What happens when your spurned ex is a devoted archivist, a Wikipedia administrator, and perhaps the most online man the world has ever known?
I already thought he was cool you don’t have to sell me on it.
hey buddy, uh, you gonna post any sneers in this here SneerClub thread you’ve started?
previously, presently (this thread). also:
I regret to inform you that Trace is hate-reading awful.systems
I lack any concrete evidence, but wouldn’t it just be fucking hilarious
Show me a long-time English Wikipedia editor who hasn’t broken the rules. Since WP is editable text and most of us have permission to alter most pages, rule violations aren’t set in stone and don’t have to be punished harshly; often, it’s good enough to be told that what you did was wrong and that your edits will be reverted.
NSFW: When you bring this sort of argument to the table, you’re making it obvious that you’ve never been a Wikipedian. That’s not a bad thing, but it does mean that you’re going to get talked down to; even if your question was in good faith, you could have answered it yourself by lurking amongst the culture being critiqued.
Cool, it’s like any one of the thousands of rightoid whines about wikipedia and then it somehow devolves into even more boring nonsense which I’m not going to read especially since most of it was probably written by an LLM.
@Starseeder As someone with ADHD the only thing I find harder to cope with than the crazy, in-crowd bureaucracy of Wikipedia is attempting to read that mile-long polemic. Where do they find the time to write this shit?
I don’t know i had to skim it too. Its hard to see what point he’s trying to make. I can see why many of wikis choices are shit but he also seems to complain about takis magazine being removed witch just seems like a sensible choice. And he’s still up on his high horse about that conference where HBD people were invited to speak. They think “rationality” is about seeking heterodox thinkers but you don’t see anyone who believes in shit like miasma theory or any other discredited idea besides race there.
I’n not joking when I say he’s probably using an LLM to write this junk. It reads like it, and he’s already perfectly comfortable with illustrating his diatribes with embarrassing midjourney slop.
The bit about how the Bitcoiners won because the number went up is beyond parody.
I skimmed most of it once I had an idea of where this was going, and 13000 words of tone policing is just insanity. “The EA guys are great because they use moderate language and Gerald cackled at how Scott Star Alex had his life ruined by the extremist non-moderates at the NYT.”
It’s also hilarious because literally thirty seconds actually skimming buttcoin on reddit would have turned up that exact argument and its canonical rebuttals. Like, if he had wanted to actually engage with the central premise there (or on scientific racism, fascism, cults of personality, journalistic standards, etc) the necessary context and argument were right goddamn there.
I am well acquainted with this genre of article and I ain’t reading all that. Not bothering to be involved with this example was the obviously correct decision, even if Trace kept nagging after I’d already said “no thank you” (that famous rationalist grasp of consent).
This in the companion article caught my eye:
While I am not personally a rationalist,
Trace, I have some unfortunate news for you.
I regret to inform you that Trace is hate-reading awful.systems too & has posted this comment on their Twitter.
You’d think these people would have learned by now that there’s no upside in them spending their precious time on this earth obsessing over why a group of people don’t like them, but nevertheless here they are: drawn like moths to the flame.
There would be an upside if they could magically acquire some self-awareness, and reflect on why a whole group thinks their ideas are idiotic. Alas,
Yeah see also his denouncement of Roko’s Basilisk (ctrl-f the page), we know it wasn’t that important, the funny part was that it was a dumb rehash of Pascals wager, and that at the time Yud took is very seriously.
Wood also doesn’t seem to link to the actual Rationalwiki article which also makes clear that Yud doesn’t really believe in it (probably). It also mentions just how few (but above the 5% lizardman constant, so cause for concern, if they took their own ideas and MH seriously) people were worried about it. And every now and then you do find a person online who does take the idea seriously and worries about it, which is a bit of a concern. So oddly they should take it more seriously but only because it wrecks a small percentage of minds.
It is weird to not mention Yuds freakout:
Listen to me very closely, you idiot.
YOU DO NOT THINK IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL ABOUT SUPERINTELLIGENCES CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT TO BLACKMAIL YOU. THAT IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE THING WHICH GIVES THEM A MOTIVE TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON THE BLACKMAIL.
There’s an obvious equilibrium to this problem where you engage in all positive acausal trades and ignore all attempts at acausal blackmail. Until we have a better worked-out version of TDT and we can prove that formally, it should just be OBVIOUS that you DO NOT THINK ABOUT DISTANT BLACKMAILERS in SUFFICIENT DETAIL that they have a motive toACTUALLY[sic] BLACKMAIL YOU.
And pretend this was just a blip and nothing more. Mf’er acted like he was in Stross novel.
(Also after not clearly sharing the information about Roko’s Basilisks history, and we sneer at it, I came across this sentence: “then cites his pet article on Roko’s Basilisk directly while giggling about how mad it made Yudkowsky fans.” lol, no selfawareness there wood).
I regret to inform you that Trace is hate-reading awful.systems too & has posted this comment on their Twitter.
Surely out of the interest of Rational Fair And Balancedness, he will link back to this place in his article. Surely, he has already done so before I mentioned this.
