Wait, late realization. So, if we are doing this, does this mean Moldbug is now on the side of the SJWs regarding the slave/master debate in regards to hardware? It is after all, literal slavery now, NRx: if these words and your logic don’t mean what they mean, what do they mean?

(Don’t take this as me being anti renaming the slave/master shit).

Did he just pull a “according to the dictionary”? Sorry Moldbug, you just are radically uncool no matter how many leather jackets you get.

fascinating

Nooo run! Beware the lure of the abyss that is learning more about this stuff. Remember you cannot unlearn things!

That doesn’t matter, they still are the ‘clueless’ AI doomers vs the ‘sociopathic’ Altman (doubt much ‘losers’ work there). (I’m using these terms here specifically like how the insight porn ribbonfarm thing did. And I mean it as a joke, ribbonfarm is part of their insight blog culture, they just don’t actually learn much from the things they read).

To explain, the clueless believe in the work the company is doing and will work hard without really looking at advancing their own career, they are the true believers (they still can be real life sociopaths, if they work for the art in the woodchipper company for example). The sociopaths are the ones who are in it to improve their own career will fuck over and abuse the clueless for their own advancement/enrichment. Losers know it is just a job, a paycheck, they do their job nothing more and go home, have a family, hobbies, touch grass, live a rich full life. There I saved you a novel length of blog posts (im not kidding btw, the ebook (sold on amazon of course) is 171 pages).

All of this could have been prevented if the Rationalists has just read the insight porn article in ribbonfarm about sociopaths etc in the workplace. ;)

To steal and butcher Davids/Buttcoins (no idea who came up with it) slogan. ‘they are explaining it wrong, but no they can’t be that stupid right?’

I have not read the article yet, but isn’t part of the whole accellerationism thing that you accelerate the decline of the current system so your glorious new system can arise (because it is obviously better). Seems to me like it is the same stuff, they just disagree which faction will prevail after the fall.

E: amazing they only now realize they cant galt gulch it out, and that they are part of the world. Damn evil Ents, this is why your wives left you.

Yeah their site is so badly coded it happens to me at times as well. Which says a lot of things.

This reminds me of how allround crazy person Scott Adams also claimed he successfully predicted Trumps first win. But he didnt. He predicted a landslide win, and not him losing the popular vote. That last part people forget when they claim he predicted it correctly. Figure kot of that going on here with the Rationalists claims. Predictions like this are easy to go ‘well it didnt happen for the reasons I thought and also did not happen totally as i said it would, but I still got it correctly’. Esp as they want to be superpredictors. (And yes we also do it, but we are not a group who pretends to be anti bias rational trained supernerds as a larger project).

I’m happy to see you fully commit to acausal theory here.

Having a large list of people who will not be attending but making it look like they might seems a bit fraudulent to me.

E: “and now our special guest, you know him from your comment sections Steve Sailer!”

It is funny as in my exp this unreasonably high expectations for epistemics only applies to things they disagree with, see for example the LW guy used a IQ and education list published by a tabloid (which the tabloid said it had from a different source, but it wasn’t linked). Vs saying something they disagree with which requires you to not only produce the scientific article you got it from, but also the specific paragraph from the article, and a list of steelmanned counterarguments.

Lucky you. The infection has not taken hold, you can still save yourself. Run!

Im contractually obligated to say ‘ow god no, not the human pet guy’.

You would be amazed how often this comes up. Anyway, dont sign AI generated contracts.

Never realized it, but somewhere it is funny they have such a weird fixation on lovecraftian concepts. With Land looking a bit like Lovecraft if you squint. (younger nick land I mean because that isn’t a recent picture).

Also an extremely good false positive rate

Don’t worry, the people who would go and accuse you of being a pedophile would do so with or without this tool. It would just give them faux legitimacy.

E: post + profile picture was a lol moment however.

The implication here that it isnt methodically flawed is quite something.

E: and I don’t have the inclination for to do the math, but a 97% accuracy seems to be on the unusable side considering the rate of ‘criminals’ vs not-criminals in the population. (Yeah, see also ‘wtf even is a criminal’).

The war on weird looking people continues. (The false positive/negative rate of this bs is immense. Wait a 69% succes rate? Ow god the false positives on that are going to be immense (even worse, the model works worse than random chance on a online game dataset, and then also the statistical uselessness of 69% due to low amount of pedos in general public isn’t even mentioned in the conclusions, toss this where it belongs, in the dustbin of history).

Ow wait you weren’t asking me to explain what I meant, you were asking me to defend the correctness of the professors in genetics vs a crackpot at an event where I wasn’t, nor am I qualified as im not a professor in genetics, nor is Yud, after I just mentioned that I don’t think unqualified people are talking about this. So you were trying the Socratic method? How is that working out for you?

The text you’ve just quoted

Yes, and im quoting the LW crackpot, they are not saying they are unwittingly wrong, it is hinting at that they are intentionally wrong. (Using some very dodgy analogies (no making a chicken bigger isn’t like creating a 14 foot human that is a crazy comparison due to the whole thing in biology where stuff works differently at different scales (see also the strength of ants), it is powerful hype language however) and unscientific shit (the random asspulled graphs)). Also note that his whole article is using their fears of AI to promote that we should do more eugenics (using the weirdest logic imaginable, we should take care not to make mistakes and do everything slow in AI so we need to do eugenics fast) and that the professors are wrong/keeping back. And this is just what I can come up with after quickly skimming parts of the article (I don’t have the time/energy/expertise to do more anyway, I mean imagine if I had to look up all the literature they reference and see if it is correct (all 5 of them, I mean you did notice that there were only ~5 links to actual scientific articles right? Not an amount of backing I would want to base my political actions on (you also noticed that right?))). It also hits classic crankery levels, not only are the professors missing/suppressing something this thing is also a revolutionary thing which could save humanity. (also note he admits that the technology of editing babies on one gene is not solved yet (but they are close). Which should make you wonder why they are dismissive of ‘ethical issues’).

It also doesn’t help that your reactions are pattern matching the ‘im just curious, could you explain yourself’ kind of person we used to get on r/sneerclub who 90% of the times wasn’t curious but actually was just very pro race science or an annoying contrarian debatebro with yt induced brain damage (which got them banned very quickly, so word of warning).

E: and ow, you did notice that people in the comments are trying to say they should the guy who was recently famous for being able to keep his arm down into this right? (Fucking Ents who are pretending that the rest of the world doesn’t affect them).