this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

SneerClub

989 readers
3 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] swlabr@awful.systems 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I constantly experience [the Gell-Mann amnesia] effect on this subreddit; everyone sounds so smart and so knowledgeable until they start talking about the handful of things I know a little bit about (leftism, the arts, philosophy) and they’re so far off the mark — then there’s another post and I’ve forgotten all about it

Bias noted, impact not reduced. Basic rationality failed. These people are so willing to discard their own sense of right and wrong, moral or rational, just to belong in their weird cult. Why is it so hard for these dorks to admit that they don't actually care about being smart or rational and that they just want a bunch of other dorks to be friends with?

[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 1 points 1 year ago

Why is it so hard for these dorks to admit that they don’t actually care about being smart or rational and that they just want a bunch of other dorks to be friends with?

because that'd involve talking about feelings, and those are the domain of weird squishy gooey human things, disgusting! :sarcmark:

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 1 points 1 year ago

Why is it so hard for these dorks to admit that they don't actually care about being smart or rational and that they just want a bunch of other dorks to be friends with?

Do they just want some likemindedly dorky friends, or a sense of superiority over the normies/NPCs/whatever they call everyone else, complete with extensively footnoted justifications for why they are the cognitive aristocracy?

[–] corbin@awful.systems 1 points 1 year ago

At risk of going NSFW, it's obvious that none of these folks have read Singer 1971, which is the paper that kickstarted the EA movement. This paper's argument has a massive fucking hole right in the middle.

Without cracking open the paper, I seem to recall that it is specifically about Oxfam and famine in Africa. The central claim of the paper is that everybody should donate to Oxfam. However, if one is an employee of Oxfam, then suddenly the utilitarian arithmetic fails; his argument only allows for money going from non-Oxfam taxpayers to Oxfam employees.

Can't help but notice how the main problem with EA charities is the fucking nepotism. Almost as if the EA movement rests on a philosophical foundation of ignoring when charities employ friends of donors.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For a subreddit of supposedly ultra rational, dispassionate intellectuals that are willing to consider any ideas for merit based on pure argument and ignoring the speaker they sure do spend a lot of words talking about the kind of man Robert is vs what he actually says in the ep.

[–] gerikson@awful.systems 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

My rational analysis — Your emotional reaction

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 1 points 1 year ago

I have priors
You have biases
She is toxoplasmotic SJW filth