R4uTy!a(VkTW*HmaH%?AA6Kp-6pT@^P%*R+n}7d4+c#bM$(iQ zh&Jox*1|bADux+=1@)Q3pvD!3C1V_CGn@3#;}T|2T=^X9z_jCT$#-RRz9wUOz51s~ z)_OzP)(=DrRh>ZKV=uDYK0e`lnC+mmwqpG%9z#1ciyM%VtmzIkg8_)x{mI?pK86`A zA|LkK39fb$_vYtUOdKm!6tQE+>^$?ksVq$bZ)H06q9IPr7{pbEq|536WiC+@#eae- zZioU0c(+25e%7d!e+L2NE!KRjhpUmvNaY1Hy%dN7$ZlfDltsSFOfBLUgD(s=V%+AX zq;Qe;{-Q?`^R3RoMpp%MN-%?a)|7)JcKdD)REu$k+RM*OdM3;MYjrHY!J#zHip8y1 z!Rx6Gid>)!0&Uz@hC&|xTi8<1eAfD)h606Dv$^*NaHR& zhORv)Cn;pHV&|-?rMX=J)MV4Rx4s`HAL8_E*4$H#ZXHy^#IoJ7{h=y1eU> z`MbZ!odq;p&U!q=0C6$x8Cm{Sia~|wf;bp1cct_I;ssf_SH-7cwsHkMa`(>pa{=I# z(Tae4H!3?PnP&PMvxEs333(pVRcMoT`t{-C(D_jD zrR9ue3JfDl0H9mUZY~r#z6$;jM?^#j;(i`;b-&1qxAr9A>&JB*=zeW4bv-uT_g*^N$?@y`sDcL{qsJ^rj5&{(DYZ1m1`YArA0|TVA3 z0J6D1pMnE2hkvVMD0>`xbZK*+JYlDT5z7)b%YEjKZl7k`zwf6Sw65f);GKqi9x~yVRhs*r6jcmYHvMXnmI3&Pj`BTjq1J%C&CY-gB!A@60jfBo_ z?>*UpLsMm7B~KQ^1jO00h%!|Km_3-LfhK{5>;uImm=gtHn!Z&(Jr{!E`ksHFfQ=#d zSenyiX?CW?s`-YX(Q#PsO378^8HWX-Fl(i-AyaXjip53}VflFWUZb)CKmchOeIc4Z zz4_vEPW{O+)&$wgsU}1ZaR*S`|Htd+5+wd(d}3vwLT_1YqHVV^&;15Bgm2 z7eNl86oYvrF=jfqbRKo(wDN}jSHA*xT5K1T$%;hp9$pQ0XIF?h=f$F;b>%w~6bPUW z=K{AtSZ8z=JxxB2{OTmxq9bX#YJPTLl;%<)CZyOQg?!;WNi#^T7Q**F-j_$n7|H?WOL@0hb-x; z!|`KA>3kub8~I>&oU#4HQQL%5ha;w#^q#jLIQ+B5O}~CM=A>KNV3FfECzq8n#UjNF zl!CV>VeUG?0MP%mNu7GxoWp-d?AwRkLE10t9pd5nX{UH;3;nZKGFVS{6cqYlmNajT zcaahLyVDQPlvI%1I6aYmP!nS%;Gr;hl7-^1EJEtj@yhm}g?z#zSBwEKjJ)qcU;y$L z@8ZjSNv~*&MKIy88A8lxN8^$~$=BKFrs50dtzz%1sQsu)(Rs>%+|tbXc~Qsyqk1a` zPbKR8@oDA{Jp}dk`*xV5!pG7F?g!q@^s2m~ft)^QV9uNW%^=>FJBL|fjEB?W6?TN* z#*+=n`Mv~{u!gWf?!gFh!NOUp4Q=!9abb(Su3$T4XA7M{Nv7K$gO%A@lR{(40dt3j;ri7;pE)i)60juEUUYzVC`IVnY1>D-&;4rq zn2iVjXy^Jq{DkOX1?deunyi<%d8LV>{;R~dg1QY0V*DcoPBm^xVVBezn0T#XJnzy{MeVp-Mx4L*;abS(APLT1K6V952B^^JzyTIip`e3DlXFd`dj`Rd`?SA zm)(V-t>vMtRl2&wqZ*gTWH}2&AExY8H~)=xQ&POKNtpQ$B_@K-mtg9A8s%exG+6BfFbqyCMwb?Lg+%u*Bgo57$#M!^z+F2WF2>BRw8YZam4TsC5Hqldj_%7p1s{Y?U+Y`n5)h`i;$admrtjcVgi zNo68}N^Agp0{lFC-mhx=++KCLzw*TN<9;aBH#kyq`V*_`$z69xfdKZ)vCFx9z3D58 zPD$gR;1$vI4?pDHsN7zYy-k2wqaT93)%g$+tG zx7ARe?}b5{&3r^y8x{re-vZdTp*Jvqc_Tu@s>Kt>9W7r75Ns76!l% zuj8wL?RBp9MvL)~alhV<-ui?EhZO(-&QXGrWeaEp>@t=4ug~-2n!CIG0(iTer1JE| z#NqVuf`r$tI{xSI@pNu~jDas3D6je?BRkfBrs0;T_Svwf(V#vx=)ZGI5E(%RSn+~O zPJ@i7UFO!V_nnrH(5`HE3{<^<`%Fxy@X?bHrraq6Ko;J}NU7NLy3tVkce}}w8 zD$|f5hJDkesP52HPBf@RvQxqEnMMKg`P|)<={pxVr0Yt|+J$snRq9Xf5EiuJMN62D zK%dQcB&!giSF}T%Vh0fxcC@)jH@Lj=iME9HKPOchclR2p%IxPKMyaNEEdJ_row{X{ zj>;;XA_m3vgJMqq;R5gsWyJ{z3=BjxzWOZOr`g-P-~BG)j#|?r1rf6jXQB`)GpD(( z1(IB4SMq;&PB8<99Z{0@#k5KfPJ=!*>D|OCes2#sTvE={&k<$#Tk-bPMPbL5v}*Cv zh$bkRqoE-l{eZ64eX1Z1R6z#YtlmkZly?t6ZTs+ogW61 zN6~tI!Gp)k2hxiL3p_D8kn2>Mh0FCS&ddO-Hot@iMl0c6S(tQ3|00$pV~uCq@eXf~ z3LTi)c0zHMS@9*|p|#7F;b1(4|7pQw1oym*gCnFcT*sP`Ib2!TTUrDH9bFqFaOpp@ z)^n3D$GmFh)mgH~3Q+FFMCjil%0>aCvN{`FiOp+h>g!WVh_C?Kev!P?o5+kYe8;*k zscOzKRR#d$q*0tWN2y9+bL3G0vn!5aOE0?_AAg#Xzyr@IPJ5+ux<-w@zjWTrIhPmS zt}I)&{ML5j?~B#I%7_|xUa=Oemtu4Kt-uT}9LFT$3jq*Zf4$fImCW(E#V{h<%s?7m zP4Bg?7XLOwWf2y}+4w&9X7TwxL#35VEXhba8Ia({;&ozti>f;sB&!vGk86Y#@UX!3 zY4@f%vZP{l;2j1(PQ%eY)i zXYeb4V21p!(sTg(kfzBTCUS1B8q)l7iui|v1PJ!rT;9K8~?nFejig6CHMT%BT z161gJQ#1xVOk4%0uSc+xQ=5nZK0ZF95>tV&@C-yDK8&kWD1tj!B7#skynBWb^LEY^ z;m3Fi0FY08Sa&J{Diu1Jr5!FbE6!%^Nxd%!dVtvegG5-EmF@yz;-PG;rg(&pVj-9M zfS!gfPe{0IlmKt^NC5Kp=LJq&uW(iAtS;^uUkc?RIur$kYVimaamLIFesNJ^Kd#*L zDJv>;d0e)AKpF>|{OofzkFo3oN31n9=r7;s+9szGJwca{q|JTSQ`Hzq&`w<02{3CF z5V5?;LuS;h&p7sqWKeR(!#HvlgR=e0VVt&iqls&uOlW{8N>wZefB$2bk1^uf=rTSf zlmiN417%{U8gk*Np-pKe^>I$idQj|*Gys{D%Ja}au__J_wD|k9xpG0sT1mF%d{-Le zJIffQk7O)B9#KasVVDvcLK;g!?*?y&wB!yx7H0undf$c?AE8lVp?7}Uy_T6m;VfLN zuO-BR8ydhHw%SE!6QiCj+%C9ZMyH+cNm^uA>aHUU59Nue_{(%e^&T0YOBtdEB3-5V%WywHf=I+K8G8?-|jJK z+yX6GG}wei?bDojq|b3Qd{E8t={jcWXz`}VHxnnC&fY8RFGKcgDj&#H90s0Ha_U2U z*$>RfCLl{!2^oB18XP%lQbohSYsm0@oEWf=ff*0h8>J`*JUiY|+ZFxOcu?DzX8V8~ z5$`b`!cL%aY68I2>8D?$IN8%6c;LuV5derJMvhOqV0JL9$LcE)fNvTC`9(XpN$A;6 z4iun106#!!oK4nB^X2Y%$n)Tqo07gs@@tH@q=6Q8)&WDoVO|Wsmn_xr(|TBI%NnONppqXZ;jrY zk-gID6`05Jl1xru0B14;sF$p2(O;Bn(f#@s%Xw8FJUw^v;OgH>yLbGu9JyA1;chcW z_a)SeOa#-C8CHDmoe=A@dbw;^v1Qjzfa=GeRn@dTjXx_BA0yS(>ZItGEfVo_&Exz8 zd5CPGIk={{tCCZZ1}2^>Yob7hgM4zM!=rNIah>kL)c9Jif9w1d8vqd4zMXw6H}~jd zrMVsQWBR1$$ryK@Upo)FQs=m+rK2FZZJL@|Sz(9W2kpA_wmI`ZBR;aT7eIgDM4KeNs{Q+=v$Z}J&h zQ-Y*RZr$D)O&{bOoSS}M^es$i@$j*6buHvw$OXSlGJR`W_i~<8tTeYqRL$3ag0sEw zI9nyukU45W45+biQgD5Dj;z)E`SdmRIk2@>bCyh%5M1k+yGM}x=&DPoM|zA91EFRb z9&s5xzAQs2$pe-wSh^L^jsDQc-o>e9OLCnMxnjCpiPk<3_2>_ z-|^biP*tse6GoMQ^bz?acmo3k;QM^!P8xZ1skmgvg0J#=Tb@S6Jr?!maW172G+o%a zn~Cfe5ZK9Yri}&oE46U>02F&(cBW*`N;1v8)YWc#{W@(`@ zEg2^M>T-GQ-dhtq&;*LV2+wxH?m-6mMQYni!x0+53M~lISQv77(`t+xRv!VJ-pjl{ z4lh1uHaxDpbUHY;*5+SfVP?4*TLOl9=BW-nV|c&%(Wa=ht=C9ZX^p*C%8LGRW&zUH zuI?A-=g-*>1DBW3cxw7wLZASbshd)jW=CDLC-_S@+EmSIS*!HS&zmrxC>iw%RT~Q= z^6Bd)a1dV=@uW6)bWyA%w;K-axCThF0D#ER6zHlvf?Wk#uy21rhmLMGtX8omI<=-- z{JM`+;D~xs)a#Sm{GW;qyF5e9WA3Kz0}EyB&ddUr_gR!;V7d&MFRD;a`R|??#l|9_ zyc_2sc(Lv8aizC3@${;``+q?Jdiv?jy9b+unZ7Mf{+Hm1NM}sYzgyo0JY&8L2lxXX z0u}`GaGv)9#M%O0tKX&qZf^obMiXIyUU5{c&y&U2(mxPdSWJ53+HuL9zh3PdKXkTU zQ_jAex_1O!8O9`W@UrJ1n>nGvYO0O`Ya2LO1SD-74^zDM6y48a?CiZ|-}BE(m+R_( z+|D;SncP*My2&FnOx4m+Z~b!6NXw~Y@~o_4Al`+-h5pqI}~;rZrXH02&N;=006_p za`#RF(7|;3>BQl|D@7IRWyAAYLA|UODhYxcbX%4VQrG$aU%h1yI%cc6@}r}->t^!LkrdsKjwPd1=%WBIjT#yIYd z_sMaYj$~=LAFS#~I-_W_l|`{EuwRJYd3oWsY{Q!4s#&$d#$%N|1o@`R5eJVFWgiZ- zHp%SOyMT-4K|jl@nF@Ng1!p@~`^n7;4bm1ke< z@3nWGPn#b?@B6z&cSlTy1VDQDe_b~i|GpuHW);RP2mI6Azpg#Hf8Pir1MB?!=N`zg z|G(Y$Jj4Ef{P4dw(pJTsqVAFPkf12B?7zM`7$;l5DsGbOsz+)bz zERFv?$Xj4)idxSBi6|+})RFK_;a1q`e?}2iZSM~qZQ>!yElw@;)UgE08c^D5PXqSrSV03yx4KbIgPFaLC_L15_I7^9uujL{ zX@Bfq#@r_{p)9nHUNE0cot24umTDh*fTRKm9Nc*)>dWp^J0R2M!~&nZTD^!Y#vF#0 z&@ijk2C^Z-d)V@po?3V(M=jU?GgO*8uMHw<7dym?N(MgECjqNkH7&_tI)I9fecbyR zmv%+7CwS$Cz5)n~2l$gvKj z{rG|50W#lZVBd&&d^)gv<}UbY0K>ht$WZV)zqu3t&v=s>WB46OY(+2;NL{6Ejt>TZBHfP*x8OCeq=FabYOlv-Zg?4_JF zrC7?0vy5+n+lTXgN9g?|ePaTHNtpx@~r zEGY@Yl2)C&tZPlUhtST3XVLETZ!LC?9Km)sr3XdY0UcUd zjeRt3LA_izg45&qpEW9=Dsc4%mI#RO;%k!Y7D2h~z~A;%hRns3fBT!vDvt^wZ5sZ5 z6F9YTYhv+Bx6A}1l}W!%PR-j6@vi2rj9 zYAhv11_$>+oSLyyQ@0r|I)EZYs7xl*p~9jkm9N+4WfFdg;{)TF^ce_ZAfobOO8*CX zReeI%M?7Ie`R{Pd#f%O8mgt9b*v8+uT;jCk$IwIXdRQ|0e_N)Ph8Nu{Bspgg1CP!| zw{Ew%J5Da5(GEYR&C5>;ldZaTRvqA3v{P{Jw87+N0ma~r%etvG8g*;uHJ+ChS8PN% zXUw6ITYJ2Ll_V3URqvwLY%G-|F>t8QzSQdz!&&SXIHGs#jLQX5Qj6b2Rbx}R#j3S4 z$;{GR>yfwvJ{R1-$3I*$0eZo2Aj$B*46H7{Rw?Lz%;$f%g8wl>;Qzb%{NL~Yf3U&( zu(_8U8E){WJN1P^7N1Qq68ywDCfLC%g+*P{w8R`pn(zZ`pKa@=oTbx3$iSYRy3DL- zX>Yhe?$%?7>^XMrPgC3PF84ntencbbPX7MEJm1|m=L`0e4O~xMzp7~FP*AojpW!Pd zMSVTaY-C!hx(LA4Nz?)&|8%Q2_u$SR**NHo@bI(BOvbNU*?_MTx6BNKQg5cwN@l4( zpfy|ID3nbDT$s5lovPt+ZOP;|Zu;YI=N-!e$FQZDUq*#`YSv4*uSs9F`kJ1`$tFzn z#!AzIr&l`h0;EpgWa|1GlJ`@4R&>UAx=sFwjcPs~KcpM` zx@3`^3bdq4?3WJg2|2|g&K!ddc*k@umO1G;%BABIm&KCbb7C>S(%4V&nxie6{?gfr zFAYJX{OfV>ATFr!`4eUMU9hDvjfNNcBHVIsEPR?%^CY~4-|_cw@shrO?~=XbCxpho zh-WMSn_Fpis80pzmQ50IvD^| z3wKR)iKc(#DWi^0B7q54R3$m5z2jQ2S~5L!|EGu2k1h^SJc^G2jB?lYR`Xo;cvH4N zG|(&cxX8qi_u%?I})ecv_ijhsvk^va}adOw~O{`=F-PCPKRld!Jsd zwZWng__}!TB4b{R$@p0C3^!}7Ztm@HM)lZ zQ;~BRaiN0bk1IE^qHtv_6DvDo-3{gR-1 ztU}J|hCE?&lvh=FK4^Ix4QrI#z^A#dNBOpe*GS76UZ7`(awktzMMH4SwNT!%SS*E_@RVTUQVlFgN=%M z)biIqm5WrQxXv^KH;WSi1n}^t0XiJtlzxb4rQ3*5ZMz8c16H?nZb7_6HD6k7*>Wl} zx6%46oT{YD!DqvCb`5PfsfQ;0?AS}bkHuBrF+)^YmxbIfGzMw^?WD2>| z3o=d_Jz9MS2jrT5E*g1>O{p+@md{<>i-`?uzM}$>M?-ZJ1$A^A^qAt=NkFAb#6JhO zgQQHm1OBSgLGyV`TC&O0L$c8*YkV_I2ch!O%BHY~BH-q55AH`e72onlNhiHI?TT0k zME+|C8mnmg4$(q0`((Ohf8h}9qMPtoYwgqpM6jdm%wM-hA3{~q8 zL1B8$M)SRUUeB5(1tY=Pp#R91#nFA-m8izS6WCSYxei!5sUcDUT-CnXOLs~|h6WQh z+}cl}=1EFZu8?J{A=-PiR51D=cIl5~+m!mvcNw19T~8XGJtm`D#>5Tt`MQ6m#^z&G zE1`;A`O0-o3W+ceo>hQbb@x_WZFGq=VqA5-Z*#ebXd)Tt63#Xo13QY`&w`PLgb7ut zTF19d{!dTV0yM(KjzFNu5%inCp#)-HA3JSGD^4(DIwK7m>Y#YL7^)9;d!ULK5{ zjZgQ)A4?UbY+;Iizx$n-gLIJus^7rOswRvY8-GgfZc;I%(4MsfQ#Kwzj&%DKG9^2 zSJtMCUGQ>p<4-l+#c}3%{d%*%2Dfw_8{{-7yJd2!b$p5Ti&qt-J*H1Arv!> z^S4@=!0@dp#lsn9SY_K|(R0Fg*XNg%zw~?Jx%cK|&lv<~6=#Uhbm!marexRijEPtM ztR)c9{C`vHsaBoau5AirKYqZ(erS8fzfpJVw8DOB?mp0Xcj(t`l-LAnmf0R z-QuYPQFljiPkGuFB~I(n26ZV1&0Ah-#RyUnsXQ$M@Qh~6MFoiSz#DUjCA4+bT;jn+ z8o|i0-CKw+rU&~hZcM4HzEi0g&<5)MQU=ih;({j@%eAL`SfA=PfON{3=)T!CzPR)U zgr@FecP=#@JGV&#CSTV`y+nR<5+tjaPK3vY44thJwgnFUJTyK8_lg3JhT&sRIkuuC zEAjN4*`(&PXjv1VoT{c(JpLPs$C3+eAedsEpU=Py&2j@mg|l_#g*IsOPrWQk=qt1J=SPJt+Q#XZ9}YMhBhk zqTS!rmw0dKtuyEFltR->=v|-25Xu^&F3NBTAVx|(A{TCT!}-7Y@H z&05dK9@vO~@^3D~u9@J19!I!Im>q3CTG_MJ=YaeVRyKM9Yj zaenpBLNwIN0Y@VxCBL{m0P~Yr0Z718{G2w{y+RDVhSFcAC3E0K9f_obvkge5ttyp z2WL-T-w6TKY1J49lLE)>ou!3BFhn_T)thTqFWQVTK`7vR6*fWrFIm;%{Xjln-sG?T zq#9rjc{D}@Vk#GX6aYv_6bP_QQ&0@@?T936d@AB|?lQu_n;TX>#P0O4m*_iW`9-~f8#m37Udywap3iYl`C)FJfA zo4Vx;`zvV>AB}``8H?g)NWTfNXfZG_TbE~vq_Z#^B<)vn}wkQao zXl7d1C)cA)T@*mA8O_rpZVVtMaIo?2!8%CK<@9Aq0(~c5HQgvn*SzhY5L#N_K)#URm1)Fnf*HnMwnW5&2C=lvdCz-46>23y=dDi?{I=Xif zp{<;wvZSM9yp#A*@x+#TRK>J56^Ollbnw8rR*)iz6~@<9%I6>mHqxWeOtnr09KNg5 ztZ^~*cMrJ_nMR$144whY|MC+<*F zG60qP3BxGk72V$(|7@9)J^RW%&MpVLzuqW-FC!srSJ*@L?6c}OpN?s53*bLo07agd z{8IL(^(#omNl~zX_lcb^eDJ``UfvV0NzCZX7a?_q9usqDXTRs&tZv-+!6_sP)Le2H zK<;<(d4kuhYIOzoI9)Y-GrxPeB)fJLsAqlvafj z64Llcpyp?$qvY&3yn);>7L|04NR$LrR47OJbY9DC6)eMqB0m}v1@#m%?EFj%Ek(l zORC`619G`)(oiD_2?aRus46kPAoTnaKHk#3m{ynARN>&QFrSVdgVo7yKy zczRLrBbO%8T~Z=V4zohRKQwePZr!f=+y23!6r{np95@bFI2&Mn$NxJ!(y)VPHst_! zg^w9Nv0&!g(;6j@3y^JS5=$|NKprnQZ1RUp$0B7ckEt;Q8X=enqx&r#=UWGjx-k1 z$L2qjtA|yUjr*KK@s;LE`pR(4<<`;(6W$49xq#$nU>w9QCwm47LWh&vqW^~LukWF_ z!1T8l^0mzA&^AgPh2cFvmRlcvl@)C~l_F%(p3;HR5+pZEjk;PByIos|9E+OOi(T-8|0IdNcXhMEF{l)~u@F%NR(P)e6R$M{7s@9wzV^3^CHYsznfYQ{8 za1%EAUFQ$@aR*5$6;$z}#oDn{q zNBXED4bn2aozZh7b#mUMQ0j(!9mxy&iSGX$ZNA!fijOUAez@5h{*#IJDQB2#JU9x? z3j;0~Ur0!&L`%8EV(#s{KTGLmEFh-A0bkBiP=1qEL@jy;=vd(&gC~}d7pG>)d`a5c zCe-2@1v!|XV>bYstGXgm2|2I(vzvksMzZhtmCJcPw-zVeUCtVUh1sU6<#ILx>Bpc< z#GWYc{C}glv3MmwSPCp`J1*ZqCGbdl-5NFtKz~GxF^-CsC zt*RXOOd6!Q-UORFHLd#KHx54iBdhjR*$pJ8jZblJHXqJs?0i!SWSi!SD$5Hc*m)sB zM~BBP%0dX%FidV_G+nfex(CL@jg_1V<8brXQ6eU@##)DlKo_zLR#wOMu0|CQ#xo80 zndxFQ@j5kEebLV};YgeO14E`l$=KrpsoprMk414&* zS0#_I%|F7&H}?~I%*g^n3(&HGPV8J<+Qqu#kX}g< zjY8l?lEqBK>=!LGwsDijY$&T1??&f*9xb@N9d5yusIQSbIwFXgwzr;91yhE{zJWCJLdoPAVX#(u1sm$4ST=9|yN)-uSm^tXWX#04RN9WWCrFzc z=$|n_`gWAlQ;0CU=;G_}7nn!|tij9QciOQHxv+)Tw)sRgaO-{<<7^`X`10GtI79Wq zt)#o#*nZUlHl)c_ybk_f`Ul6|lU?_E*O%DY;Q_bqF9k2RU8|1+`X665SHp_Ry=`3> ztEi0O05Rcc&Uw5PDi(0x2R81oL~oD(x}>H!QivZYaJif4e&G%PIE@UEkl(yJ??K-H zuo+Pgdak>7i*gLT@?XA!K%OAtF8=Sp_`1Fl841^tZ-^-<9?cv~kI?Ktv0lDP1v z+EzdikCQsOU=STCC7-5_{TMz0f&I5|iIK}H7mv(aQP?PN zE-8xR0ZBCt^H<;MsQD2A5`Si|&+~XkCY^3d!Z!Bt#syPi+jEwAyJ|X)QDBnlcTiO0 zmKEb&L#E^VRUfzNh5N^vuJ7PlNC(h!w%z_=&x-=aNFnDp^K~e~z7PECK=?UR2Xs@C zS~gv@6~!NMiSEAFKDp6xcGgIv`d(M{yx3d-g#v&(XR(L>v+#aW_#0mhRe=@f~M%K^82-D zjH;_i=)h)|55B(}tw=`2;B#TexJOT-pC3g{;MW+dicH-YQC!r#X4}TlBA?Mi<5to# zZiN5D#{#cm_}JMgSKjgCT>}A6mr;cv_*f-EMzqe^&K}i;BYaWU$q_+?GfEZ-qJtA|=XQY~&3W$K!~c zPwe<=H{7Y`P%4PKNmt2vX5$-65F6}SjG43v=uwuX$tGj9wY7)g0^Zy-FE{+q>RI#> zqJz0Q8an)-7b?^9%4f=OnQ9!946t+>_=m+HLq6T;v`$BZB4sbTqV@A4OQ>`{&t0 zttjcs$HeRWXUEfno~Io?QKdoDZH8_DVE!!#_w4iSJP%?A@Gok|bLQs}cIN^F*S{K-`8eDyZQT2=)nRF z=fTF;4@C{4&KY_K{oqQOq|WS}tLWCVL`s^yPYmyOZ|Z7O^@%ob>ae$bQ^J`t`$q8Q z0jcBH?Sl7OyBH7DAl1|ukL~Qonc0(6xhhlK2I4@_bEAC@9lluQSZi8X2;ll~5JQ?* z7BD2Nqgngo;;%|9%~keiSQk!y`DrHfkHX0*0O8rrUT{eDhiFf$Z!&N=L)u_!W8Q=?2Ky#%+>!YlxdD467@ zxzegfLC1a#tb@hCBr?>4kO-I#LH*$y`#1hWXm2uEK75#EfTa}4XScZqnMmknB4&}% zZxq_sq5mXU2$m@Saz6ZTXba3K{{Nn&f|;@ZyJHjo@c-pTn6&-R8wV{Vm+g5EiDwYB z*g`e$bib%*>%<)#9cJ_lo4mJmn@k1Ea3D3w$`?^!BW^Npxx<^52YHs=(Gz3hcrGd2e4*&D5t&t#0ymf{R~^?XPdH;U zA1)fSblOjaGi&Tvfu@TqCxdqE;#PSL_Wwjy&ULOn*oCdfa<<8FFthd_>Yl1I`$C|G z;(hO$F*CZZS1L$$vPrRyxQUGHxw=+{-&J#n7NS3v|Lp;h=#Mv-AYl#?JT5L;YpI<1tk8`Tbfb z4pd(r`o+1^|BS7;R|59^_55-@F4`J@F?unP#rFxKj$C}ty}M-7ZIPS8!>y9&M3qn0 z57#k&j;o?r&09GBc0I}{%m8|cG}Wn=Gd!l-h7urvGXMLqcIxfc(=3;nRol zhjFTr3n^d#(@->4t#(^LMWF(-`>ZqSR)k! zGPauZYr(;{wy9Y2q4162jR$D69hs`>!SPKBopoIdRD+SZ@?IsXtR!8GH9#Q0y9)aZ z+tYFkGcwxO`yND)LZ!19tGu7HX1Xm;bgVr;v_19IHq||-$jrWiic1*k&vgs63GF)E zBba80!McotHlE#_&Nkq$_m;aT`*K0bE+x!Fp$(_DXiwq_5~ltwZ=UM&0xbLd_N-*( zOUWu*A64RBo$5x3f!R{TPTJd4n9{_%Lr~DfUHq>&BwuV8O@=R@ciV+;I!o>Mf~l|C zLblK=nmU&za^jm?>9(gEWVResUjcqjf!dq?$OXZQmIPzuC&O_zG7nayK0%SucWH;! zofbii+eh^`Dqd&YX+3rg?I3{~X+0t4?di$MV%rLXO+^UV(yQWURj{z}OmcihK7uR( z0OIB06X@Vg<9Nm0<(ypRCHAf;fWh(Pm5GP!$2=OkD$ z6%50`p59*yo@-y&$KEWXI8 z%5(a0uK6ZI)3m0--mk4YVElFT;3P47UHucwa9rcdeeim5x!H={Bv06{fy7T-slA)c z#L!TW_c%b}?KDAT8qbOLCCsK|NGOe)dGhavZ}1nSQMpBe#vJ?5;9moh$mSPnb(>42 zeX(TMlrBzGVh9L54HZFhNQ4VBc^`rWYZ|Ab4;@dA^;yYsTAHTsE~8!O1VC5WW?i{T zRX&nUttI%44ZqhvmBVAFgH`RHRmS(4+iGZMW!VV*nO(Q=agdUJ`GXgC%jPjRP#TITu?sZ0(ihwBWR{h8S}nZf<(;RJ%Ex zs>*8qDQ{06_M;=-J79npp?s;FJ&9#D+N$J)B;&!S$+ZSH+tnvsw!Xc-daGCA+&a>> z>|{2WlB%4CA0@X9mE-1lD_*}6hM*PmTWlalm7#oNU+h#hFj}#~%i6eZ?2=J81>U@QNI_F%OC!gm9-NBc;Sc;N4}bAw;%c6efnE3oO5$XaOH3dqT*J*n47t; z?kSf%i6-KY07yUIP$G}wiJyv=%ywwKNb3)arXm7eQO9)fmST5i;U9tbolqg-3H%7Us&% z4itcxWKJ8FmxyBtN~sGkE;@Tj$KvKtK{~4uM%}EU&egDr2m$06L_OI19qJWO=)tD` zJBO9^f}JEbYiBx(q>u${%)h_1h#<1)>)Q*z`5aznK3{s0>Z4C2K(W+4Ekryvd+_Dv*jkKE1P5 zKGiq4;1cE4h7_~7;l&g=Iw8Y%RK%yhd}wKz1^`G!y5P<;&IybOzxWxBLsQOSi3ep$ zySx+r!m}J&erTX_=;k$2W67qql4Q#(gkRG31GF6;T1Wz)^9xzDT5A;nfM(ySJcX0h z?E{jiVfu;RzqQUCOm5^wo^YbCydB(g+93kIK~B&FTX2@?f}8;tfHUdE(q>+j~+ zv~}KwLddH)m#t&X*O=%!ZJ(~JsHfqy+eFW!hkK4)y@U*5y8z(a&+D))d^5}l%6qzI zJKH+aZE=BX>VkRHGCTm^`wl1A!kEW9W#uWNX<4Rhj+ zXnDm}2H~)MrG8fAIR1?HC56JvQz-95Of5ukGOqFV{>|zzlHcxS;o{2fl8W&cf@=56 z>xF2pAIm2cFJ$lP=bcwfO7lnU|;pSKtZ5WHk#0vtJmIXdbMJ6QM0^bBmzQ?l#&pWNlC#3Le3 zZILY5Vi(u>wfP}qx{ggeJZX_0L_9HVWQ|EnoAs%&GHWvKN@a^KEpA?8b~EH0#rmD4 zv)a`pNn}?Oz6A%BRarZK;PesJvID+brcfRp!FQf7Z~VzQBO4xn*@cZbppBJZaoK^= z?_j!fF^0wX>>v%-f92(U~0X`A=0hYU5JfFQW@%wqlYzxNhG%L7NvwNFw^$ooSRlPkikC21IFDe=%m5;J4 z92~h|OFKPQ7kFZwJfvV7`)OlxGUn#irY!^IQr$sC?s~#f;XKsHX>ELf6n`37lA9jM+_j^whf{ zLIjxBFY2>PuilHP3>PYWrH#a`oHeC~gXp{=rUyE>$A6u%FY3vXn}O`zLSg!p-! z3jMTbOWs%Ef5!xndmq4`;?z37=q%cvg7H!ba(>xZ{hg^2a2%t@Paum=z&PS>X5f(0 zpV%LZ`W?MMCU)#F%NHqM4k=O^?^{V|zyeeMQss2HEgu6IyGi^f`oPKo1EMzuLAu9S1)wRzP2XOpE|A;v?Ss;>~0a z)pucnSt8H+;8_Q7_gB03IK<^iKUR#x$2Hr05XM?V1#1n=U4?x_aAI6OyWe9;GhAN3 z*Z`7%<3krs621^dhRqDErk8vqKnf4XtH5Wu{k*JZUv6`U3DTHJ6^W$XOKbt;9m>5! z*=D!#ErBi|B}TtbM>Ug~;JKAU(W}|C`DK|eETx!{DH)cG%zYY+{`vJnqwJ1A!UFo#&jMx=5k8`90{61!JIjc6~-UkG8)Zg1b z4!A!(q@)N0GO~>VMhQP#zml*n;TiF`?WiO4}CLzXHGTR(SK=pT#PA2sB-ziRQ|Dzu zc?}QJ(t`X>Gy|mrclLI$g(q>SS0Tzrc}tl`a7u7H3(z!=9exYkyX+x!=o;L1^WX8; z`gUc1fXKkTsEZntn2oO9Vbf~i3$BTm+0j8zUu%zWGITLiB}Aj>7YSY6QI@9(b{#sK(L2~6B3VmgDMDbcxTvB+kJg($Z%V5n$4tFk9&QZH` z3<`I4B>{vUJ)xJUt}sXou694_fmwmUEm5QTM}#(yJ1tql(xDhGCb^3K_wuFT%5o}9 z8H6We0J{#vs;K)XBsFVyVdxJh6B{*oVTmYV*Xh$(eHf{Ohmc0Tygu`*K6OCGS9 zz!v_5;__osi>F?J!}K(Mg(FQ1UPYfYxBg@lx1O113qc~rm!f%V^6OKwtRVShL|O5j zoykjfygUh5ya>HW_Jg>_^?`PXV39#V_k1X^ulZ^+D}iVRZYolGZ7?fy3Zs@rL7}yL zedoe_hI4BgdEY{<1@X>3<>qGsLw51YmP1+W7@~{P<7%beieu@_sFH99TUE5bsIAEr z)D7pZRzZ(78^<@INa1dGo*0N^gW z*&BGK@Z~n<)a3j1*;{H5bskQMzA~-bx1}M{sHRtV@&rm{0xtZEB#bH5MX6Yd4Jrzn)!&V zdz^U#CJutknP09|I9N3UnpO~bh`<3OAII(rK@Xsp1RfDnPDd{+f#b;^MZYX8`8V%E z2WF(tYNW3|r*fBWSqRzFX=#Vu9sQ`ud7rca@HKFO@10aogdu3yNOMktbkm zDsAI(O2%OrPma|+63wY|pEyTpBIfIYQ&`a}wB;9@&ojq!6rQJCY+CUl(YzWmGqZY8w>x_e=jbl2O}XMda#j6;wz|qJ1@xX=Qw1w` zp~Vj9WEv(WMYm;Xh<7sku|*co7>oKEed=Q+jiYtNMM;rt)Uxsf1myuV9;UCM!Jc0| zXAe@i(uh*lkf!hjLvE}Kw$+yGnp&pse_dUYz+6LEqYBiKdd;Rw(FN_)auncA zV;G*}bX=9Iqv`OIMag0jk&R!(cpQ1LTUH)}>`K?8MRSa`sR`u_${y-@en5$udT_4bS~~#3;J*cDQc8$gz;}odOGAy$y9lbd zH+@n1nD@%HabCrh&2c)k=TuFDIga7xyM4Tis5*7%+U)^wJn77u|L2Nj_HfDWsSN|Y z@~&RjBPPtIqHvDw<${|pJ#{CHsCyro1x2j7$-6ZtM_cgo)$kzLk=z6CJE_++h|xz) zt*QrwD#i@&p(Glfit+Q}4SF|+eWr{;)>79|Cl4a``>zF;6yCF%?%J4^hkot_17B!) z#A^8(SYx;ay1CVjaJS+y4?E4ABwneYWt`7gMat$(1ZW)xH?q`Cl0k4_%41j}iji~E ze&5W#$C;d}!7X#Xd`a15D=Yd;WuQ424>!81diq8Zp#sj#FmlnJLG3IKp5t>u8Onna zXh0B`J9T|tgaWN27cT8*nr%R2I5o`BcKMK-2dAYQsd-jtt&QtS>x=Tp^xK8s((vLn z#V9IU>~fd=irjD?Vk_)#AgxTj?(fKD2bH}*waA%6za~Ow4;wh>Y-FsOtf_uOOKC}g zh9UzM1~e5qUfwJUcz}u~@1^wp506t%`T1pntys6P^|Z&N%&hk{-cVi)Z+iV&kis~S ztts98)DN+Il8HG{OPGL&;`H2^XHpSy$b;W6Kwno54KUr9fp5c@H`~>_aI3zi zwWiztUZkdZZ_)EpL?QTaZnGA*ScBT@5q^2UIjN8^D1$|KWqWa04H4U3w=3vR@PGoa zeoucOjcfn5W7ex+aYiCIV(RJl?h4~C1Hy;9fnMMrohO@aFSF6(7k2Z4x? zUcOfI;nh7om0o6N;u(&*Yr?^$K!FKNddA>At&)7U&g?hWFx}KzZDOf_3xx$KK?kM+ zS*#=R`}>Ei5%JtMjGf!OAlvL3ibTbaArTg>x57EIGy8FZeAXXrc7+B(wf#ubD#vTz zLWQT=fhfJLMae5{UaWAW3pT!S?Ou-iNor%R8McQPM_0<;BmgV^K($kErJ$>gfsu-@ zILgr#c$+h5KoGJdF5Q^dRrk@6w+0$U_>&%djpf_-J~3qlHy$n1h}a%o(>?LCwF(-Z zlEb*AvoQ=jvCu*&DVwBuMSVzI9F?&E_++BzUJ~YjFdfg%c9$|;1Vzbss6$wG2k{4h zyw~%aH|8cY1GP{0u*9=Q->H%cTh0yeBSL^@(?TGU=dVZ|9F}4V?lfu zZ-`l*-Z=ah$)r=m{z{@oU0|3(|Hl=;gjdj?(hhw<&_9^GYjz=yoz+&~xe?W(0gc9RZYe$zc`BhEGlm*c9w#KGG zN!es*pROZe6Oo$qb!GlZ05v5_jQ6|uxKYvD4@U9)7d<)NCN12b_HJ7C zsf9)stAU8#edKoKZwbrA@W9w8V6Q|`S_i@Sb4 zo3*<3lOHB!RQD8Rmpcz{ZiF4u?&1d_b-tf`CCZvn;Tvpip!QfuddWzZi_KB1c=%7_ zZwH5k9ZR{Vbb%7CFEWaTdMi8e-f|t-6oNXN!5Dhcnfq$uv|7h}`jfDOqP4vyb)Xo2)k=Or2 rpZ{nC7Nz-5rSsqSImj3Mf`vGr^V?>+8kXD#D^Dq<^r2S5B=kQ3av|0C literal 0 HcmV?d00001 diff --git a/notes/memoir-sections.md b/notes/memoir-sections.md index 755ee9b..666a9dd 100644 --- a/notes/memoir-sections.md +++ b/notes/memoir-sections.md @@ -17,16 +17,15 @@ _ note the "larger than protons" concession _ look for a place to link http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/discursive-warfare-and-faction-formation/ _ the mailing list post noted it as a "common sexual fantasy" _ cite more sneers; use a footnote to pack in as many as possible -_ add headers to pt. 2 and link back? time-sensitive globals TODOs— ✓ consult Said ✓ patriate-links script TODOs +✓ draft #drama strategy opening remarks +✓ #drama strategy session +✓ consult Anna +✓ draft Twitter thread - remaining pt. 4 edit tier -- draft #drama strategy opening remarks -- consult Anna -_ #drama strategy session -_ draft Twitter thread _ consult lc? _ bully Jeff Ladish _ PUBLISH pt. 4!! diff --git a/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv b/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv index 04428e7..f37965b 100644 --- a/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv +++ b/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv @@ -680,4 +680,6 @@ 02/25/2024,118965,0 02/26/2024,118965,0 02/27/2024,118989,14 -02/28/2024,, \ No newline at end of file +02/28/2024,119389,450 +02/29/2024,119280,-109 +03/01/2024,, diff --git a/notes/tweet_pad.txt b/notes/tweet_pad.txt index de1d024..dc2befa 100644 --- a/notes/tweet_pad.txt +++ b/notes/tweet_pad.txt @@ -1,52 +1,7 @@ -### Option A (just a link, with just the meme denunciation) - 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] -### Option B (thread with more explicit denunciation) - -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] 1/7 - -The Whole Dumb Story is 87K words so far, which few will read, so in this thread I'll briefly summarize why I think @ESYudkowsky has relinquished his Art and lost his powers (with the disclaimer that this is only a summary & the full Story covers nuances that don't fit here). 2/7 - -Since 2016, I've been frustrated that Society has apparently decided that men can be women by means of saying so. There's a lot of nuance that I've covered elsewhere, but briefly, in less than 280 characters, my objection is that this just isn't true. 3/7 - -I know that Yudkowsky knows that it isn't true, because I learned it from him in 2008. But as I document in the post, since 2016, he's repeatedly made public statements that obfuscate and prevaricate on this point, switching to new arguments after I've critiqued the old ones. 4/7 - -Coming from any other public intellectual, this might not be a big deal. But Yudkowsky makes a lot of grandiose claims to authority, that he's an "epistemic hero", that "too many people think it's unvirtuous to shut up and listen to [him]", &c. https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1509944888376188929 5/7 - -I consider these authority claims to be morally fraudulent. Someone who behaves the way @ESYudkowsky has (as I describe thoroughly in the post) is not an epistemic hero, and I think he knows that. 6/7 - -If the world is ending either way, I prefer to die with my committment to public reason intact. It's been heartbreaking coming to terms with the realization that the person who wrote the Sequences apparently doesn't feel the same way. I thought you deserved to know. 7/7 - ----------- - -So, I'm almost ready to publish pt. 4 of my memoir sequence, which features a loud public denunciation of Yudkowsky for intellectual dishonesty. Is anyone interested in offering advice or "hostile advice" (trying to talk me out of something you see as destructive, _e.g._ kicking up intra-cult infighting while the world is about to end)? - -(This is unpleasant, but at this point, it's my only other option besides laying down and dying. I tried making object-level arguments _first_, for years, and he made it very, very, clear that he doesn't see any problem with marketing himself as an epistemic hero while reserving the right to ignore counterarguments on political grounds. What is there left for me to do but cry "Fraud!" at the top of my lungs? Does anyone want to make a case that I _should_ lay down and die, for some reason?) - -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 justified reputational damage. - -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 in a potential reply, because it would look very bad for him if he tries the kind of high-verbal-IQ ass-covering I've seen from him in the past 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 I think 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_. - -As for my Twitter marketing strategy, I tried drafting a seven-Tweet thread summary of the reputational attack (because no one is going to read a 16K word post), but I'm unhappy with how it came out and am leaning towards just doing a two Tweets (option C: ) rather than trying to summarize in a thead. That's possibly cowardly (pulling my punches because I'm scared), but I think it's classy (because it's better to not try to do complicated things on Twitter; the intellectual and literary qualities that make my punches _hit hard_ to people who have read the Sequences don't easily compress to the 280-character format) - -[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_ (not sure about this channel particularly); 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. - ------ -My guess is that that's what the mutual best response looks like: I deal reputational damage to him in the minds of people who care about the intellectual standards I'm appealing to, and he ignores it, because the people who care about the standards I'm appealing to aren't a sufficiently valuable political resource to him. If there's a Pareto improvement over that, I'm not seeing it? - -[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] - -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! () Vaniver gets it! () 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 - ----------------- - Post later (can't afford to spend more Twitter time now)— https://twitter.com/zackmdavis/status/1436039564032823313 -- 2.17.1 From 73202a9f6f695b3653af4dc648e32481d98cdf4b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Zack M. Davis" Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 21:01:55 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 11/16] memoir: pt. 4 final read-through --- ...xhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md | 84 +++++++++---------- notes/memoir-sections.md | 14 ++-- notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv | 3 +- notes/tweet_pad.txt | 2 + 4 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md index 4897be9..edcf181 100644 --- a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md +++ b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ That wasn't the end of the story, which does not have such a relatively happy en [TOC] -### The _New York Times_'s Other Shoe Drops (February 2021) +### _The New York Times_'s Other Shoe Drops (February 2021) On 13 February 2021, ["Silicon Valley's Safe Space"](https://archive.ph/zW6oX), the [anticipated](/2023/Dec/if-clarity-seems-like-death-to-them/#the-new-york-times-pounces-june-2020) _New York Times_ piece on _Slate Star Codex_, came out. It was ... pretty lame? (_Just_ lame, not a masterfully vicious hit piece.) Cade Metz did a mediocre job of explaining what our robot cult is about, while [pushing hard on the subtext](https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=5310) to make us look racist and sexist, occasionally resorting to odd constructions that were surprising to read from someone who had been a professional writer for decades. ("It was nominally a blog", Metz wrote of _Slate Star Codex_. ["Nominally"](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nominally)?) The article's claim that Alexander "wrote in a wordy, often roundabout way that left many wondering what he really believed" seemed more like a critique of the many's reading comprehension than of Alexander's writing. @@ -49,9 +49,9 @@ But anyone who's read _and understood_ Charles Murray's work, knows that [Murray ### The Politics of the Apolitical -Why do I [keep](/2023/Nov/if-clarity-seems-like-death-to-them/#tragedy-of-recursive-silencing) [bringing](/2023/Nov/if-clarity-seems-like-death-to-them/#literally-a-white-supremacist) up the claim that "rationalist" leaders almost certainly believe in cognitive race differences (even if it's hard to get them to publicly admit it in a form that's easy to selectively quote in front of _New York Times_ readers)? +Why do I [keep](/2023/Dec/if-clarity-seems-like-death-to-them/#tragedy-of-recursive-silencing) [bringing](/2023/Dec/if-clarity-seems-like-death-to-them/#literally-a-white-supremacist) up the claim that "rationalist" leaders almost certainly believe in cognitive race differences (even if it's hard to get them to publicly admit it in a form that's easy to selectively quote in front of _New York Times_ readers)? -It's because one of the things I noticed while trying to make sense of why my entire social circle suddenly decided in 2016 that guys like me could become women by saying so, is that in the conflict between the "rationalists" and mainstream progressives, the defensive strategy of the "rationalists" is one of deception. +It's because one of the things I noticed while trying to make sense of why my entire social circle suddenly decided in 2016 that guys like me could become women by means of saying so, is that in the conflict between the "rationalists" and mainstream progressives, the defensive strategy of the "rationalists" is one of deception. In this particular historical moment, we end up facing pressure from progressives, because—whatever our object-level beliefs about (say) [sex, race, and class differences](/2020/Apr/book-review-human-diversity/), and however much most of us would prefer not to talk about them—on the _meta_ level, our creed requires us to admit it's an empirical question, not a moral one—and that [empirical questions have no privileged reason to admit convenient answers](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sYgv4eYH82JEsTD34/beyond-the-reach-of-god). @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ I view this conflict as entirely incidental, something that [would happen in som Incidental or not, the conflict is real, and everyone smart knows it—even if it's not easy to _prove_ that everyone smart knows it, because everyone smart is very careful about what they say in public. (I am not smart.) -So the _New York Times_ implicitly accuses us of being racists, like Charles Murray, and instead of pointing out that being a racist _like Charles Murray_ is the obviously correct position that sensible people will tend to reach in the course of being sensible, we disingenuously deny everything.[^deny-everything] +So _The New York Times_ implicitly accuses us of being racists, like Charles Murray, and instead of pointing out that being a racist _like Charles Murray_ is the obviously correct position that sensible people will tend to reach in the course of being sensible, we disingenuously deny everything.[^deny-everything] [^deny-everything]: In January 2023, when Nick Bostrom [preemptively apologized for a 26-year-old email to the Extropians mailing list](https://nickbostrom.com/oldemail.pdf) that referenced the IQ gap and mentioned a slur, he had [some](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Riqg9zDhnsxnFrdXH/nick-bostrom-should-step-down-as-director-of-fhi) [detractors](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/8zLwD862MRGZTzs8k/a-personal-response-to-nick-bostrom-s-apology-for-an-old) and a [few](https://ea.greaterwrong.com/posts/Riqg9zDhnsxnFrdXH/nick-bostrom-should-step-down-as-director-of-fhi/comment/h9gdA4snagQf7bPDv) [defenders](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/NniTsDNQQo58hnxkr/my-thoughts-on-bostrom-s-apology-for-an-old-email), but I don't recall seeing much defense of the 1996 email itself. @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ But this being the case, _I have no reason to participate in the cover-up_. What ### A Leaked Email Non-Scandal (February 2021) -On 17 February 2021, Topher Brennan, disapproving of the community's defense against the _Times_, [claimed that](https://web.archive.org/web/20210217195335/https://twitter.com/tophertbrennan/status/1362108632070905857) Scott Alexander "isn't being honest about his history with the far-right", and published [an email he had received from Scott in February 2014](https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2021/02/backstabber-brennan-knifes-scott-alexander-with-2014-email/) on what Scott thought some neoreactionaries were getting importantly right. +On 17 February 2021, Topher Brennan, disapproving of Scott and the community's defense against the _Times_, [claimed that](https://web.archive.org/web/20210217195335/https://twitter.com/tophertbrennan/status/1362108632070905857) Scott Alexander "isn't being honest about his history with the far-right", and published [an email he had received from Scott in February 2014](https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2021/02/backstabber-brennan-knifes-scott-alexander-with-2014-email/) on what Scott thought some neoreactionaries were getting importantly right. I think that to people who have read _and understood_ Alexander's work, there is nothing surprising or scandalous about the contents of the email. He said that biologically mediated group differences are probably real and that neoreactionaries were the only people discussing the object-level hypotheses or the meta-level question of why our Society's intelligentsia is obfuscating the matter. He said that reactionaries as a whole generate a lot of garbage but that he trusted himself to sift through the noise and extract the novel insights. The email contains some details that Alexander hadn't blogged about—most notably the section headed "My behavior is the most appropriate response to these facts", explaining his social strategizing _vis á vis_ the neoreactionaries and his own popularity. But again, none of it is surprising if you know Scott from his writing. @@ -101,11 +101,11 @@ The same day, Yudkowsky published [a Facebook post](https://www.facebook.com/yud I was annoyed at how the discussion seemed to be ignoring the obvious political angle, and the next day, 18 February 2021, I wrote [a widely Liked comment](/images/davis-why_they_say_they_hate_us.png): I agreed that there was a grain of truth to the claim that our detractors hate us because they're evil bullies, but stopping the analysis there seemed incredibly shallow and transparently self-serving. -If you listened to why _they_ said they hated us, it was because we were racist, sexist, transphobic fascists. The party-line response seemed to be trending toward, "That's obviously false—Scott voted for Elizabeth Warren, look at all the social democrats on the _Less Wrong_/_Slate Star Codex_ surveys, _&c._ They're just using that as a convenient smear because they like bullying nerds." +If you listened to why _they_ said they hated us, it was because we were racist, sexist, transphobic fascists. The party-line response seemed to be trending toward, "That's obviously false: Scott voted for Elizabeth Warren, look at all the social democrats on the _Less Wrong_/_Slate Star Codex_ surveys, _&c._ They're just using that as a convenient smear because they like bullying nerds." But if "sexism" included "It's an empirical question whether innate statistical psychological sex differences of some magnitude exist, it empirically looks like they do, and this has implications about our social world" (as articulated in, for example, Alexander's ["Contra Grant on Exaggerated Differences"](https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/)), then the "_Slate Star Codex_ _et al._ are crypto-sexists" charge was absolutely correct. (Crypto-racist, crypto-fascist, _&c._ left as an exercise for the reader.) -You could plead, "That's a bad definition of sexism," but that's only convincing if you've been trained in using empiricism and open discussion to discover policies with utilitarian-desirable outcomes. People whose education came from California public schools plus Tumblr didn't already know that. ([I didn't know that](/2021/May/sexual-dimorphism-in-the-sequences-in-relation-to-my-gender-problems/#antisexism) at age 18 back in 'aught-six, and we didn't even have Tumblr then.) In that light, you could see why someone who was more preoccupied by the wrong of bigotry than the right to privacy might find "blow the whistle on people who are claiming to be innocent but are actually guilty (of thinking bad thoughts)" to be a more compelling consideration than "respect confidentiality requests".[^no-promises] +You could plead, "That's a bad definition of sexism," but that's only convincing if you've been trained in using empiricism and open discussion to discover policies with utilitarian-desirable outcomes. People whose education came from California public schools plus Tumblr didn't already know that. ([I didn't know that](/2021/May/sexual-dimorphism-in-the-sequences-in-relation-to-my-gender-problems/#antisexism) at age 18 back in 'aught-six, and we didn't even have Tumblr then.) In that light, you could see why someone who was more preöccupied with eradicating bigotry than protecting the right to privacy might find "blow the whistle on people who are claiming to be innocent but are actually guilty (of thinking bad thoughts)" to be a more compelling consideration than "respect confidentiality requests".[^no-promises] [^no-promises]: It seems notable (though I didn't note it at the time of my comment) that Brennan didn't break any promises. In [Brennan's account](https://web.archive.org/web/20210217195335/https://twitter.com/tophertbrennan/status/1362108632070905857), Alexander "did not first say 'can I tell you something in confidence?' or anything like that." Scott unilaterally said in the email, "I will appreciate if you NEVER TELL ANYONE I SAID THIS, not even in confidence. And by 'appreciate', I mean that if you ever do, I'll probably either leave the Internet forever or seek some sort of horrible revenge", but we have no evidence that Topher agreed. @@ -117,9 +117,7 @@ Yudkowsky [replied that](/images/yudkowsky-we_need_to_exclude_evil_bullies.png) I'll agree that the problems shouldn't be confused. I can easily believe that Brennan was largely driven by bully-like motives even if he told himself a story about being a valiant whistleblower defending Cade Metz's honor against Scott's deception. -But I think it's important to notice both problems, instead of pretending that the only problem was Brennan's disregard for Alexander's privacy. It's one thing to believe that people should keep promises that they, themselves, explicitly made. But instructing commenters not to link to the email seems to suggest not just that Brennan should keep _his_ promises, but that everyone else should participate in a conspiracy to conceal information that Alexander would prefer concealed. I can see an ethical case for it, analogous to returning stolen property after it's already been sold and expecting buyers not to buy items that they know have been stolen. (If Brennan had obeyed Alexander's confidentiality demand, we wouldn't have an email to link to, so if we wish Brennan had obeyed, we can just act as if we don't have an email to link to.) - -But there's also a non-evil-bully case for wanting to reveal information, rather than participate in a cover-up to protect the image of the "rationalists" as non-threatening to the progressive egregore. If the orchestrators of the cover-up can't even acknowledge to themselves that they're orchestrating a cover-up, they're liable to be confusing themselves about other things, too. +But I think it's important to notice both problems, instead of pretending that the only problem was Brennan's disregard for Alexander's privacy. Without defending Brennan's actions, there's a non-evil-bully case for wanting to reveal information, rather than participate in a cover-up to protect the image of the "rationalists" as non-threatening to the progressive egregore. If the orchestrators of the cover-up can't even acknowledge to themselves that they're orchestrating a cover-up, they're liable to be confusing themselves about other things, too. As it happened, I had another social media interaction with Yudkowsky that same day, 18 February 2021. Concerning the psychology of people who hate on "rationalists" for alleged sins that don't particularly resemble anything we do or believe, [he wrote](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1362514650089156608): @@ -139,7 +137,7 @@ And I think I _would_ have been over it ... ### Yudkowsky Doubles Down (February 2021) -I eventually explained what was wrong with Yudkowsky's new arguments at the length of 12,000 words in March 2022's ["Challenges to Yudkowsky's Pronoun Reform Proposal"](/2022/Mar/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal/),[^challenges-title]. Briefly: given a conflict over pronoun conventions, there's not going to be a "right answer", but we can at least be objective in describing what the conflict is about, and Yudkowsky wasn't doing that. Given that we can't coordinate a switch to universal singular _they_, the pronouns _she_ and _he_ continue to have different meanings in the minds of native English speakers, in the sense that your mind forms different probabilistic expectations of someone taking feminine or masculine pronouns. That's _why_ trans people want to be referred to by the pronoun corresponding to their chosen gender; if there were literally no difference in meaning, there would be no reason to care. Thus, making the distinction on the basis of gender identity rather than sex [has consequences](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/veN86cBhoe7mBxXLk/categorizing-has-consequences); by proclaiming his "simplest and best protocol" without acknowledging the ways in which it's _not_ simple and not _unambiguously_ the best, Yudkowsky was [falsely portraying the policy debate as one-sided](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided). +I eventually explained what was wrong with Yudkowsky's new arguments at the length of 12,000 words in March 2022's ["Challenges to Yudkowsky's Pronoun Reform Proposal"](/2022/Mar/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal/),[^challenges-title]. Briefly: given a conflict over pronoun conventions, there's not going to be a "right answer", but we can at least be objective in describing what the conflict is about, and Yudkowsky wasn't doing that. Given that we can't coordinate a switch to universal singular _they_, the pronouns _she_ and _he_ continue to have different meanings in the minds of native English speakers, in the sense that your mind forms different probabilistic expectations of someone taking feminine or masculine pronouns. That's _why_ trans people want to be referred to by the pronoun corresponding to their chosen gender: if there were literally no difference in meaning, there would be no reason to care. Thus, making the distinction on the basis of gender identity rather than sex [has consequences](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/veN86cBhoe7mBxXLk/categorizing-has-consequences); by proclaiming his "simplest and best protocol" without acknowledging the ways in which it's _not_ simple and not _unambiguously_ the best, Yudkowsky was [falsely portraying the policy debate as one-sided](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided). [^challenges-title]: The title is an allusion to Yudkowsky's ["Challenges to Christiano's Capability Amplification Proposal"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/S7csET9CgBtpi7sCh/challenges-to-christiano-s-capability-amplification-proposal). @@ -147,7 +145,7 @@ I have more to say here (that I decided to cut from "Challenges") about the meta Yudkowsky begins by setting the context of "[h]aving received a bit of private pushback" on his willingness to declare that asking someone to use a different pronoun is not lying. -But the reason he got a bit [("a bit")](/2023/Jul/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning/) of private pushback was because the original "hill of meaning" thread was so blatantly optimized to intimidate and delegitimize people who want to use language to reason about biological sex. The pushback wasn't about using trans people's preferred pronouns (I do that, too), or about not wanting pronouns to imply sex (sounds fine, if we were defining a conlang from scratch); the problem is using an argument that's ostensibly about pronouns to sneak in an implicature (["Who competes in sports segregated around an Aristotelian binary is a policy question [ ] that I personally find very humorous"](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1067490362225156096)) that it's dumb and wrong to want to talk about the sense in which trans women are male and trans men are female, as a fact about reality that continues to be true even if it hurts someone's feelings, and even if policy decisions made on the basis of that fact are not themselves facts (as if anyone had doubted this). +But the reason he got a bit [("a bit")](/2023/Jul/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning/) of private pushback was because the November 2018 Twitter thread in question was so blatantly optimized to intimidate and delegitimize people who want to use language to reason about biological sex. The pushback wasn't about using trans people's preferred pronouns (I do that, too), or about not wanting pronouns to imply sex (sounds fine, if we were defining a conlang from scratch); the problem is using an argument that's ostensibly about pronouns to sneak in an implicature (["Who competes in sports segregated around an Aristotelian binary is a policy question [ ] that I personally find very humorous"](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1067490362225156096)) that it's dumb and wrong to want to talk about the sense in which trans women are male and trans men are female, as a fact about reality that continues to be true even if it hurts someone's feelings, and even if policy decisions made on the basis of that fact are not themselves facts (as if anyone had doubted this). In that context, it's revealing that in this February 2021 post attempting to explain why the November 2018 thread seemed like a reasonable thing to say, Yudkowsky doubles down on going out of his way to avoid acknowledging the reality of biological sex. He learned nothing! We're told that the default pronoun for those who haven't asked goes by "gamete size", on the grounds that it's "logically rude to demand that other people use only your language system and interpretation convention in order to communicate, in advance of them having agreed with you about the clustering thing." @@ -185,7 +183,7 @@ It makes sense to object to the convention forcing a binary choice in the "halfw But "plan to get hair surgery"? "Would get hair surgery if it were safer but for now are afraid to do so"? In what sense do these cases present a challenge to the discrete system and therefore call for complication and nuance? There's nothing ambiguous about these cases: if you haven't, in fact, changed your hair color, then your hair is, in fact, its original color. The decision to get hair surgery does not _propagate backwards in time_. The decision to get hair surgery cannot be _imported from a counterfactual universe in which it is safer_. People who, today, do not have the hair color that they would prefer are, today, going to have to deal with that fact _as a fact_.[^pronoun-roles] -[^pronoun-roles]: If the problem is with the pronoun implying stereotypes and social roles in the language as spoken, such that another pronoun should be considered more correct despite that lack of corresponding hair color, you should be making that case on the empirical merits, not appealing to hypothetical surgeries. +[^pronoun-roles]: If the problem is with the pronoun implying stereotypes and social roles in the language as spoken, such that another pronoun should be considered more correct despite the lack of corresponding hair color, you should be making that case on the empirical merits, not appealing to hypothetical surgeries. Is the idea that we want to use the same pronouns for the same person over time, so that if we know someone is going to get hair surgery—they have an appointment with the hair surgeon at this-and-such date—we can go ahead and switch their pronouns in advance? Okay, I can buy that. @@ -201,11 +199,11 @@ I sometimes describe myself as mildly "gender dysphoric", because our culture do But crucially, my tirades against the Student Bucket described reasons not just that I didn't like it, but that the bucket was wrong on the empirical merits: people can and do learn important things by studying and practicing out of their own curiosity and ambition. The system was in the wrong for assuming that nothing you do matters unless you do it on the command of a designated "teacher" while enrolled in a designated "course". -And because my war footing was founded on the empirical merits, I knew that I had to update to the extent that the empirical merits showed _I_ was in the wrong. In 2010, I took a differential equations class "for fun" at the local community college, expecting to do well and thereby prove that my previous couple years of math self-study had been the equal of any schoolstudent's. +And because my war footing was founded on the empirical merits, I knew that I had to update to the extent that the empirical merits showed that _I_ was in the wrong. In 2010, I took a differential equations class "for fun" at the local community college, expecting to do well and thereby prove that my previous couple years of math self-study had been the equal of any schoolstudent's. In fact, I did very poorly and scraped by with a _C_. (Subjectively, I felt like I "understood the concepts" and kept getting surprised when that understanding somehow didn't convert into passing quiz scores.) That hurt. That hurt a lot. -_It was supposed to hurt_. One could imagine a less reflective person doubling down on his antagonism to everything school-related in order to protect himself from being hurt—to protest that the teacher hated him, that the quizzes were unfair, that the answer key must have had a printing error—in short, that he had been right in every detail all along, and any suggestion otherwise was credentialist propaganda. +_It was supposed to hurt_. One could imagine a less reflective person doubling down on his antagonism to everything school-related in order to protect himself from being hurt—to protest that the teacher hated him, that the quizzes were unfair, that the answer key must have had a printing error—in short, that he had been right in every detail all along and that any suggestion otherwise was credentialist propaganda. I knew better than to behave like that. My failure didn't mean I had been wrong about everything, that I should humbly resign myself to the Student Bucket forever and never dare to question it again—but it did mean that I must have been wrong about _something_. I could [update myself incrementally](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/627DZcvme7nLDrbZu/update-yourself-incrementally)—but I _did_ need to update. (Probably, that "math" encompasses different subskills, and that my glorious self-study had unevenly trained some skills and not others: there was nothing contradictory or unreal about my [successfully generalizing one of the methods in the differential equations textbook to arbitrary numbers of variables](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/15143/does-the-method-for-solving-exact-des-generalize-like-this) while also [struggling with the class's assigned problem sets](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/7984/automatizing-computational-skills).) @@ -215,7 +213,7 @@ If you can see why uncritically affirming people's current self-image isn't the In an article titled ["Actually, I Was Just Crazy the Whole Time"](https://somenuanceplease.substack.com/p/actually-i-was-just-crazy-the-whole), FtMtF detransitioner Michelle Alleva contrasts her current beliefs with those when she decided to transition. While transitioning, she accounted for many pieces of evidence about herself ("dislikes attention as a female", "obsessive thinking about gender", "doesn't fit in with the girls", _&c_.) in terms of the theory "It's because I'm trans." But now, Alleva writes, she thinks she has a variety of better explanations that, all together, cover the original list: "It's because I'm autistic," "It's because I have unresolved trauma," "It's because women are often treated poorly" ... including "That wasn't entirely true" (!). -This is a rationality skill. Alleva had a theory about herself, which she revised upon further consideration of the evidence. Beliefs about oneself aren't special and can—must—be updated using the _same_ methods that you would use to reason about anything else—[just as a recursively self-improving AI would reason the same about transistors "inside" the AI and transistors in "the environment."](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TynBiYt6zg42StRbb/my-kind-of-reflection)[^the-form-of-the-inference] +This is a rationality skill. Alleva had a theory about herself, which she revised upon further consideration of the evidence. Beliefs about oneself aren't special and can—must—be updated using the _same_ methods that you would use to reason about anything else—[just as a recursively self-improving AI would reason the same about transistors "inside" the AI and transistors "in the environment."](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TynBiYt6zg42StRbb/my-kind-of-reflection)[^the-form-of-the-inference] [^the-form-of-the-inference]: Note, I'm specifically praising the _form_ of the inference, not necessarily the conclusion to detransition. If someone else in different circumstances weighed up the evidence about themself, and concluded that they _are_ trans in some specific objective sense on the empirical merits, that would also be exhibiting the skill. For extremely sex-atypical same-natal-sex-attracted transsexuals, you can at least see why the "born in the wrong body" story makes some sense as a handwavy [first approximation](/2022/Jul/the-two-type-taxonomy-is-a-useful-approximation-for-a-more-detailed-causal-model/). It's just that for males like me, and separately for females like Michelle Alleva, the story doesn't [pay rent](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/a7n8GdKiAZRX86T5A/making-beliefs-pay-rent-in-anticipated-experiences). @@ -235,7 +233,7 @@ It would seem that in the current year, that culture is dead—or if it has any At this point, some readers might protest that I'm being too uncharitable in harping on the "not liking to be tossed into a [...] Bucket" paragraph. The same post also explicitly says that "[i]t's not that no truth-bearing propositions about these issues can possibly exist." I agree that there are some interpretations of "not lik[ing] to be tossed into a Male Bucket or Female Bucket" that make sense, even though biological sex denialism does not make sense. Given that the author is Eliezer Yudkowsky, should I not give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he meant to communicate the reading that does make sense, rather than the reading that doesn't make sense? -I reply: _given that the author is Eliezer Yudkowsky_—no, obviously not. I have been ["trained in a theory of social deception that says that people can arrange reasons, excuses, for anything"](https://www.glowfic.com/replies/1820866#reply-1820866), such that it's informative ["to look at what _ended up_ happening, assume it was the _intended_ result, and ask who benefited."](http://www.hpmor.com/chapter/47) If Yudkowsky just wanted to post about how gendered pronouns are unnecessary and bad as an apolitical matter of language design, he could have written a post just making that narrow point. What ended up happening is that he wrote a post featuring sanctimonious flag-waving about the precious feelings of people "not lik[ing] to be tossed into a Male Bucket or Female Bucket", and concluding with a policy proposal that gives the trans activist coalition everything they want, proclaiming this "the simplest and best protocol" without so much as acknowledging the real arguments on [the other side of the policy debate](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided). I don't think it's crazy for me to assume this was the intended result, and to ask who benefitted. +I reply: _given that the author is Eliezer Yudkowsky_—no, obviously not. I have been ["trained in a theory of social deception that says that people can arrange reasons, excuses, for anything"](https://www.glowfic.com/replies/1820866#reply-1820866), such that it's informative ["to look at what _ended up_ happening, assume it was the _intended_ result, and ask who benefited."](http://www.hpmor.com/chapter/47) If Yudkowsky just wanted to post about how gendered pronouns are unnecessary and bad as an apolitical matter of language design, he could have written a post just making that narrow point. What ended up happening is that he wrote a post featuring sanctimonious flag-waving about the precious feelings of people "not lik[ing] to be tossed into a Male Bucket or Female Bucket", and concluding with a policy proposal that gives the trans activist coalition everything they want, proclaiming this "the simplest and best protocol" without so much as acknowledging the arguments on [the other side of the policy debate](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided). I don't think it's crazy for me to assume this was the intended result, and to ask who benefited. When smart people act dumb, it's often wise to conjecture that their behavior represents [_optimized_ stupidity](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sXHQ9R5tahiaXEZhR/algorithmic-intent-a-hansonian-generalized-anti-zombie)—apparent "stupidity" that achieves a goal through some channel other than their words straightforwardly reflecting reality. Someone who was actually stupid wouldn't be able to generate text so carefully fine-tuned to reach a gender-politically convenient conclusion without explicitly invoking any controversial gender-political reasoning. Where the text is ambiguous about whether biological sex is a real thing that people should be able to talk about, I think the point is to pander to biological sex denialists without technically saying anything unambiguously false that someone could call out as a "lie." @@ -249,7 +247,7 @@ On a close reading of the comment section, we see hints that Yudkowsky does not > > But the existence of a wide social filter like that should be kept in mind; to whatever quantitative extent you don't trust your ability plus my ability to think of valid counterarguments that might exist, as a Bayesian you should proportionally update in the direction of the unknown arguments you speculate might have been filtered out. -The explanation of [the problem of political censorship filtering evidence](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DoPo4PDjgSySquHX8/heads-i-win-tails-never-heard-of-her-or-selective-reporting) here is great, but the part where Yudkowsky claims "confidence in [his] own ability to independently invent everything important that would be on the other side of the filter" is laughable. The point I articulated at length in ["Challenges"](/2022/Mar/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal/)) (that _she_ and _he_ have existing meanings that you can't just ignore, given that the existing meanings are what motivate people to ask for new pronouns in the first place) is obvious. +The explanation of [the problem of political censorship filtering evidence](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DoPo4PDjgSySquHX8/heads-i-win-tails-never-heard-of-her-or-selective-reporting) here is great, but the part where Yudkowsky claims "confidence in [his] own ability to independently invent everything important that would be on the other side of the filter" is laughable. The point I articulated at length in ["Challenges"](/2022/Mar/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal/) (that _she_ and _he_ have existing meanings that you can't just ignore, given that the existing meanings are what motivate people to ask for new pronouns in the first place) is obvious. It would arguably be less embarrassing for Yudkowsky if he were lying about having tried to think of counterarguments. The original post isn't that bad if you assume that Yudkowsky was writing off the cuff, that he just didn't put any effort into thinking about why someone might disagree. I don't have a problem with selective argumentation that's clearly labeled as such: 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 or even-handed; if you want other perspectives, you'll have to read other authors and think it through for yourself." @@ -257,7 +255,7 @@ But if he _did_ put in the effort to aspire to [the virtue of evenness](https:// Furthermore, the claim that only I "would have said anything where you could hear it" is also discrediting of the community. Transitioning or not is a _major life decision_ for many of the people in this community. People in this community _need the goddamned right answers_ to the questions I've been asking in order to make that kind of life decision sanely [(whatever the sane decisions turn out to be)](/2021/Sep/i-dont-do-policy/). If the community is so bad at exploring the space of arguments that I'm the only one who can talk about the obvious decision-relevant considerations that code as "anti-trans" when you project into the one-dimensional subspace corresponding to our Society's usual culture war, why would you pay attention to the community _at all_? Insofar as the community is successfully marketing itself to promising young minds as the uniquely best place in the world for reasoning and sensemaking, then "the community" is _fraudulent_ (misleading people about what it has to offer in a way that's optimized to move resources to itself). It needs to either rebrand—or failing that, disband—or failing that, _be destroyed_. -The "where you could hear it" clause is particularly bizarre—as if Yudkowsky assumes that people in "the community" _don't read widely_. It's gratifying to be acknowledged by my caliph—or it would be, if he were still my caliph—but I don't think the points I've been making, about the relevance of autogynephilia to male-to-female transsexualism, and the reality of biological sex (!), are particularly novel. +The "where you could hear it" clause is particularly bizarre—as if Yudkowsky assumes that people in "the community" _don't read widely_. It's gratifying to be acknowledged by my caliph—or it would be, if he were still my caliph—but I don't think the points I've been making since 2016, about the relevance of autogynephilia to male-to-female transsexualism, and the reality of biological sex (!), are particularly novel. I think I _am_ unusual in the amount of analytical rigor I can bring to bear on these topics. Similar points are often made by authors such as [Kathleen Stock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Stock) or [Corinna Cohn](https://corinnacohn.substack.com/) or [Aaron Terrell](https://aaronterrell.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-my-agp-normalization)—or for that matter [Steve Sailer](https://www.unz.com/isteve/dont-mention-the-autogynephilia/)—but those authors don't have the background to formulate it [in the language of probabilistic graphical models](/2022/Jul/the-two-type-taxonomy-is-a-useful-approximation-for-a-more-detailed-causal-model/) the way I do. _That_ part is a genuine value-add of the "rationalist" memeplex—something I wouldn't have been able to do without [the influence of Yudkowsky's Sequences](/2021/May/sexual-dimorphism-in-the-sequences-in-relation-to-my-gender-problems/), and all the math books I studied afterwards because the vibe of the _Overcoming Bias_ comment section in 2008 made that seem like an important and high-status thing to do. @@ -277,9 +275,9 @@ Instead of (a), consider the claim that (a′) self-reports about gender dysphor And instead of (b), consider the claim that (b′) transitioning is socially rewarded within particular subcultures (although not Society as a whole), such that many of the same people wouldn't think of themselves as trans if they lived in a different subculture. -I claim that (a′) and (b′) are overwhelmingly likely to be true. Can "we" talk about _that_? Are (a′) and (b′) "speakable", or not? We're unlikely to get clarification from Yudkowsky, but based on the Whole Dumb Story [I've](/2023/Jul/blanchards-dangerous-idea-and-the-plight-of-the-lucid-crossdreamer/) [been](/2023/Jul/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning/) [telling](/2023/Nov/if-clarity-seems-like-death-to-them/) you about how I wasted the last seven years of my life on this, I'm going to guess that the answer is broadly No: "we" can't talk about that. (I can say it, and people can debate me in a private Discord server where the general public isn't looking, but it's not something someone of Yudkowsky's stature can afford to acknowledge.) +I claim that (a′) and (b′) are overwhelmingly likely to be true. Can "we" talk about _that_? Are (a′) and (b′) "speakable", or not? We're unlikely to get clarification from Yudkowsky, but based on the Whole Dumb Story [I've](/2023/Jul/blanchards-dangerous-idea-and-the-plight-of-the-lucid-crossdreamer/) [been](/2023/Jul/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning/) [telling](/2023/Dec/if-clarity-seems-like-death-to-them/) you about how I wasted the last eight years of my life on this, I'm going to guess that the answer is broadly No: "we" can't talk about that. (I can say it, and people can debate me in a private Discord server where the general public isn't looking, but it's not something someone of Yudkowsky's stature can afford to acknowledge.) -But if I'm right that (a′) and (b′) should be live hypotheses and that Yudkowsky would consider them "unspeakable", that means "we" can't talk about what's actually going on with gender dysphoria and transsexuality, which puts the whole post in a different light: making sense of the discussion requires analyzing what _isn't_ being said. +But if I'm right that (a′) and (b′) should be live hypotheses and that Yudkowsky would consider them "unspeakable", that means "we" can't talk about what's actually going on with gender dysphoria and transsexuality, which puts the whole post in a different light: making sense of the discussion requires analyzing what isn't being said. In another comment, Yudkowsky lists some gender-transition interventions he named in his [November 2018 "hill of meaning in defense of validity" Twitter thread](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1067183500216811521)—using a different bathroom, changing one's name, asking for new pronouns, and getting sex reassignment surgery—and notes that none of these are calling oneself a "woman". [He continues](/images/yudkowsky-wrong_place_to_pack_it.png): @@ -289,13 +287,13 @@ In another comment, Yudkowsky lists some gender-transition interventions he name Sure, if we were designing a constructed language from scratch with the understanding that a person's "gender" is a contested social construct rather than their sex being an objective and undisputed fact, then yes: in that situation _which we are not in_, you definitely wouldn't want to pack sex or gender into pronouns. But it's a disingenuous derailing tactic to grandstand about how people need to alter the semantics of their existing native language so that we can discuss the real issues under an allegedly superior pronoun convention when, by your own admission, you have _no intention whatsoever of discussing the real issues!_ -(Lest the "by your own admission" clause seem too accusatory, I should note that given constant behavior, admitting it is much better than not admitting it, so huge thanks to Yudkowsky for the transparency on this point!) +(Lest the "by your own admission" clause seem too accusatory, I should note that given constant behavior, admitting it is much better than not admitting it, so huge thanks to Yudkowsky for the transparency on this point.) -[As discussed in "Challenges to Yudkowsky's Pronoun Reform Proposal"](/2022/Mar/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal/#t-v-distinction), there's an instructive comparison to languages that have formality-based second person pronouns, like [_tú_ and _usted_ in Spanish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_personal_pronouns#T%C3%BA/vos_and_usted). It's one thing to advocate for collapsing the distinction and just settling on one second-person singular pronoun for the Spanish language. That's principled. +[As discussed in "Challenges"](/2022/Mar/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal/#t-v-distinction), there's an instructive comparison to languages that have formality-based second person pronouns, like [_tú_ and _usted_ in Spanish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_personal_pronouns#T%C3%BA/vos_and_usted). It's one thing to advocate for collapsing the distinction and just settling on one second-person singular pronoun for the Spanish language. That's principled. -It's another thing altogether to try to prevent a speaker from using _tú_ to indicate disrespect towards a social superior (on the stated rationale that the _tú_/_usted_ distinction is dumb and shouldn't exist) while also refusing to entertain the speaker's arguments for why their interlocutor is unworthy of the deference that would be implied by _usted_ (because such arguments are "unspeakable" for political reasons). +It's another thing altogether to try to prevent a speaker from using _tú_ to indicate disrespect towards a social superior (on the stated rationale that the _tú_/_usted_ distinction is dumb and shouldn't exist) while also refusing to entertain the speaker's arguments for why their interlocutor is unworthy of the deference that would be implied by _usted_ (because such arguments are "unspeakable" for political reasons). That's psychologically abusive. -If Yudkowsky actually possessed (and felt motivated to use) the "ability to independently invent everything important that would be on the other side of the filter and check it [himself] before speaking", it would be obvious to him that "Gendered Pronouns for Everyone and Asking To Leave the System Is Lying" isn't the hill anyone would care about dying on if it weren't a Schelling point. A lot of TERF-adjacent folk would be overjoyed to concede the (boring, insubstantial) matter of pronouns as a trivial courtesy if it meant getting to address their real concerns of "Biological Sex Actually Exists" and ["Biological Sex Cannot Be Changed With Existing or Foreseeable Technology"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QZs4vkC7cbyjL9XA9/changing-emotions) and "Biological Sex Is Sometimes More Relevant Than Subjective Gender Identity." The reason so many of them are inclined to stand their ground and not even offer the trivial courtesy of pronouns is because they suspect, correctly, that pronouns are being used as a rhetorical wedge to keep people from talking or thinking about sex. +If Yudkowsky actually possessed (and felt motivated to use) the "ability to independently invent everything important that would be on the other side of the filter and check it [himself] before speaking", it would be obvious to him that "Gendered Pronouns for Everyone and Asking To Leave the System Is Lying" isn't the hill anyone would care about dying on [if it weren't a Schelling point](/2019/Dec/more-schelling/). A lot of TERF-adjacent folk would be overjoyed to concede the (boring, insubstantial) matter of pronouns as a trivial courtesy if it meant getting to address their real concerns of "Biological Sex Actually Exists" and ["Biological Sex Cannot Be Changed With Existing or Foreseeable Technology"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QZs4vkC7cbyjL9XA9/changing-emotions) and "Biological Sex Is Sometimes More Relevant Than Subjective Gender Identity." The reason so many of them are inclined to stand their ground and not even offer the trivial courtesy of pronouns is because they suspect, correctly, that pronouns are being used as a rhetorical wedge to keep people from talking or thinking about sex. ### The Stated Reasons Not Being the Real Reasons Is a Form of Community Harm @@ -348,7 +346,7 @@ I remember this being pretty shocking to read back in 'aught-seven. What an alie ... which is why it's bizarre that the Yudkowsky of the current year acts like he's never heard of it! If your actual bottom line is that it is sometimes personally prudent and not community-harmful to post your agreement with Stalin, then sure, you can _totally_ find something you agree with to write on the lines above! Probably something that "exhibits generally rationalist principles", even! It's just that any rationalist who sees the game you're playing is going to correctly identify you as a partisan hack on this topic and take that into account when deciding whether they can trust you on other topics. -"I don't see what the alternative is besides getting shot," Yudkowsky muses (where, presumably, "getting shot" is a generic metaphor for any undesirable consequence, like being unpopular with progressives). Yes, an astute observation. And any other partisan hack could say exactly the same, for the same reason. Why does the campaign manager withhold the results of the 11th question? Because he doesn't see what the alternative is besides getting shot (being fired from the campaign). +"I don't see what the alternative is besides getting shot," Yudkowsky muses (where, presumably, "getting shot" is a metaphor for any undesirable consequence, like being unpopular with progressives). Yes, an astute observation. And any other partisan hack could say exactly the same, for the same reason. Why does the campaign manager withhold the results of the 11th question? Because he doesn't see what the alternative is besides getting shot (being fired from the campaign). Yudkowsky [sometimes](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/K2c3dkKErsqFd28Dh/prices-or-bindings) [quotes](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1456002060084600832) _Calvin and Hobbes_: "I don't know which is worse, that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." If the idea of being fired from the Snodgrass campaign or being unpopular with progressives is so terrifying to you that it seems analogous to getting shot, then sure—say whatever you need to say to keep your job or your popularity, as is personally prudent. You've set your price. @@ -358,9 +356,9 @@ Michael Vassar [said](https://twitter.com/HiFromMichaelV/status/1221771020534788 Yudkowsky names the alleged fact that "people do _know_ they're living in a half-Stalinist environment" as a mitigating factor. But [as Zvi Mowshowitz points out, the false assertion that "everybody knows" something](https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2019/07/02/everybody-knows/) is typically used to justify deception: if "everybody knows" that we can't talk about biological sex, then no one is being deceived when our allegedly truthseeking discussion carefully steers clear of any reference to the reality of biological sex even when it's extremely relevant. -But if everybody knew, then what would be the point of the censorship? It's not coherent to claim that no one is being harmed by censorship because everyone knows about it, because the appeal of censorship to dictators like Stalin is precisely that _not_ everybody knows and that someone with power wants to keep it that way. +But if everybody knew, then what would be the point of the censorship? It's not coherent to claim that no one is being harmed by censorship because everyone knows about it, because [the appeal of censorship to dictators like Stalin is precisely to maintain a state of not everyone knowing](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9QxnfMYccz9QRgZ5z/the-costly-coordination-mechanism-of-common-knowledge#Dictators_and_freedom_of_speech). -For the savvy people in the know, it would certainly be convenient if everyone secretly knew: then the savvy people wouldn't have to face the tough choice between acceding to Power's demands (at the cost of deceiving their readers) and informing their readers (at the cost of incurring Power's wrath). +[For the savvy people in the know, it would certainly be convenient if everyone secretly knew](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DpTexwqYtarRLRBYi/conflict-theory-of-bounded-distrust): then the savvy people wouldn't have to face the tough choice between acceding to Power's demands (at the cost of deceiving their readers) and informing their readers (at the cost of incurring Power's wrath). [Policy debates should not appear one-sided.](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided) Faced with this dilemma, I can't say that defying Power is necessarily the right choice: if there really were no options besides deceiving your readers and incurring Power's wrath, and Power's wrath would be too terrible to bear, then maybe deceiving your readers is the right thing to do. @@ -385,7 +383,7 @@ But if Stalin is committed to convincing gender-dysphoric males that they need t "[P]eople do _know_ they're living in a half-Stalinist environment," Yudkowsky claims. "I think people are better off at the end of that," he says. But who are "people", specifically? One of the problems with utilitarianism is that it doesn't interact well with game theory. If a policy makes most people better off, at the cost of throwing a few others under the bus, is enacting that policy the right thing to do? -Depending on the details, maybe—but you probably shouldn't expect the victims to meekly go under the wheels without a fight. That's why I've [been](/2023/Jul/blanchards-dangerous-idea-and-the-plight-of-the-lucid-crossdreamer/) [telling](/2023/Jul/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning/) [you](/2023/Dec/if-clarity-seems-like-death-to-them/) this 100,000-word sob story about how _I_ didn't know, and _I'm_ not better off. +Depending on the details, maybe—but you probably shouldn't expect the victims to meekly go under the wheels without a fight. That's why I've [been](/2023/Jul/blanchards-dangerous-idea-and-the-plight-of-the-lucid-crossdreamer/) [telling](/2023/Jul/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning/) [you](/2023/Dec/if-clarity-seems-like-death-to-them/) this 85,000-word sob story about how _I_ didn't know, and _I'm_ not better off. In [one of Yudkowsky's roleplaying fiction threads](https://www.glowfic.com/posts/4508), Thellim, a woman hailing from [a saner alternate version of Earth called dath ilan](https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/dath-ilan), [expresses horror and disgust at how shallow and superficial the characters in Jane Austen's _Pride and Prejudice_ are, in contrast to what a human being _should_ be](https://www.glowfic.com/replies/1592898#reply-1592898): @@ -403,7 +401,9 @@ A trans woman I follow on Twitter complained that a receptionist at her workplac It is genuinely sad that the author of those Tweets didn't get perceived in the way she would prefer! But the thing I want her to understand, a thing I think any sane adult (on Earth, and not just dath ilan) should understand— -_It was a compliment!_ That receptionist was almost certainly thinking of someone like [David Bowie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bowie) or [Eddie Izzard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Izzard), rather than being hateful. The author should have graciously accepted the compliment and _done something to pass better next time_. The horror of trans culture is that it's impossible to imagine any of these people doing that—noticing that they're behaving like a TERF's [hostile](/2019/Dec/the-strategy-of-stigmatization/) [stereotype](/2022/Feb/link-never-smile-at-an-autogynephile/) of a narcissistic, gaslighting trans-identified man and snapping out of it. +_It was a compliment!_ That receptionist was almost certainly thinking of someone like [David Bowie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bowie) or [Eddie Izzard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Izzard), rather than being hateful. The author should have graciously accepted the compliment and _done something to pass better next time_.[^limitations-of-passing] The horror of trans culture is that it's impossible to imagine any of these people doing that—noticing that they're behaving like a TERF's [hostile](/2019/Dec/the-strategy-of-stigmatization/) [stereotype](/2022/Feb/link-never-smile-at-an-autogynephile/) of a narcissistic, gaslighting trans-identified man and snapping out of it. + +[^limitations-of-passing]: Also, passing as a woman isn't the same thing as actually being female. But expecting people to accept an imitation as the real thing _without the imitation even succeeding at resembling the real thing_ is seriously nuts. In a sane world, people would understand that the way to ameliorate the sadness of people who aren't being perceived how they prefer is through things like better and cheaper facial feminization surgery, not [emotionally blackmailing](/2018/Jan/dont-negotiate-with-terrorist-memeplexes/) people out of their ability to report what they see. I don't _want_ to relinquish [my ability to notice what women's faces look like](/papers/bruce_et_al-sex_discrimination_how_do_we_tell.pdf), even if that means noticing that mine isn't one. I can endure being sad about that if the alternative is forcing everyone to doublethink around their perceptions of me. @@ -439,13 +439,13 @@ It was a good post! Yudkowsky was merely using the sex change example to illustr But seven years later, in a March 2016 Facebook post, Yudkowsky [proclaimed that](https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10154078468809228) "for people roughly similar to the Bay Area / European mix, I think I'm over 50% probability at this point that at least 20% of the ones with penises are actually women." -This seemed like a huge and surprising reversal from the position articulated in "Changing Emotions". The two posts weren't _necessarily_ inconsistent, if you assumed gender identity is a real property synonymous with "brain sex", and that the harsh (almost mocking) skepticism of the idea of true male-to-female sex change in "Changing Emotions" was directed at the sex-change fantasies of cis men (with a male gender-identity/brain-sex), whereas the 2016 Facebook post was about trans women (with a female gender-identity/brain-sex), which are a different thing. +This seemed like a huge and surprising reversal from the position articulated in "Changing Emotions". The two posts weren't _necessarily_ inconsistent, if you assume gender identity is a real property synonymous with "brain sex", and that the harsh (almost mocking) skepticism of the idea of true male-to-female sex change in "Changing Emotions" was directed at the sex-change fantasies of cis men (with a male gender-identity/brain-sex), whereas the 2016 Facebook post was about trans women (with a female gender-identity/brain-sex), which are a different thing. -But this potential unification seemed dubious to me, especially if trans women were purported to be "at least 20% of the ones with penises" (!) in some population. After it's been pointed out, it should be a pretty obvious hypothesis that "guy on the Extropians mailing list in 2004 who fantasizes about having a female but 'otherwise identical' copy of himself" and "guy in 2016 Berkeley who identifies as a trans woman" are the _same guy_. So in October 2016, [I wrote to Yudkowsky noting the apparent reversal and asking to talk about it](/2023/Jul/blanchards-dangerous-idea-and-the-plight-of-the-lucid-crossdreamer/#cheerful-price). Because of the privacy rules I'm adhering to in telling this Whole Dumb Story, I can't confirm or deny whether any such conversation occurred. +But this potential unification seemed dubious to me, especially given how the 2016 Facebook post posits that trans women are "at least 20% of the ones with penises" (!) in some population, while the 2004 mailing list post notes that "spending a week as a member of the opposite sex may be a common sexual fantasy". After it's been pointed out, it should be a pretty obvious hypothesis that "guy on the Extropians mailing list in 2004 who fantasizes about having a female but 'otherwise identical' copy of himself" and "guy in 2016 Berkeley who identifies as a trans woman" are the _same guy_. So in October 2016, [I wrote to Yudkowsky noting the apparent reversal and asking to talk about it](/2023/Jul/blanchards-dangerous-idea-and-the-plight-of-the-lucid-crossdreamer/#cheerful-price). Because of the privacy rules I'm adhering to in telling this Whole Dumb Story, I can't confirm or deny whether any such conversation occurred. -Then, in November 2018, while criticizing people who refuse to use trans people's preferred pronouns, Yudkowsky proclaimed that "Using language in a way _you_ dislike, openly and explicitly and with public focus on the language and its meaning, is not lying" and that "you're not standing in defense of truth if you insist on a word, brought explicitly into question, being used with some particular meaning". But _that_ seemed like a huge and surprising reversal from the position articulated in ["37 Ways Words Can Be Wrong"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-that-words-can-be-wrong). +Then, in November 2018, while criticizing people who refuse to use trans people's preferred pronouns, Yudkowsky proclaimed that "Using language in a way _you_ dislike, openly and explicitly and with public focus on the language and its meaning, is not lying" and that "you're not standing in defense of truth if you insist on a word, brought explicitly into question, being used with some particular meaning." But _that_ seemed like a huge and surprising reversal from the position articulated in ["37 Ways Words Can Be Wrong"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-that-words-can-be-wrong). -(And this November 2018 reversal on the philosophy of language was much, much worse than the March 2016 reversal on the psychology of sex, because the latter is a complicated empirical question about which reasonable people might read new evidence differently and change their minds. In contrast, there's no plausible good reason for him to have reversed course on whether words can be wrong.) +(And this November 2018 reversal on the philosophy of language was much more inexplicable than the March 2016 reversal on the psychology of sex, because the latter is a complicated empirical question about which reasonable people might read new evidence differently and change their minds. In contrast, there's no plausible good reason for him to have reversed course on whether words can be wrong.) After attempts to clarify via email failed, I eventually wrote ["Where to Draw the Boundaries?"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/esRZaPXSHgWzyB2NL/where-to-draw-the-boundaries) to explain the relevant error in general terms, and Yudkowsky eventually [clarified his position in September 2020](https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10158853851009228). @@ -465,13 +465,13 @@ At the start, I never expected to end up arguing about the minutiæ of pronoun c In the context of AI alignment theory, Yudkowsky has written about a "nearest unblocked strategy" phenomenon: if you prevent an agent from accomplishing a goal via some plan that you find undesirable, the agent will search for ways to route around that restriction, and probably find some plan that you find similarly undesirable for similar reasons. -Suppose you developed an AI to [maximize human happiness subject to the constraint of obeying explicit orders](https://arbital.greaterwrong.com/p/nearest_unblocked#exampleproducinghappiness). It might first try forcibly administering heroin to humans. When you order it not to, it might switch to administering cocaine. When you order it to not to forcibly adminster any kind of drug, it might switch to forcibly implanting electrodes in humans' brains, or just _paying_ the humans to take heroin, _&c._ +Suppose you developed an AI to [maximize human happiness subject to the constraint of obeying explicit orders](https://arbital.greaterwrong.com/p/nearest_unblocked#exampleproducinghappiness). It might first try forcibly administering heroin to humans. When you order it not to, it might switch to administering cocaine. When you order it to not to forcibly administer any kind of drug, it might switch to forcibly implanting electrodes in humans' brains, or just _paying_ the humans to take heroin, _&c._ -It's the same thing with Yudkowsky's political risk minimization subject to the constraint of not saying anything he knows to be false. First he comes out with ["I think I'm over 50% probability at this point that at least 20% of the ones with penises are actually women"](https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10154078468809228) (March 2016). When you point out that his own writings from fifteen years ago [explain why that's not true](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QZs4vkC7cbyjL9XA9/changing-emotions), then the next time he revisits the subject, he switches to ["you're not standing in defense of truth if you insist on a word, brought explicitly into question, being used with some particular meaning"](https://archive.is/Iy8Lq) (November 2018). When you point out that his earlier writings also explain why [_that's_ not true either](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-that-words-can-be-wrong), he switches to "It is Shenanigans to try to bake your stance on how clustered things are [...] _into the pronoun system of a language and interpretation convention that you insist everybody use_" (February 2021). When you point out that [that's not what's going on](/2022/Mar/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal/), he switches to ... I don't know, but he's a smart guy; in the unlikely event that he sees fit to respond to this post, I'm sure he'll be able to think of something—but at this point, _I have no reason to care_. Talking to Yudkowsky on topics where getting the right answer would involve acknowledging facts that would make you unpopular in Berkeley is a waste of everyone's time; he has a [bottom line](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/34XxbRFe54FycoCDw/the-bottom-line) that doesn't involve trying to inform you. +It's the same thing with Yudkowsky's political risk minimization subject to the constraint of not saying anything he knows to be false. First he comes out with ["I think I'm over 50% probability at this point that at least 20% of the ones with penises are actually women"](https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10154078468809228) (March 2016). When you point out that his own writings from seven years before [explain why that's not true](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QZs4vkC7cbyjL9XA9/changing-emotions), then the next time he revisits the subject, he switches to ["you're not standing in defense of truth if you insist on a word, brought explicitly into question, being used with some particular meaning"](https://archive.is/Iy8Lq) (November 2018). When you point out that his earlier writings also explain why [_that's_ not true either](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-that-words-can-be-wrong), he switches to "It is Shenanigans to try to bake your stance on how clustered things are [...] _into the pronoun system of a language and interpretation convention that you insist everybody use_" (February 2021). When you point out that [that's not what's going on](/2022/Mar/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal/), he switches to ... I don't know, but he's a smart guy; in the unlikely event that he sees fit to respond to this post, I'm sure he'll be able to think of something—but at this point, _I have no reason to care_. Talking to Yudkowsky on topics where getting the right answer would involve acknowledging facts that would make you unpopular in Berkeley is a waste of everyone's time; he has a [bottom line](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/34XxbRFe54FycoCDw/the-bottom-line) that doesn't involve trying to inform you. Accusing one's interlocutor of bad faith is frowned upon for a reason. We would prefer to live in a world where we have intellectually fruitful object-level discussions under the assumption of good faith, rather than risk our fora degenerating into accusations and name-calling, which is unpleasant and (more importantly) doesn't make any intellectual progress. -Accordingly, I tried the object-level good-faith argument thing first. I tried it for _years_. But at some point, I should be allowed to notice the nearest-unblocked-strategy game which is obviously happening. I think there's some number of years and some number of thousands of words of litigating the object level (about gender) and the meta level (about the philosophy of categorization) after which there's nothing left to do but jump up to the meta-meta level of politics and explain, to anyone capable of hearing it, why I think I've accumulated enough evidence for the assumption of good faith to have been empirically falsified.[^symmetrically-not-assuming-good-faith] +Accordingly, I tried the object-level good-faith argument thing first. I tried it for _years_. But at some point, I think I should be allowed to notice the nearest-unblocked-strategy game which is obviously happening. I think there's some number of years and some number of thousands of words of litigating the object level (about gender) and the meta level (about the philosophy of categorization) after which there's nothing left to do but jump up to the meta-meta level of politics and explain, to anyone capable of hearing it, why I think I've accumulated enough evidence for the assumption of good faith to have been empirically falsified.[^symmetrically-not-assuming-good-faith] [^symmetrically-not-assuming-good-faith]: Obviously, if we're abandoning the norm of assuming good faith, it needs to be abandoned symmetrically. I _think_ I'm adhering to standards of intellectual conduct and being transparent about my motivations, but I'm not perfect, and, unlike Yudkowsky, I'm not so absurdly mendaciously arrogant to claim "confidence in my own ability to independently invent everything important" (!) about my topics of interest. If Yudkowsky or anyone else thinks they have a case that _I'm_ being culpably intellectually dishonest, they of course have my blessing and encouragement to post it for the audience to evaluate. @@ -487,7 +487,7 @@ But I don't think that everybody knows. And I'm not giving up that easily. Not o ### The Battle That Matters -In February 2021, Yudkowsky [defended his behavior](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1356812143849394176) (referring back to [his November 2018 "hill of meaning in defense of validity" Twitter statement](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1067183500216811521)): +In February 2021, Yudkowsky [defended his behavior](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1356812143849394176) (referring back to [his November 2018 Tweets](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1067183500216811521)): > I think that some people model civilization as being in the middle of a great battle in which this tweet, even if true, is giving comfort to the Wrong Side, where I would not have been as willing to tweet a truth helping the Right Side. From my perspective, this battle just isn't that close to the top of my priority list. I rated nudging the cognition of the people-I-usually-respect, closer to sanity, as more important; who knows, those people might matter for AGI someday. And the Wrong Side part isn't as clear to me either. @@ -523,7 +523,7 @@ If Eliezer Yudkowsky gets something wrong when I was trusting him to be right, a [^gould-analogy]: Yudkowsky [once wrote of Stephen Jay Gould](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BahoNzY2pzSeM2Dtk/beware-of-stephen-j-gould) that "[c]onsistently self-serving scientific 'error', in the face of repeated correction and without informing others of the criticism, blends over into scientific fraud." I think the same standard applies here. -[^gullible]: Perhaps some readers will consider this post to be more revealing about my character rather than Yudkowsky's: that [everybody knows](https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2019/07/02/everybody-knows/) his bluster wasn't supposed to be taken seriously, so I have no more right to complain about "false advertising" than purchasers of a ["World's Best"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery) ice-cream who are horrified (or pretending to be) that it may not objectively be the best in the world. +[^gullible]: Perhaps some readers will consider this point to be more revealing about my character rather than Yudkowsky's: that [everybody knows](https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2019/07/02/everybody-knows/) his bluster wasn't supposed to be taken seriously, so I have no more right to complain about "false advertising" than purchasers of a ["World's Best"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery) ice-cream who are horrified (or pretending to be) that it may not objectively be the best in the world. Such readers may have a point. If _you_ [already knew](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tSgcorrgBnrCH8nL3/don-t-revere-the-bearer-of-good-info) that Yudkowsky's pose of epistemic superiority was phony (because everyone knows), then you are wiser than I was. But I think there are a lot of people in the "rationalist" subculture who didn't know (because we weren't anyone). This post is for their benefit. @@ -531,11 +531,11 @@ Perhaps he thinks it's unreasonable for someone to hold him to higher standards. > It's strange and disingenuous to pretend that the master truthseekers of any age of history, must all have been blurting out everything they knew in public, at all times, on pain of not possibly being able to retain their Art otherwise. I doubt Richard Feynman was like that. More likely is that, say, he tried to avoid telling outright lies or making public confusions worse, but mainly got by on having a much-sharper-than-average dividing line in his mine between peer pressure against saying something, and that thing being _false_. -I've read _Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman_. I cannot imagine Richard Feynman trying to get away with the "sometimes personally prudent and not community-harmful" excuse. I think if there were topics Richard Feynman didn't think he could afford to be honest about, he—or really, anyone who valued their intellectual integrity over their public image as a religious authority—would just not issue sweeping public proclamations on that topic while claiming the right to ignore counterarguments on the grounds of having "some confidence in [their] own ability to independently invent everything important that would be on the other side of the filter and check it [themself] before speaking". +I've read _Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman_. I cannot imagine Richard Feynman trying to get away with the "sometimes personally prudent and not community-harmful" excuse. I think if there were topics Richard Feynman didn't think he could afford to be honest about, he—or really, anyone who valued their intellectual integrity more than their image as a religious authority fit to issue proclamations about all areas of life—would just not issue sweeping public statements on that topic while claiming the right to ignore counterarguments on the grounds of having "some confidence in [their] own ability to independently invent everything important that would be on the other side of the filter and check it [themself] before speaking". -The claim to not be making public confusions worse might be credible if there were no other public figures doing better. But other science educators in the current year such as [Richard Dawkins](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/20/richard-dawkins-loses-humanist-of-the-year-trans-comments), University of Chicago professor [Jerry Coyne](https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/08/27/on-helen-joyces-trans/), or ex-Harvard professor [Carole Hooven](https://www.thefp.com/p/carole-hooven-why-i-left-harvard) _have_ been willing to stand up for the scientific truth that biological sex continues to be real even when it hurts people's feelings. +The claim to not be making public confusions worse might be credible if there were no comparable public figures doing better. But other science educators in the current year such as [Richard Dawkins](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/20/richard-dawkins-loses-humanist-of-the-year-trans-comments), University of Chicago professor [Jerry Coyne](https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/08/27/on-helen-joyces-trans/), or ex-Harvard professor [Carole Hooven](https://www.thefp.com/p/carole-hooven-why-i-left-harvard) _have_ been willing to stand up for the scientific truth that biological sex continues to be real even when it hurts people's feelings. -If Yudkowsky thinks he's too important for that (because his popularity with progressives has much greater impact on the history of Earth-originating intelligent life than Carole Hooven's), that might be the right act-consequentialist decision, but one of the consequences he should be tracking is that he's forfeiting the trust of everyone who expected him to live up to the epistemic standards successfully upheld by UChicago or Harvard biology professors. +If Yudkowsky thinks he's too important for that (because his popularity with progressives has much greater impact on the history of Earth-originating intelligent life than Carole Hooven's), that might be the right act-consequentialist decision, but one of the consequences he should be tracking is that he's forfeiting the trust of everyone who expected him to live up to the basic epistemic standards successfully upheld by biology professors. It looks foolish in retrospect, but I did trust him much more than that. Back in 2009 when _Less Wrong_ was new, we had a thread of hyperbolic ["Eliezer Yudkowsky Facts"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Ndtb22KYBxpBsagpj/eliezer-yudkowsky-facts) (in the style of [Chuck Norris facts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Norris_facts)). ["Never go in against Eliezer Yudkowsky when anything is on the line"](https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/Ndtb22KYBxpBsagpj/eliezer-yudkowsky-facts/comment/Aq9eWJmK6Liivn8ND), said one of the facts—and back then, I didn't think I would _need_ to. diff --git a/notes/memoir-sections.md b/notes/memoir-sections.md index 666a9dd..604aabe 100644 --- a/notes/memoir-sections.md +++ b/notes/memoir-sections.md @@ -9,13 +9,10 @@ pt. 4 edit tier— ✓ Feynman, "pretend that the master truthseekers of any age of history" ✓ Dawkins and Coyne and Hooven ✓ edit post to clarify "nudging the cognition" -_ Tail's objection to FFS example -_ Brennan "everyone else should participate" needs more wording adjustments -_ Sept. 2020 clarification noted that a distinction should be made between -_ emphasize that 2018 thread was policing TERF-like pronoun usage, not just disapproving of gender-based pronouns -_ note the "larger than protons" concession +✓ Brennan "everyone else should participate" needs more wording adjustments +✓ Tail's objection to FFS example +✓ the mailing list post noted it as a "common sexual fantasy" _ look for a place to link http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/discursive-warfare-and-faction-formation/ -_ the mailing list post noted it as a "common sexual fantasy" _ cite more sneers; use a footnote to pack in as many as possible time-sensitive globals TODOs— @@ -2857,3 +2854,8 @@ https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1356494097511370752 https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1356494399945854976 > ...he tried to avoid telling outright lies or making public confusions worse, but mainly got by on having a much-sharper-than-average dividing line in his mine between peer pressure against saying something, and that thing being *false*. That's definitely most of how I do it. + +----- + +https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1076155800144363520 +> I got a lot further as an adolescent on "Ask what a superintelligence would think". Eventually I used that up and have now moved on to "What would Anna Salamon think?" diff --git a/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv b/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv index f37965b..b5d7802 100644 --- a/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv +++ b/notes/memoir_wordcounts.csv @@ -682,4 +682,5 @@ 02/27/2024,118989,14 02/28/2024,119389,450 02/29/2024,119280,-109 -03/01/2024,, +03/01/2024,119228,-52 + diff --git a/notes/tweet_pad.txt b/notes/tweet_pad.txt index dc2befa..60f78d4 100644 --- a/notes/tweet_pad.txt +++ b/notes/tweet_pad.txt @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ 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.) + ------ Post later (can't afford to spend more Twitter time now)— -- 2.17.1 From 251cec51d6f61b6a9222a0d1131f701903bc5895 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Zack M. Davis" Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 10:05:18 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 12/16] memoir: pt. 4 practical tail to "Challenges" summary --- ...lin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md index edcf181..c172462 100644 --- a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md +++ b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ And I think I _would_ have been over it ... ### Yudkowsky Doubles Down (February 2021) -I eventually explained what was wrong with Yudkowsky's new arguments at the length of 12,000 words in March 2022's ["Challenges to Yudkowsky's Pronoun Reform Proposal"](/2022/Mar/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal/),[^challenges-title]. Briefly: given a conflict over pronoun conventions, there's not going to be a "right answer", but we can at least be objective in describing what the conflict is about, and Yudkowsky wasn't doing that. Given that we can't coordinate a switch to universal singular _they_, the pronouns _she_ and _he_ continue to have different meanings in the minds of native English speakers, in the sense that your mind forms different probabilistic expectations of someone taking feminine or masculine pronouns. That's _why_ trans people want to be referred to by the pronoun corresponding to their chosen gender: if there were literally no difference in meaning, there would be no reason to care. Thus, making the distinction on the basis of gender identity rather than sex [has consequences](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/veN86cBhoe7mBxXLk/categorizing-has-consequences); by proclaiming his "simplest and best protocol" without acknowledging the ways in which it's _not_ simple and not _unambiguously_ the best, Yudkowsky was [falsely portraying the policy debate as one-sided](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided). +I eventually explained what was wrong with Yudkowsky's new arguments at the length of 12,000 words in March 2022's ["Challenges to Yudkowsky's Pronoun Reform Proposal"](/2022/Mar/challenges-to-yudkowskys-pronoun-reform-proposal/),[^challenges-title]. Briefly: given a conflict over pronoun conventions, there's not going to be a "right answer", but we can at least be objective in describing what the conflict is about, and Yudkowsky wasn't doing that. Given that we can't coordinate a switch to universal singular _they_, the pronouns _she_ and _he_ continue to have different meanings in the minds of native English speakers, in the sense that your mind forms different probabilistic expectations of someone taking feminine or masculine pronouns. That's _why_ trans people want to be referred to by the pronoun corresponding to their chosen gender: if there were literally no difference in meaning, there would be no reason to care. Thus, making the distinction on the basis of gender identity rather than sex [has consequences](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/veN86cBhoe7mBxXLk/categorizing-has-consequences); by proclaiming his "simplest and best protocol" without acknowledging the ways in which it's _not_ simple and not _unambiguously_ the best, Yudkowsky was [falsely portraying the policy debate as one-sided](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided). Furthermore, this misrepresentation would have harmful effects insofar as anyone was dumb enough to believe it: gender-dysphoric people deciding whether or not to socially transition need a correct model of how English pronouns work in the real world in order to perform an accurate cost–benefit analysis. [^challenges-title]: The title is an allusion to Yudkowsky's ["Challenges to Christiano's Capability Amplification Proposal"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/S7csET9CgBtpi7sCh/challenges-to-christiano-s-capability-amplification-proposal). -- 2.17.1 From ca6129350728223db399502a32a452780f1e3ef0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Zack M. Davis" Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 12:51:25 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 13/16] memoir: pt. 4 Cade Metz footnote --- ...n-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md index c172462..c963198 100644 --- a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md +++ b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md @@ -366,7 +366,9 @@ But if you cared about not deceiving your readers, you would want to be sure tha I think he's playing dumb here. In other contexts, he's written about ["attack[s] performed by selectively reporting true information"](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1634338145016909824) and ["[s]tatements which are technically true but which deceive the listener into forming further beliefs which are false"](https://hpmor.com/chapter/97). He's undoubtedly familiar with the motte-and-bailey doctrine as [described by Nicholas Shackel](https://philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf) and [popularized by Scott Alexander](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/). I think that if he wanted to, Eliezer Yudkowsky could think of some relevant differences between "2 + 2 = 4" and "the simplest and best protocol is, "_He_ refers to the set of people who have asked us to use _he_". -If you think it's "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 live in a red state and "don't see what the alternative is besides getting shot"), you can see why people might regard you as a Republican shill, even if each sentence you said was true. If you tried to defend yourself against the charge of being a Republican shill by pointing out that you've never told any specific individual, "You should vote Republican," that's a nice motte, but you shouldn't expect devoted rationalists to fall for it. +If you think it's "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 live in a red state and "don't see what the alternative is besides getting shot"), you can see why people might regard you as a Republican shill, even if every sentence you said was true.[^the-wizard-metz] If you tried to defend yourself against the charge of being a Republican shill by pointing out that you've never told any specific individual, "You should vote Republican," that's a nice motte, but you shouldn't expect devoted rationalists to fall for it. + +[^the-wizard-metz]: It's instructive to consider that [Cade Metz could just as credibly offer the same excuse](https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/MN4NRkMw7ggt9587K/firming-up-not-lying-around-its-edge-cases-is-less-broadly/comment/9YkXk43b4LC4vaCTs). Similarly, when Yudkowsky [wrote in June 2021](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", it was a great motte. I don't doubt the literal motte stated literally. -- 2.17.1 From bda1309ea5ff9f461c1771c0e12a3d5564702f03 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Zack M. Davis" Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 13:36:27 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 14/16] memoir: pt. 4 Hoffman links --- ...n-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md index c963198..b7e7e86 100644 --- a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md +++ b/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md @@ -539,7 +539,7 @@ The claim to not be making public confusions worse might be credible if there we If Yudkowsky thinks he's too important for that (because his popularity with progressives has much greater impact on the history of Earth-originating intelligent life than Carole Hooven's), that might be the right act-consequentialist decision, but one of the consequences he should be tracking is that he's forfeiting the trust of everyone who expected him to live up to the basic epistemic standards successfully upheld by biology professors. -It looks foolish in retrospect, but I did trust him much more than that. Back in 2009 when _Less Wrong_ was new, we had a thread of hyperbolic ["Eliezer Yudkowsky Facts"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Ndtb22KYBxpBsagpj/eliezer-yudkowsky-facts) (in the style of [Chuck Norris facts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Norris_facts)). ["Never go in against Eliezer Yudkowsky when anything is on the line"](https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/Ndtb22KYBxpBsagpj/eliezer-yudkowsky-facts/comment/Aq9eWJmK6Liivn8ND), said one of the facts—and back then, I didn't think I would _need_ to. +It [looks foolish in retrospect](http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/discursive-warfare-and-faction-formation/), but I did trust him much more than that. Back in 2009 when _Less Wrong_ was new, we had a thread of hyperbolic ["Eliezer Yudkowsky Facts"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Ndtb22KYBxpBsagpj/eliezer-yudkowsky-facts) (in the style of [Chuck Norris facts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Norris_facts)). ["Never go in against Eliezer Yudkowsky when anything is on the line"](https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/Ndtb22KYBxpBsagpj/eliezer-yudkowsky-facts/comment/Aq9eWJmK6Liivn8ND), said one of the facts—and back then, I didn't think I would _need_ to. Part of what made him so trustworthy back then was that he wasn't asking for trust. He clearly _did_ think it was [unvirtuous to just shut up and listen to him](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/t6Fe2PsEwb3HhcBEr/the-litany-against-gurus): "I'm not sure that human beings realistically _can_ trust and think at the same time," [he wrote](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wustx45CPL5rZenuo/no-safe-defense-not-even-science). He was always arrogant, but it was tempered by the expectation of being held to account by arguments rather than being deferred to as a social superior. "I try in general to avoid sending my brain signals which tell it that I am high-status, just in case that causes my brain to decide it is no longer necessary," [he wrote](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cgrvvp9QzjiFuYwLi/high-status-and-stupidity-why). @@ -561,7 +561,7 @@ The modern Yudkowsky [writes](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/10967695793 I notice that this advice fails to highlight the possibility that the "seems to believe" is a deliberate show (judged to be personally prudent and not community-harmful), rather than a misperception on your part. I am left shaking my head in a [weighted average of](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/y4bkJTtG3s5d6v36k/stupidity-and-dishonesty-explain-each-other-away) sadness about the mortal frailty of my former hero, and disgust at his duplicity. **If Eliezer Yudkowsky can't _unambiguously_ choose Truth over Feelings, _then Eliezer Yudkowsky is a fraud_.** -A few clarifications are in order here. First, this usage of "fraud" isn't a meaningless [boo light](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dLbkrPu5STNCBLRjr/applause-lights). I specifically and literally mean it in [_Merriam-Webster_'s sense 2.a., "a person who is not what he or she pretends to be"](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud)—and I think I've made my case. (The "epistemic hero" posturing isn't compatible with the "sometimes personally prudent and not community-harmful" prevarication; he needs to choose one or the other.) Someone who disagrees with my assessment needs to argue that I've gotten some specific thing wrong, [rather than objecting to character attacks on procedural grounds](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/pkaagE6LAsGummWNv/contra-yudkowsky-on-epistemic-conduct-for-author-criticism). +A few clarifications are in order here. First, this usage of "fraud" isn't a meaningless [boo light](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dLbkrPu5STNCBLRjr/applause-lights). I specifically and [literally mean it](http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/can-crimes-be-discussed-literally/) in [_Merriam-Webster_'s sense 2.a., "a person who is not what he or she pretends to be"](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud)—and I think I've made my case. (The "epistemic hero" posturing isn't compatible with the "sometimes personally prudent and not community-harmful" prevarication; he needs to choose one or the other.) Someone who disagrees with my assessment needs to argue that I've gotten some specific thing wrong, [rather than objecting to character attacks on procedural grounds](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/pkaagE6LAsGummWNv/contra-yudkowsky-on-epistemic-conduct-for-author-criticism). Second, it's a conditional: _if_ Yudkowsky can't unambiguously choose Truth over Feelings, _then_ he's a fraud. If he wanted to come clean, he could do so at any time. -- 2.17.1 From 7aeccde6f6160c532623778abd6fc5c5c0c4446a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Zack M. Davis" Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 13:45:32 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 15/16] pull the trigger on memoir pt. 4 --- ...in-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) rename content/{drafts => 2024}/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md (99%) diff --git a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md b/content/2024/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md similarity index 99% rename from content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md rename to content/2024/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md index b7e7e86..67f8c6f 100644 --- a/content/drafts/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md +++ b/content/2024/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md @@ -1,9 +1,8 @@ Title: Agreeing With Stalin in Ways That Exhibit Generally Rationalist Principles Author: Zack M. Davis -Date: 2023-12-28 11:00 +Date: 2024-03-02 13:45 Category: commentary Tags: autogynephilia, bullet-biting, cathartic, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Scott Alexander, epistemic horror, my robot cult, personal, sex differences, two-type taxonomy, whale metaphors -Status: draft > It was not the sight of Mitchum that made him sit still in horror. It was the realization that there was no one he could call to expose this thing and stop it—no superior anywhere on the line, from Colorado to Omaha to New York. They were in on it, all of them, they were doing the same, they had given Mitchum the lead and the method. It was Dave Mitchum who now belonged on this railroad and he, Bill Brent, who did not. > -- 2.17.1 From 0a9f55af6d37b6ff386c64071fe3e6446b46b882 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Zack M. Davis" Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 14:02:30 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 16/16] make sure to include Twitter links in recap --- ...lin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/content/2024/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md b/content/2024/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md index 67f8c6f..228edf0 100644 --- a/content/2024/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md +++ b/content/2024/agreeing-with-stalin-in-ways-that-exhibit-generally-rationalist-principles.md @@ -444,7 +444,7 @@ This seemed like a huge and surprising reversal from the position articulated in But this potential unification seemed dubious to me, especially given how the 2016 Facebook post posits that trans women are "at least 20% of the ones with penises" (!) in some population, while the 2004 mailing list post notes that "spending a week as a member of the opposite sex may be a common sexual fantasy". After it's been pointed out, it should be a pretty obvious hypothesis that "guy on the Extropians mailing list in 2004 who fantasizes about having a female but 'otherwise identical' copy of himself" and "guy in 2016 Berkeley who identifies as a trans woman" are the _same guy_. So in October 2016, [I wrote to Yudkowsky noting the apparent reversal and asking to talk about it](/2023/Jul/blanchards-dangerous-idea-and-the-plight-of-the-lucid-crossdreamer/#cheerful-price). Because of the privacy rules I'm adhering to in telling this Whole Dumb Story, I can't confirm or deny whether any such conversation occurred. -Then, in November 2018, while criticizing people who refuse to use trans people's preferred pronouns, Yudkowsky proclaimed that "Using language in a way _you_ dislike, openly and explicitly and with public focus on the language and its meaning, is not lying" and that "you're not standing in defense of truth if you insist on a word, brought explicitly into question, being used with some particular meaning." But _that_ seemed like a huge and surprising reversal from the position articulated in ["37 Ways Words Can Be Wrong"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-that-words-can-be-wrong). +Then, in November 2018, while criticizing people who refuse to use trans people's preferred pronouns, Yudkowsky [proclaimed that](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1067291243728650243) "Using language in a way _you_ dislike, openly and explicitly and with public focus on the language and its meaning, is not lying" [and that](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1067198993485058048) "you're not standing in defense of truth if you insist on a word, brought explicitly into question, being used with some particular meaning." But _that_ seemed like a huge and surprising reversal from the position articulated in ["37 Ways Words Can Be Wrong"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-that-words-can-be-wrong). (And this November 2018 reversal on the philosophy of language was much more inexplicable than the March 2016 reversal on the psychology of sex, because the latter is a complicated empirical question about which reasonable people might read new evidence differently and change their minds. In contrast, there's no plausible good reason for him to have reversed course on whether words can be wrong.) -- 2.17.1