200fifty

I'm just wondering how exactly he goes about doing this. Like if I wanted to casually slip the N word into a casual conversation (for... some reason) I'm not actually sure how I would go about setting it up?

Like, is he just randomly saying it at people to see how they react (which most normies rightfully would judge as very weird)? Is he using it to describe actual black people (in which case I feel like people dropping him as a friend aren't really doing it over "speech taboos", are they...)? Is he asking people "so how do you feel about the word 'n.....'?" Something else? My curiosity is piqued now.

The whole idea of "IQ correlates with income, so we can eliminate poverty by genetically increasing people's IQ" seems particularly stupid to me. Like, what do you think is the actual reason that IQ correlates with income? Is it because the magical money fairies give you more money the smarter you are? Also, IQ is a normed measure anyway, so the average is always 100 and there's always the same number of people with each score... agh, it's dumb for so many reasons

edit: wait, sorry, it's actually stupider than I thought:

Elites play a disproportionate role in the economic productivity of nations because they occupy important roles in government and business. If one is interested in increasing economic output and creating better institutions, it would be wise to drastically improve the size and abilities of the elite.... In an effort to empirically investigate this question, Carl and Kirkegaard (2022)investigated the benefit of the top 5% independent of the average national IQ level and found additional benefits beyond the benefit from the average IQ. This is fortunate, considering the most likely scenario is that elites adopt the technology more rapidly than the population at large. Government subsidies and low costs would ameliorate the issue of inequality.

Literally just trickle down IQnomics

of all the ways we’ve tried so far, Substack is working the best.

The sheer arrogance of this quote is really something to behold. It's "working the best" by what metric, exactly, sir? And who's the "we" that have tried various ways so far, because it's certainly not 'people on the internet,' many of whom have developed ways of dealing with Nazis which are significantly more effective than the substack method of 'literally give them money to use our platform'

When I was a kid (Nat Nanny)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Nanny] was totally and completely lame, but the whole millennial generation grew up to adore content moderation. A strange authoritarian impulse.

Me when the mods unfairly ban me from my favorite video game forum circa 2009

(source: first HN thread)

we simply don't know how the world will look if there are a trillion or a quadrillion superhumanly smart AIs demanding rights

I feel like this scenario depends on a lot of assumptions about the processing speed and energy/resource usage of AIs. A trillion is a big number. Notably there's currently only about 0.8% this number of humans, who are much more energy efficient than AIs.

even putting aside philosophy/ethics, have they never heard of common expressions like "too much of a good thing" or "the dose makes the poison"? it's just an extremely, extremely common idea basically everywhere except in the tech industry

Feel like the very beginning of this is not completely crazy (I've also thought in the past that straight people often perform "attractiveness" more for the approval of their same-sex friends) but it seems to kind of jump off the evo-psych deep end after that, lol

Also you can't build a bunch of assumptions about "we should organize society this way" while ignoring the existence of LGBT people, and then go "yeah I know I ignored them but it simplified my analysis." Like yeah it simplifies the analysis to ignore a bunch of stuff that actually exists in reality, but... then that means maybe your conclusions about how to structure society are wrong??

edit: also this quote is choice:

I don't know if this really happens. But even if not, the fiction does a great job of highlighting the dynamic I'm thinking of.

It's like pickup artistry on a societal scale.

It really does illustrate the way they see culture not as, like, a beautiful evolving dynamic system that makes life worth living, but instead as a stupid game to be won or a nuisance getting in the way of their world domination efforts

Is this a correct characterisation of the EA community? That they all harbour anti-abortion sentiment but for whatever reason permit abortion?

I actually wouldn't be surprised if this were the case -- the whole schtick of a lot of these people is "worrying about increasing the number of future possibly-existing humans, even at the cost of the suffering of actually-existing humans", so being anti-abortion honestly seems not too far out of their wheelhouse?

Like I think in the EAverse you can just kinda go "well this makes people have less kids which means less QALYs therefore we all know it's obviously bad and I don't really need to justify it." (with bonus internet contrarian points if you are justifying some terrible thing using your abstract math, because that means you're Highly Decoupled and Very Smart.) See also the quote elsewhere in this thread about the guy defending child marriage for similar reasons.

I think he means script as in, literally a series of lines to say to your doctor to magically hack their brain into giving you the prescription you need (gee, I wonder how these people ever got into pickup artistry!), not a script as in prescription. I think it's not about cost, it's about doctors... prescribing you the wrong thing for some reason so you have to lie to them to get the correct medication? Is this some conspiracy theory I'm not aware of, lol

"We are told that technology is helping redistribute wealth from the common people to a small subset of extremely rich men. But, as an extremely rich man, I don't really understand why this is a bad thing? Technology seems pretty cool to me!"

since we both have the High IQ feat you should be agreeing with me, after all we share the same privileged access to absolute truth. That we aren’t must mean you are unaligned/need to be further cleansed of thetans.

They have to agree, it's mathematically proven by Aumann's Agreement Theorem!