It’s not always easy to distinguish between existentialism and a bad mood.

  • 20 Posts
  • 748 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle


  • Yes exactly how can you write an entire thing treating rationalism like something you can do an apostasy out of and never mention Yud once.

    I assume the personal perspective is him tacitly admitting to being attracted to skepticism for the debate bro culture, especially the parts that bordered on harassment. Even the inciting incident of “leaving rationalism” is framed more as him growing out of the need to long-form debate someone, specifically James Damore, the google engineer who published a manifesto about how women don’t belong in tech.

    I don’t know the author so I don’t know if it is important that he was fine with pranking the timecube guy but decided enough is enough when it was time to take a pro-feminist side.


  • The Guardian published a William McAskill editorial in the what-if-the-stateless-text-generators-had-moral-agency genre of fiction, and Emily Bender did a thread

    From the article:

    But the sheer pace of growth in AI means that, once we produce the first artificial moral patients, we will soon after have enormous quantities of them. After a few years, so many morally significant AI systems could exist that their collective interests would outweigh those of all humans on Earth combined.

    Get fucked, Will.

    But also, if we grant the untenable sci-fi premise, this would be like a star trek episode where the federation cedes unconditionally to the expansionist alien fascists of the week if they have a much greater population because that’s all it takes to outweigh the other side’s moral concerns.

    Earth-Trisolaris Organisation-ass moral framework.














  • Scott is hilariously uninformed

    Elsewhere he is comparing their orwelian chipset distribution control scheme to health inspectors making sure supermarkets don’t sell spoiled milk. He just says whatever as long as he thinks it’ll help convince more people than it drives away, and his fanbase goes along with it because they think that’s how he gets to be the normie whisperer.

    This makes me feel there really is no telling what actual agenda the rationaltruists’ would enact if they ever get to dictate policy.


  • Siskind just posted a follow up to his coverage of ai2040, apparently he’s having a bit of a hard time selling his crowd on the really obvious totalitarian implications of instituting a global surveillance system to track and remotely disable chipsets to make sure rogue elements can’t secretly conjure the robot god prematurely.

    It’s important too, chip registration is a big part of the ??? item in the to-do list, right before “China and US passionately french kiss, agree to pause AI research”


  • Enjoyed the writeup, thanks for gazing into the abyss!

    This is a classic rationalist fallacy that we see repeated throughout the piece of assuming that ultimately if you express the argument properly everyone will agree on the right thing

    This is complementary to their heterodoxy fetish, leading to fringe or outright bonkers but excruciatingly formalistic positions routinely sleight-of-handing themselves into prominence in the movement.


    It’s fine for AIs to get better at using valid arguments and evidence to convince people of things for the right reasons. That kind of persuasion is asymmetric: it works much better when the argument pushes towards the truth.

    That’s not how the postmodern condition works

    That’s just rationalists believing that once you amass enough IQ/Mana points you unlock the mind control spell. Basically if you aren’t buying what the great-men-of-history-du-jour are selling the AIs will cast domination on you for the greater good.


    Eliezer Yudkowsky - who totally isn’t a cult leader

    He is definitely a cult enabler and a huge cult beneficiary, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen evidence he could lead shit to fuck.