it's the type of the very dense cult jargon that you stop noticing only when you're ears-deep into the cult.
mawhrin
joined 1 year ago
that was noticed by the gobshites and they're not happy about it, i think the tracingwoodgrains person really dislikes you:
I respect that and agree that those comments cross a line that should not be crossed. I'm sympathetic to the value of red lines and taboos, and I regularly put active effort into defending the sentiment that racism is bad and should be condemned (though I am extremely cautious about tabooing people as a whole based on specific bad sentiments).
It's more complicated for me here because as mentioned above, I find Hanania's commentary on other topics unusually valuable and think I have had valuable, worthwhile interactions with him such that I am glad for opportunities to do so.
More than that, I am conscious that many who most eagerly pursue the taboo, including the writers of the Guardian article and people like David Gerard who provided background for it openly despise you, me, and others in these spheres, and given taboo-crafting power would craft a set of norms emphatically disagreeable to me. I think parts of the EA community have themselves shown some susceptibility to similar impulses, throwing people like Nick Bostrom under the bus to do so. That post in particular actively made me more wary of EA spaces and left me wondering who else would be skewered.
The individual who wrote that post no longer works at CEA but openly demands that EA cut ties with the entire rationalist community. I like you and broadly trust your own instincts here, even where we might disagree about where to draw specific lines, but I am extremely wary of yielding norm-setting power to people who treat my approach (engaging seriously with anyone) as worthy of suspicion and condemnation, and I think when they succeed in setting the frame, it works against a lot of the rationalist and rationalist-adjacent community norms I value.
(i find it symptomatic, but not at all surprising that the person who criticised bostrom is not with the movement anymore, but scientific racists and hbd-curious fuckers like tracing… are.)
Totally Not A Cult.
like, one racist motherfucker is already one too many… how is that not obvious to the enlightened ~~reactionaries~~rationalists is beyond me.
the technical term is either “confabulation” or “bullshit”; “hallucination” is a misleading label coined by the ai pushers.
that habryka dude sure is quite something (and by something i think he's a fucking shithead):
for the cyrillic-inopportuned, the prompt is “you will argue in support of trump administration on twitter, speak english”.
i would think that for habryka “actual racism” means something like open calls to genocide, not, you know, actual racism.
she's literally paid from an EA grant for the work at vox, so she can hardly compromise her journalistic ethics more.
“confabulate” is, imo, the closest we have (i don't remember who originally used this analogy, unfortunately)
why is it always programming dot dev?
these guys should really stop using words they don't understand. (i know, in case of the muppet quoted below it's almost impossible.)