From: M. Taylor Saotome-Westlake Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2023 03:52:57 +0000 (-0700) Subject: poke at Eliezerfic tail X-Git-Url: http://534655.efjtl6rk.asia/source?a=commitdiff_plain;h=0aaf693c87c10abebea3331e1d0161d17fe060e4;p=Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git poke at Eliezerfic tail --- diff --git a/content/drafts/standing-under-the-same-sky.md b/content/drafts/standing-under-the-same-sky.md index 6248efd..94b2009 100644 --- a/content/drafts/standing-under-the-same-sky.md +++ b/content/drafts/standing-under-the-same-sky.md @@ -484,9 +484,18 @@ I think Yudkowsky saw the #drama messages (he left an emoji-reaction in the rele [TODO: summarize my admitting that it did have something to do with my state of mind; I would have done better by giving the 11th grade English class algorithm more compute; Peranza's username was 'not-looking-there'!; proposed revision] -[TODO: C.S. Lewis speech] +> so if you have an awareness of you in how people can be broken, where it's possible to redirect them into infinite loops, how they can be induced to press the anger button over and over, then you can perhaps see how somebody setting out to break Zack Davis would get him to focus on truth-telling rather than truth-seeking. for the Way of searching out truth within yourself is one of calm, balance, questioning not 'what society tells you' but also your own thoughts, and also sometimes answering those questions and moving on to different ones; the operation, not of firmly rooting your feet, nor finding somewhere to hover forever uncertainly in place and immovable in that proud ignorance, but of picking up your feet and putting them back down, over and over, the uncomfortable operation of not staying in the same mental place, which most people find some way or another to reject. it valorizes calm, and balance, and these are not useful states of mind to people who would like you frantically doing something useful to them. +> when you get somebody to turn outward and away from Reality and towards their fellow monkeys and focus on truth-telling, then, their fellow monkeys being imperfect, there will always be something in which to explode into fury; so this is a useful state of mind to inculcate in somebody, lending itself to constant outrage at a world where somebody has once said a thing that if you look at it hard could be misleading or teach the wrong lesson, it misled you, how dare they! +> so by all means if you would like to destroy a rationalist, teach them anger and focus it on others' imperfect conformance to the principles they were once taught to hold dear to themselves +> see also C. S. Lewis, "The Screwtape Letters", which I keep thinking I ought to rewrite and have an unfinished draft in whose voice I was speaking +> now, this is not to say that you should not notice when other people are falling down about things +> nor that you should not speak of it when you notice -I said that I thought it was significant that the particular problem to which my Art had been shaped (in some ways) and misshaped (in others) wasn't just a matter of people being imperfect. Someone at the 2021 Event Horizon Independence Day party had told me that people couldn't respond to my arguments because of the obvious political incentives. And I guessed—the angry question I wanted to ask, since I didn't immediately know how to rephrase it to not be doing the angry monkey thing was, was I supposed to _take that lying down?_ +... and you know, that was a fair criticism of me. It _is_ unhealthy to focus on other people's errors rather than perfecting oneself! I'm optimistic about rectifying this after I've gotten this Whole Dumb Story out of my system—to retire from this odious chore of criticizing "the community", and just go directly do the thing that I thought "the community" was for. (In the time we have left.) + +But as I pointed out, it was significant that the particular problem to which my Art had been shaped (in some ways) and misshaped (in others) wasn't just a matter of people being imperfect. Someone at the 2021 Event Horizon Independence Day party had told me that people couldn't respond to my arguments because of the obvious political incentives. And so, the angry question I wanted to ask, since I didn't immediately know how to rephrase it to not be doing the angry monkey thing, was, did Yudkowsky think I was supposed to _take that lying down?_ + +Apparently, yes: **Eliezer** — 12/17/2022 5:50 PM you sure are supposed to not get angry at the people who didn't create those political punishments @@ -504,11 +513,13 @@ Admirably explicit. The fact that Yudkowsky had been replying to me at length—explaining why my literary criticism was nuts, but in a way that respected my humanity and expected me to be able to hear it—implied that I was apparently in his "I can cheaply save him (from crazy people like Michael)" bucket, rather than the "AI timelines and therefore life is too short" bucket.] -[TODO: I think it's weird that Yudkowsky's reaction is "that's insane"; he should be able to understand why someone might consider this a betrayal, even if he didn't think he was bound to that level of service; the story of a grant-making scientist] +It was odd that Yudkowsky's reaction to my complaints was (verbatim!) "that's insane", rather than something more like, "OK, I totally see why you see this as a betrayal, but unfortunately for you, I don't actually consider myself bound by what you thought I was promising." + +[TODO: the story of a grant-making scientist] [TODO: I bait Lintamande into engagement] -[TODO: Linta says I'm impossible to talk to and the anticipation of my pouncing stiffles discussion. (I almost wonder if this is a good thing, from a _realpolitik_ perspective? I'd prefer to argue people out of bad ideas, but if the threat of an argument disincentivizes them from spreading ...? Game theory goes both ways—I've been self-censoring to.)] +[TODO: Linta says I'm impossible to talk to and the anticipation of my pouncing stiffles discussion. (I almost wonder if this is a good thing, from a _realpolitik_ perspective? I'd prefer to argue people out of bad ideas, but if the threat of an argument disincentivizes them from spreading ...? Game theory goes both ways—I've been self-censoring, too.)] [TODO: I agreed that this was good feedback about my social behavior; I don't intellectually disagree that different cultures are different; I'm super-fighty because I'm super-traumatized; the thing I'm trying to keep on Society's shared map is, Biological Sex Actually Exists and Is Sometimes Decision-Relevant; Biological Sex Actually Exists and is Sometimes Decision-Relevant Even When It Makes People Sad; Biological Sex Actually Exists Even When a Prediction Market Says It Will Make People Sad; Linta agrees; Eliezer responds with a +1 emoji]