Yudkowsky denies the accusations! several thousand words in, and ten years after they were made
yes, that's his high-volume account, linked from @ESYudkowsky
Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on awful.systemshttps://x.com/allTheYud/status/1989825897483194583Open linkView original on awful.systems
48 replies
And it doesn't occur to him to look into the Zizians in order to understand how cults keep springing up from the group he is a major thought leader in? Like if it was just one cult, I would sort of understand the desire just to shut ones eyes (but it certainly wouldn't be a truth-seeking desire), but they are like the third cult (or 5th or 6th if we are counting broadly cult-adjacent group) (and this is not counting the entire rationalist project as cult). (For full on religious cults we have: leverage research, and the rationalist-Buddhist cult; for high-demand groups we have: the Vassarites, Dragon Army's group home, and a few other sketchy group living situations (Nonlinear comes to mind)).
Also, have an xcancel link, because screw Elon and some of the comments are calling Eliezer out on stuff: https://xcancel.com/allTheYud/status/1989825897483194583#m
Funny sneer in the replies:
Serious sneer in the replies
Convenience links:
https://www.polemics.md/that-time-eliezer-yudkowsky-recommended-a-really-creepy-sci-fi-book-to-his-audience/ (https://awful.systems/post/2972738)
https://www.polemics.md/that-time-eliezer-yudkowsky-wrote-a-rationalist-sci-fi-2/
Didnt the zizians also literally protest one of his events and got arrested for that? Or was that a different group they were protesting. Seems weird to not look them up at all. Very 'ideological turing test' failure levels.
Also funny that his logic would mean he doesnt look into Nelson Mandela.
E: also iffy he tosses the animal rights people (partially) under the bus for no reason. EA animal rights will love that.
Yeah, his rational is something something "threats" something something "decision theory", which has the obvious but insane implication that you should actually ignore all protests (even peaceful protestors that meet his lib centrist ideals of what protests ought to be) because that is giving into the protestors "threats" (i.e. minor inconveniences, at least in the case of lib-brained protests) and thus incentivizing them to threaten you in the first place.
He's been like this a while, basically assuming that obviously animals don't have qualia and obviously you are stupid and don't understand neurology/philosophy if you think otherwise. No, he did not even explain any details of his certainty about this.
Do you mean the retweets or actual replies? Because I'm not seeing any replies to his comment, even in xcancel.
It's in the quote tweets.
I found those quote searching xcancel for Eliezer Yudkowsky
Wha'the fuuuuuck
indefensible: voting for laws
sensible: gambling for laws
It makes total sense if you think markets are magic and thus prediction markets are more magic and also you can decentralize all society into anarcholibertarian resolution methods!
There's maybe still a concise social history to be written of how all this crap congealed together. I'm particularly interested in the overlap between the AI doomers, the ancap libertarian weirdos who wanted to nail down their economics as capital-S Science™, and even the online poker grinders of the 2000s who aspired to become statistical-thinking robots. I hesitate to say any of this is undocumented, because the reams of posts are still out there, but a Michael Lewis-style pop history of it all would be a hoot. I understand Elizabeth Sandifer has it all well-covered from the ideological angle, and Adam Becker's new book looks good too, but having something covering it from the forum/feed-poster angle might end up being the epitaph the movement deserves.
A Spider Robinson short story covers "is pederasty always wrong?" I think the topic was popular in American sci fi fandom in the late 20th century, Jerry Pournelle posted about it.
Yud is more comfortable using his position in the community to discourage people from taking LSD than discourage them from screwing much younger people or violating BDSM protocols. He has written many times about how he wanted to be treated as a credentialed adult when he was a precocious teenager, and about the roles he likes to take in BDSM play. He does not seem keen on the idea that a community's norms around high-risk behaviour will attract or repulse people who you really do not want in your community, he is more comfortable with asking "is LSD generally harmful to the individual person who uses it?"
This is the wildest ride of a tweet I've ever fucking read. Like seriously, I didn't expect a tweet with multiple paragraphs about how he doesn't like lsd or laws against it, to include him not liking age of consent laws but prefers living in a world with them to without them, a casual disclosure of how the underlying opinions behind all that relates to his bdsm practice, all to wind up with the tweet being about how he believes the zizians are wrong about him sleeping with an underage person.
Also he puts rationalist in quotes and asserts its what they call themselves as though he isn't one of the leading members of the ideology.
Hello Yud this is your lawyer speaking. I am advising you today to keep posting this shit
Dril jokes aside, posting this towards a deathcult who maximize reactions to imagined threats seems like a bad idea. Thankfully I think the zizians are gone as a cult. (I mean arent they in jail)
This from a man who runs an all-ages Discord to discuss his BDSM teacher-student AI-doom philosophy fanfic, including users who have identified themselves as minors
Christ, it’s nonces all the way down, isn’t it?
Guess who gave money to MIRI in 2009
what the fuck?? really??
age of consent quoting aside, why would you make it sound like you only follow this law because you want to live in a society
I understand where he probably got the neologism "glomarize" from (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Explorer) but his willingness to beat you in the face with it until you accept it is a big part of what makes his writing style so offputting. And, uh, this level of enthusiasm for specialized jargon continues to fail to overcome the cult allegations.
in the shipped club. straight up 'glomarizing it'. and by 'it', haha, well. let's justr say. My peanits.
Glomarizing is the new squanch
I dont smurf any of this.
One of the only reasons I'm hesitant to call Rationalism a cult in its own right is that Yudkowsky and friends always seem to respond to this element of cultiness by saying "oh, let me explain our in-group jargon in exhaustive detail so that you can more or less understand what we're trying to say" rather than "you just need to buy our book and attend some meetings and talk to the guru and wear this robe..."
I would say that the in-group jargon is more of a retention tactic than an attraction tactic, although it can become that for people who are desperately looking for an ordered view of the world. Certainly I've seen it a lot in recovering Scientologists, expressing how that edifice of jargon, colloquialisms, and redefined words shaped their worldview and how they related to other people. In this case here, if you've been nodding along for a while and want to continue to be one of the cool guys, how could you not glomarize? Peek coolly out from beneath your fedora and neither confirm nor deny?
I will agree that the ratsphere has softer boundaries and is not particularly competently managed as a cult. As you allude to, too, there isn't a clear induction ritual or psychological turning point, just a mass of material that you're supposed to absorb and internalize over a necessarily lengthy stretch of time. Hence the most clearly identifiable cults are splinter groups.
Fortunately the EA side is a little more on the nose sometimes.
One of my first wakeup calls was they offered to mail me a book for free🚩🚩🚩 (it was from 80,000 hours)
He knows that his flunkies will happily parrot his new toy words with no hesitation. To that I say, to all of Yud’s ideas and writing, I bartleby-the-scrivenerize them.
I don't see what the problem is. It's a perfectly cromulent word.
He very much wants you to know that he knows that the Zizians are trans-coded and that he's okay with that, he's cool, he welcomes trans folks into Rationalism, he's totally an ally, etc. How does he phrase that, exactly?
I mean, yes in the abstract, but would it really be so hard to say that MIRI supports trans rights? What other people do, when those other people form a majority of a hateful society, is very much a problem for the trans community! So much for status signaling.
He’s saying the loud part out quiet
Ow god im a fool, totally read over what that meant. Thanks, jesus fuck (and to think I mentioned the animal rights people).
I have never experienced semantic satiation immediately after encountering a word for the first time in my life, but the word "glomarize" somehow made it happen.
Death Note deleted scene:
Yagami Light: "No you see I couldn't possibly be Kira because if I was I would have replied to your inquiry with `I can neither confirm nor deny that I am Kira`!"
L: "Oh dang that's exactly what Kira wouldn't have not not not said"
Yagami Light: "... which BTW shouldn't be illegal in the first place and also I would give sufficiently needy 14 year olds LSD and this medicine I'm taking fell off the back of a truck."
Awkwardly reimplementing formal logic through obtuse fan fiction seems to be a core faith practice of these folks, so I think you're onto something here
Yudkowsky is the first person I have ever seen describe this as a load-bearing belief of the Zizians. Offhand, I don't recall the news stories about the murders even mentioning it.
What’s kinda fun is that Yud prefaces this with basically “i have not personally read up on the zizian texts”, and then follows it up with this stuff. Now, did he make this stuff up himself in a weird ego play, or did he hear it from someone else and decided to hold onto it, also as an ego play?
There is a mention of something that might be what Yudkowsky is on about in this Wired story:
This article doesn't make it sound so much like a "FOUNDING BELIEF"; lots of weird shit like the brain hemispheres business appears to have come first. But the much more interesting thing is at the end of the story:
(Archive link to Ziz's blog)
Hmm. Hm-hmmm.
not a load bearing belief, but one of the things Ziz was specifically pissed off about
Offhand as someone who read their websites out of morbid fascination just like I read all this stuff out of morbid fascination, it was indeed pretty important to them at least as presented on the internet
The bride at every wedding and the body at every funeral
Also just a very bad cult recruitment pitch.
If I was the leader of a community which had to expel someone for plying people with narcotics, having sex with them underage, and pushing them into extreme BDSM scenarios, I would simply not post that each of those acts is OK sometimes and its not my business to investigate them.
Bloomberg names the person I am thinking of and mentions the first and third accusations
Émile Torres asks,
Hasn't it lately become increasingly possible that the files of famous financier and MIRI donor J. Epstein will be finally released to public cognizance?
Well, he does appear in the files that have been released so far, but only in the most banal way; an entire book by Goertzel and another by Brockman were included somehow.
My "Will not confirm or deny whether involved in human trafficking" T-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt.
This reads a lot like an ixnay on the exualassaultsay admonition towards the broader rationalist community.
Yudkowsky : "I do not think attention should be a reward for crime" :: Siskind : "I’m not okay with giving [Kathy Forth] martyrdom"