zogwarg

Vigorous mask-dropping very early on in the post:

The term "eugenics" has absorbed so much baggage over the last century that it somehow refers both to swiping right on Tinder when you see an attractive person and to the holocaust.

Not all dating is done with reproduction in mind. What are members of the opposite, or indeed same gender: baby synthesis apparatus? Unless you go out of your way in selecting blue eyed, blond haired people, restricting the definition of beautiful to these people, and restricting the teleology of tinder to the begetting progeny, how is it even remotely eugenics?

EDIT: Uncharacteristically for LW the post, was very short short, "very early" is actually about midway in a proposal of little substance, also choosing attractive partners doesn't guarantee ensure children anyway (unless using very specific definitions of beauty).

Ah, but each additional sentence strikes home the point of absurd over-abundance!

Quite poetically, the sin of verbosity is commited to create the illusion of considered thought and intelligence, in the case of hpmor literally by stacking books.

Amusingly him describing his attempt as "striking words out" rather than "rewording" or "distilling", i think illustrates his lack of editing ability.

~~Brawndo~~ Blockchain has got what ~~plants~~ LLMs crave, it's got ~~electrolytes~~ ledgers.

Am I the only one surprised they managed to enter the server rack room in the first place?

It’s not bayesian reasoning without actual math, and many beliefs are not so easily quantified under any statistical framework.

All it really offers is unwarranted confidence in one’s own rationality, often used in these circles to cloak nauseating positions.

Making ideas « pay rent », In these circles is also used for black-pilling people into rejecting common sense and humanity. It’s good to be skeptical of new ideas or new claims, it’s even good to analyze and synthesize your own beliefs, it’s a bit dangerous to say that every belief is negotiable, and to give the tools to others the tools to mould them (here be cult dragons).

Despite it’s flaws, it is a good opening to the Declaration of Independence of the US (not American myself): « we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are […] equal […] with certain unalienable rights »

You can’t get morals from stats, and some core ideals ought to live in your mind rent-free.

Don't forget the:

• Vile dose of racist ranting.
• Simultanously complaining about the elite, but then saying it's only because it's been watered down by the plebs.
• Vile understanding of "poetry" as status marker.
• Not going back further in time than 19th century, and extremely suspiciously marking the "height" of peotry between 1920a to mid-1960s, not at all coinciding with the civil rights act.

Thank you for reminding me how vile Moldbug is ? ^^

Not sure about the people who “are or think they are intelligent” being more susceptible to the con.

It feels like something one wishes to be true for karmic/poetic reasons rather than something that actually IS true.

I think good marks for the LLM con are more generally doubtful of the value of human intelligence/labour/education and/or tech positivist rather than true believers in their own intelligence.

The irony of crediting Moldbug with a potent explanation for bad poetry is rather amusing. It's almost a shame that Scott here cops out with a "The margins are too small for my proof", although maybe it is secret mercy.