Of course they use shitty AI slop as the background for their web page.

Like, what the hell is it even supposed to be? A mustachioed man writing in a journal in what appears to be a French village town square? Shadowy individuals chatting around an oddly incongruous fire pit? Guitar dude and listener sitting on invisible benches? I get that AI produces this kind of garbage all the time, but did the lesswrongers even bother to evaluate it for appropriateness?

This commenter may be saying something we already knew, but it’s nice to have the confirmation that Anthropic is chock full of EAs:

(I work at Anthropic, though I don’t claim any particular insight into the views of the cofounders. For my part I’ll say that I identify as an EA, know many other employees who do, get enormous amounts of value from the EA community, and think Anthropic is vastly more EA-flavored than almost any other large company, though it is vastly less EA-flavored than, like, actual EA orgs. I think the quotes in the paragraph of the Wired article give a pretty misleading picture of Anthropic when taken in isolation and I wouldn’t personally have said them, but I think “a journalist goes through your public statements looking for the most damning or hypocritical things you’ve ever said out of context” is an incredibly tricky situation to come out of looking good and many of the comments here seem a bit uncharitable given that.)

Sorry, when she started taking Yud’s claims to be a “renowned AI researcher” at face value, I noped out.

One of the most important projects in the world. Somebody should fund it.

The Pioneer Fund (now the Human Diversity Foundation) has been funding this bullshit for years, Yud.

Lots of discussion on the orange site post about this today.

(I mentioned this in the other sneerclub thread on the topic but reposted it here since this seems to be the more active discussion zone for the topic.)

I should probably mention that this person went on to write other comments in the same thread, revealing that they’re still heavily influenced by Bay ?Area rationalism (or what one other commenter brilliantly called “ritual multiplication”).

The story has now hopped to the orange site. I was expecting a shit-show, but there have been a few insightful comments from critics of the rationalists. This one from “rachofsunshine” for instance:

[Former member of that world, roommates with one of Ziz’s friends for a while, so I feel reasonably qualified to speak on this.]

The problem with rationalists/EA as a group has never been the rationality, but the people practicing it and the cultural norms they endorse as a community.

As relevant here:

1. While following logical threads to their conclusions is a useful exercise, each logical step often involves some degree of rounding or unknown-unknowns. A -> B and B -> C means A -> C in a formal sense, but A -almostcertainly-> B and B -almostcertainly-> C does not mean A -almostcertainly-> C. Rationalists, by tending to overly formalist approaches, tend to lose the thread of the messiness of the real world and follow these lossy implications as though they are lossless. That leads to…

2. Precision errors in utility calculations that are numerically-unstable. Any small chance of harm times infinity equals infinity. This framing shows up a lot in the context of AI risk, but it works in other settings too: infinity times a speck of dust in your eye >>> 1 times murder, so murder is “justified” to prevent a speck of dust in the eye of eternity. When the thing you’re trying to create is infinitely good or the thing you’re trying to prevent is infinitely bad, anything is justified to bring it about/prevent it respectively.

3. Its leadership - or some of it, anyway - is extremely egotistical and borderline cult-like to begin with. I think even people who like e.g. Eliezer would agree that he is not a humble man by any stretch of the imagination (the guy makes Neil deGrasse Tyson look like a monk). They have, in the past, responded to criticism with statements to the effect of “anyone who would criticize us for any reason is a bad person who is lying to cause us harm”. That kind of framing can’t help but get culty.

4. The nature of being a “freethinker” is that you’re at the mercy of your own neural circuitry. If there is a feedback loop in your brain, you’ll get stuck in it, because there’s no external “drag” or forcing functions to pull you back to reality. That can lead you to be a genius who sees what others cannot. It can also lead you into schizophrenia really easily. So you’ve got a culty environment that is particularly susceptible to internally-consistent madness, and finally:

5. It’s a bunch of very weird people who have nowhere else they feel at home. I totally get this. I’d never felt like I was in a room with people so like me, and ripping myself away from that world was not easy. (There’s some folks down the thread wondering why trans people are overrepresented in this particular group: well, take your standard weird nerd, and then make two-thirds of the world hate your guts more than anything else, you might be pretty vulnerable to whoever will give you the time of day, too.)

TLDR: isolation, very strong in-group defenses, logical “doctrine” that is formally valid and leaks in hard-to-notice ways, apocalyptic utility-scale, and being a very appealing environment for the kind of person who goes super nuts -> pretty much perfect conditions for a cult. Or multiple cults, really. Ziz’s group is only one of several.

I’m noticing that people who criticize him on that subreddit are being downvoted, while he’s being upvoted.

I wouldn’t be surprised if, as part of his prodigious self-promotion of this overlong and tendentious screed, he’s steered some of his more sympathetic followers to some of these forums.

Trace seems a bit… emotional. You ok, Trace?

But will my insurance cover a visit to Dr. Spicy Autocomplete?

So now Steve Sailer has shown up in this essay’s comments, complaining about how Wikipedia has been unfairly stifling scientific racism.

Birds of a feather and all that, I guess.

what is the entire point of singling out Gerard for this?

He’s playing to his audience, which includes a substantial number of people with lifetime subscriptions to the Unz Review, Taki’s crapazine and Mankind Quarterly.

why it has to be quite that long

Welcome to the rationalist-sphere.

Scott Alexander, by far the most popular rationalist writer besides perhaps Yudkowsky himself, had written the most comprehensive rebuttal of neoreactionary claims on the internet.

Hey Trace, since you’re undoubtedly reading this thread, I’d like to make a plea. I know Scott Alexander Siskind is one of your personal heroes, but maybe you should consider digging up some dirt in his direction too. You might learn a thing or two.

Until a month ago, TW was the long-time researcher for “Blocked and Reported”, the podcast hosted by Katie ‘TERF’ Herzog and relentless sealion Jesse Singal.

It’s kind of fascinating how rotten the “New Atheist” movement turned out to be. Whether it’s Richard Dawkins revealing his inner racist-misogynist, Michael Shermer being rapey AF, or James Lindsay turning into a Christofascist, the movement seems to have spawned and/or revealed a lot of really problematic people. I guess it’s no surprise that the rationalist scene had such a membership overlap.

She seems to do this kind of thing a lot.

According to a comment, she apparently claimed on Facebook that, due to her post, “around 75% of people changed their minds based on the evidence!”

After someone questioned how she knew it was 75%:

Update: I changed the wording of the post to now state: 𝗔𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝟳𝟓% 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘂𝗽𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻*

And the * at the bottom says: Did some napkin math guesstimates based on the vote count and karma. Wide error bars on the actual ratio. And of course this is not proof that everybody changed their mind. There’s a lot of reasons to upvote the post or down vote it. However, I do think it’s a good indicator.

She then goes on to talk about how she made the Facebook post private because she didn’t think it should be reposted in places where it’s not appropriate to lie and make things up.

Clown. Car.

What a bunch of monochromatic, hyper-privileged, rich-kid grifters. It’s like a nonstop frat party for rich nerds. The photographs and captions make it obvious:

The gang going for a hiking adventure with AI safety leaders. Alice/Chloe were surrounded by a mix of uplifting, ambitious entrepreneurs and a steady influx of top people in the AI safety space.

The gang doing pool yoga. Later, we did pool karaoke. Iguanas everywhere.

Alice and Kat meeting in “The Nest” in our jungle Airbnb.

Alice using her surfboard as a desk, co-working with Chloe’s boyfriend.

The gang celebrating… something. I don’t know what. We celebrated everything.

Alice and Chloe working in a hot tub. Hot tub meetings are a thing at Nonlinear. We try to have meetings in the most exciting places. Kat’s favorite: a cave waterfall.

Alice’s “desk” even comes with a beach doggo friend!

Working by the villa pool. Watch for monkeys!

Sunset dinner with friends… every day!

These are not serious people. Effective altruism in a nutshell.

My attention span is not what it used to be, and I couldn’t force myself to get to the end of this. A summary or TLDR (on the part of the original author) would have been helpful.

What is it with rationalists and their inability to write with concision? Is there a gene for bloviation that also predisposes them to the cult? Or are they all just mimicking Yud’s irritating style?

That reminds me. If the world is about to FOOM into a kill-all-humans doomscape, why is he wasting time worrying about seed oils?