From: M. Taylor Saotome-Westlake Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 06:45:19 +0000 (-0700) Subject: grab some quotes using internet access X-Git-Url: http://534655.efjtl6rk.asia/source?a=commitdiff_plain;h=af2da8da479f1ac2ff32a00ac82bbd1b45f9676a;p=Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git grab some quotes using internet access I was sad and lazy today. I think I can turn it around tomorrow. --- diff --git a/content/drafts/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md b/content/drafts/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md index 7f3d746..8ef713e 100644 --- a/content/drafts/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md +++ b/content/drafts/a-hill-of-validity-in-defense-of-meaning.md @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@ So, now having a Twitter account, I was browsing Twitter in the bedroom at the r Some of the replies tried explain the problem—and [Yudkowsky kept refusing to understand](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1067291243728650243)— > Using language in a way _you_ dislike, openly and explicitly and with public focus on the language and its meaning, is not lying. The proposition you claim false (chromosomes?) is not what the speech is meant to convey—and this is known to everyone involved, it is not a secret. +> +> Now, maybe as a matter of policy, you want to make a case for language being used a certain way. Well, that's a separate debate then. But you're not making a stand for Truth in doing so, and your opponents aren't tricking anyone or trying to. —[repeatedly](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1067198993485058048): @@ -154,7 +156,7 @@ Satire is a very weak form of argument: the one who wishes to doubt will always If you were Alice, and a _solid supermajority_ of your incredibly smart, incredibly philosophically sophisticated friend group _including Eliezer Yudkowsky_ (!!!) seemed to behave like Bob (and reaped microhedonic social rewards for it in the form of, _e.g._, hundreds of Twitter likes), that would be a _pretty worrying_ sign about your friends' ability to accomplish intellectually hard things (_e.g._, AI alignment), right? Even if there isn't any pressing practical need to discriminate between dogs and cats, the _problem_ is that Bob is [_selectively_](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/) using his sophisticated philosophy-of-language insight to try to _undermine Alice's ability to use language to make sense of the world_, even though Bob _obviously knows goddamned well what Alice was trying to say_; it's _incredibly_ obfuscatory in a way that people would not tolerate in almost _any_ other context. -Imagine an Islamic theocracy in which one Meghan Murphee had recently gotten kicked off the dominant microblogging platform for speaking disrespectfully about the prophet Muhammad. Suppose that [Yudkowsky's analogue in that world](/2020/Aug/yarvin-on-less-wrong/) then posted that Murphee's supporters were ontologically confused to object on free inquiry grounds: saying "peace be unto him" after the name of the prophet Muhammad is a _speech act_, not a statement of fact: Murphee wasn't being forced to lie. +Imagine an Islamic theocracy in which one Meghan Murphee had recently gotten kicked off the dominant microblogging platform for speaking disrespectfully about the prophet Muhammad. Suppose that [Yudkowsky's analogue in that world](/2020/Aug/yarvin-on-less-wrong/) then posted that Murphee's supporters were ontologically confused to object on free inquiry grounds: [saying "peace be upon him" after the name of the prophet Muhammad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_honorifics#Applied_to_Muhammad_and_his_family) is a _speech act_, not a statement of fact: Murphee wasn't being forced to lie. I think the atheists of our world, including Yudkowsky, would not have any trouble seeing the problem with this scenario, nor hesitate to agree that it _is_ a problem for that Society's rationality. It is, of course, true as an isolated linguistics fact that saying "peace be unto him" is a speech act rather than a statement of fact, but it's _bizarre_ to condescendingly point this out _as if it were the crux of debates about religious speech codes_. The _function_ of the speech act is to signal the speaker's affirmation of Muhammad's divinity. That's _why_ the Islamic theocrats want to mandate that everyone says it: it's a lot harder for atheism to get any traction if no one is allowed to _talk_ like an atheist. @@ -364,7 +366,7 @@ Maybe that's why I felt like I had to stand my ground and fight for the world I As it happened, the next day, Wednesday, we saw these Tweets from @ESYudkowsky: -> [Everything more complicated than](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1108277090577600512) protons tends to come in varieties. Hydrogen, for example, has isotopes. Gender dysphoria involves more than one proton and will probably have varieties. +> [Everything more complicated than](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1108277090577600512) protons tends to come in varieties. Hydrogen, for example, has isotopes. Gender dysphoria involves more than one proton and will probably have varieties. https://quillette.com/2019/03/19/an-interview-with-lisa-littman-who-coined-the-term-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria/ > [To be clear, I don't](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1108280619014905857) know much about gender dysphoria. There's an allegation that people are reluctant to speciate more than one kind of gender dysphoria. To the extent that's not a strawman, I would say only in a generic way that GD seems liable to have more than one species. @@ -676,7 +678,7 @@ But if you actually _cared_ about not deceiving your readers, you would want to In [one of Yudkowsky's roleplaying fiction threads](https://www.glowfic.com/posts/4508), Thellim, a woman hailing from [a saner alternate version of Earth called dath ilan](https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/dath-ilan), [expresses horror and disgust at how shallow and superficial the characters in _Pride and Prejudice_ are, in contrast to what a human being _should_ be](https://www.glowfic.com/replies/1592898#reply-1592898): -> [...] the author has made zero attempt to even try to depict Earthlings as having reflection, self-observation, a fire of inner life; most characters in _Pride and Prejudice_ bear the same relationship to human minds as a stick figure bears to a photograph. People, among other things, have the property of trying to be people; the characters in Pride and Prejudice have no visible such aspiration. Real people have concepts of their own minds, and contemplate their prior ideas of themselves in relation to a continually observed flow of their actual thoughts, and try to improve both their self-models and their selves. [TODO: continue the quote to the part about Verrez self-awareness] +> [...] the author has made zero attempt to even try to depict Earthlings as having reflection, self-observation, a fire of inner life; most characters in _Pride and Prejudice_ bear the same relationship to human minds as a stick figure bears to a photograph. People, among other things, have the property of trying to be people; the characters in Pride and Prejudice have no visible such aspiration. Real people have concepts of their own minds, and contemplate their prior ideas of themselves in relation to a continually observed flow of their actual thoughts, and try to improve both their self-models and their selves. It's impossible to imagine any of these people, even Elizabeth, as doing that thing Thellim did a few hours ago, where she noticed she was behaving like Verrez and snapped out of it. Just like any particular Verrez always learns to notice he is being Verrez and snap out of it, by the end of any of his alts' novels. When someone else doesn't see the problem with Jane Austen's characters, Thellim [redoubles her determination to explain the problem](https://www.glowfic.com/replies/1592987#reply-1592987): "_She is not giving up that easily. Not on an entire planet full of people._" @@ -725,6 +727,8 @@ https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1404821285276774403 [TODO: And the thing where David Xu interprets criticism of Eliezer as me going "full post-rat"?! https://twitter.com/davidxu90/status/1435106339550740482 +> Also: speaking as someone who's read and enjoyed your LW content, I do hope this isn't a sign that you're going full post-rat. It was bad enough when QC did it (though to his credit QC still has pretty decent Twitter takes, unlike most post-rats). + ] diff --git a/notes/a-hill-email-review.md b/notes/a-hill-email-review.md index be7a907..33e38aa 100644 --- a/notes/a-hill-email-review.md +++ b/notes/a-hill-email-review.md @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ Email timeline— 16 Jan: Ben to me/Anna on old thread: esotericism is less of a problem if flagged 18 Jan: gender refugees, moral patiency, and BBL 29 Jan: me to Kay Brown: have you noticed LGBTQ/queer culture getting worse? +7 Feb: Messenger with "Wilhelm" about Rust All-Hands 8 Feb: me to Katie about Rust All-Hands 8 Feb: me to Ben and Michael about social competence 20 Feb: impulsive email to Scott (subject: a howl of despair which is nameless) @@ -50,6 +51,7 @@ Email timeline— 3 Mar: more draft, more thanks for social proof 5 Mar: Scott gets back to me 5 Mar: 12 short stories about language (and, expressing regret that I only email Scott when I need something from him) +6 Mar: to "Wilhelm" about anti-trans complaints against Anna 6 Mar: SJWs without guns doing this than you are about mostly white men with money, gavels and guns doing it? ... SJW agenda is to play by the same rules as the legal system plays by, and they do it with less support from tradition and from ritual, so it's more obvious, 6 Mar: much better draft to EY (defending against alt-right) 10 Mar: send revised draft to EY @@ -1127,4 +1129,104 @@ In the possible world where the parameters of male sexual psychology are such th To your second question, it might actually depend on how you operationalize "influence"! Notably, the campaign to trans MMB (whose parents met on lesswrong.com) is being run predominantly by AFAB people; they're just combatants in the service of an ideology that I don't think would have been so memetically fit if it weren't such a convenient accommodation for AGP. (At least, that's my theory under the doctrine of "algorithmic intent"; the people involved don't think of themselves as combatants in the service of anything.) -I think your reputation (in the jungle growing around the ruins of what we once called the "rationalist community") has some amount of instrumental value: most of why you were so useful to me during the Category War when everyone I trusted was fucking with me, is that I was leaning on you for internal social proof ("Michael thinks it makes sense that I'm murderously angry about this, and that makes me feel brave enough to keep harrassing Scott and Eliezer instead of quietly committing mind-suicide"), but that only worked because I had a cached reputation of you as one of the Old-Time Rationalist Elders. It seems unfortunate that you don't have the asset of that reputation anymore among today's jungle-dwellers. \ No newline at end of file +I think your reputation (in the jungle growing around the ruins of what we once called the "rationalist community") has some amount of instrumental value: most of why you were so useful to me during the Category War when everyone I trusted was fucking with me, is that I was leaning on you for internal social proof ("Michael thinks it makes sense that I'm murderously angry about this, and that makes me feel brave enough to keep harrassing Scott and Eliezer instead of quietly committing mind-suicide"), but that only worked because I had a cached reputation of you as one of the Old-Time Rationalist Elders. It seems unfortunate that you don't have the asset of that reputation anymore among today's jungle-dwellers. + + +----- + +7 Feb conversation with "Wilhelm" about Rust All-Hands + +M. showed people this funny Tweet on his phone: https://twitter.com/reduct_rs/status/1093599017303457793 and my uncontrolled facial expression was probably one of annoyance rather than mirth +ReductRs on Twitter + +https://twitter.com/reduct_rs/status/1093599017303457793 +> Man Who Finds ‘They’ Pronouns Confusing Has No Problem Calling His Computer "She" + +You sent +I don't know if he noticed; it's not like he was testing me for facecrime; showing ppl funny Tweets on your phone is just what everyone does. But maybe the little moments add up? +You sent +I lamented that the karoke machine didn't have the background lyrics for the part of "Prince Ali" where the women are fawing over Aladdin, and wokebro said that now that he thinks of it, the song is problematic, and I said, jovially, "It was 1992; it was a different time" +You sent +Obviously, no one is going to throw a fit over me casually defending the Disney films of my youth; that's not purity test material. But maybe the little moments add up, as people gradually get a read of who's sending what signals + +oh, I guess there was also a moment where I told the wife, "You're our only female vocalist; you should make sure to sing the 'Hope he doesn't see right through me' line in 'Be a Man' from Mulan", which I thought was an obviously innocuous/relevant comment (it was in fact the case that no one else had the voice for that part), I could imagine someone having a negative micro-reaction on the grounds that I was being exclusionary by calling attention to her sex, or because of counterfactual transphobia (I wouldn't have said that if there was also a trans woman in the room, which maybe makes it a bad thing to say even if there wasn't??) +You sent +that's sheer speculation; I don't know how the 2019 algorithm works; I haven't been downloading patches since 2009 + +except, oops, I'm unironically guilty of sexism by referring to the woman as one of the dev's wife, when she's a Site Engineer at GitHub in her own right and therefore deserves one-of-us Hacker status even if she hasn't been working with Rust specifically +You sent +you, at least, will forgive me + +----- + +to Wilhelm 6 Mar 2019 + +so much stupid drama among the "rationalists" +You sent +two non-passing MtFs are kicking up a fuss about my friend Anna allegedly discriminating against trans women, and people are taking this seriously +You sent +in contrast to my view (speaking only for myself; Anna is totally innocent) that statistically "discriminating" (i.e., using Bayesian reasoning) against trans women when hiring for a rationality org is just straightforwardly CORRECT + + +at least men's and women's bodies will make similar numbers of paperclips +You sent +where "similar" means Cohen's d around 0.9 + +8 Mar: + +watching television is different now that I have anti-prog antibodies + +on The Good Place (2016—), the neurotic philosophy professor character is black, and the idiot comic relief guy is Asian +You sent +I like Superstore (2015—) as a moderately-funny workplace comedy, but sometimes it veers into prog signaling in a way that just—isn't even well-done? (the most egregious one was when the disabled mulatto main-cast character is attracted to a woman at an anti-trans bathrooms protest, and is faced with the dilemma of, "She's hot, but her views are beyond the pale") + +Lauren Ash's character on Superstore is written in a behaviorally-masculine way that makes me swoon (in a world with magical body-swapping, AGPs would be this kind of woman), but Lauren Ash probably doesn't actually behave that way in real life + +[11 April:] Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1992–1999) got preachy ... like, three episodes in a seven year run + + +30 March +> The cynicism may not be misplaced? The language of allyship is not a credible signal (in the language of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory) of actually being an ally if non-allies can translate their agenda into that language and are incentivized to do so. + +he Liked it; as if you can get away with explaining the game theory of Havel's greengrocer as long as you frame it as "some greengrocers are actually enemies of the people" +You sent +"even if they have the sign up" + + +13 April + +> Another problem with the view that "how to draw category boundaries is based on subjective priorities" perspective is that it is solipsistic. Your priorities re the territory aren't something you can always dictate; sometimes the territory is dictating priorities to you, and you need to figure out the right categories to address this pressure. +> For instance, if you are a fisherman, you may not care about whether a dolphin is a fish: you can catch both in nets. But if you are a dophin breeder, then dolphins being mammals matters a lot more. +> In the case of dolphins, most people won't have to breed dolphins or house them, so they lack skin-in-the-game to care about the exact categorization of dolphins + +one possible failure mode of this marketing campaign is that people who saw the object-level culture war version "... To Make Predictions" will have an Absolute Denial Macro reaction, but people who see the meta-level version about dolphins will just be like "This is obvious; everyone already knows this, not worth upvoting or discussion" + +there's no way to win + +> Perhaps because they don't think they have skin-in-the-game + +EVERYONE has skin in the game of Bayesian epistemology!!! + +------ + +Discord conversation 23 Jan 2019 + +but I need the phrase "actual women" in my expressive vocabulary to talk about the phenomenon where, if transition technology were to improve, then the people we call "trans women" would want to make use of that technology; I need language that _asymmetrically_ distinguishes between the original thing that already exists without having to try, and the artificial thing that's trying to imitate it to the limits of available technology + +Kelsey— +what's wrong with 'cis women'? + +me— +it's _pointlessly obfuscatory_ +in this particular context + +Kelsey— +also, cis women get boob jobs all the time +the people getting surgery to have bodies that do 'women' more the way they want +are mostly cis women +cis women get labia reconstruction sometimes +cis women get tummy tucks +I don't think 'people who'd get surgery to have the ideal female body' cuts anything at the joints + +Elena— +"the original thing that already exists without having to try" sounds fake to me diff --git a/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md b/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md index cb15c84..5581d5d 100644 --- a/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md +++ b/notes/a-hill-of-validity-sections.md @@ -1,16 +1,9 @@ with internet available— -_ Quillette link placement in proton concession -_ did that Reddit comment cite "Kelsey" or "TUOC"? -_ quote from "Kolmogorov complicity" about everything being connected -_ citation/explanation for saying "Peace be unto him" _ address the "maybe it's good to be called names" point from "Hill" thread -_ quote part of the "Hill" thread emphasizing "it's a policy decision", not just "it's not lying", if there is one besides the "Aristotelian binary" Tweet -_ quote "maybe as a matter of policy" secondary Tweet earlier before quote _ 2019 Discord discourse with Alicorner _ screenshot Rob's Facebook comment which I link _ compile Categories references from the Dolphin War - far editing tier— _ edit discussion of "anti-trans" side given that I later emphasize that "sides" shouldn't be a thing _ clarify why Michael thought Scott was "gaslighting" me, include "beeseech bowels of Christ" @@ -27,7 +20,6 @@ _ Said on Yudkowsky's retreat to Facebook being bad for him _ explain first use of "rationalist" _ explain first use of Center for Applied Rationality _ erasing agency of Michael's friends, construed as a pawn -_ chat with "Wilhelm" during March 2019 minor psych episode _ mention the fact that Anna had always taken a "What You Can't Say" strategy _ when to use first _vs. last names _ explain why I'm not being charitable in 2018 thread analysis, that at the time, I thought it had to be a mistake @@ -933,3 +925,56 @@ she thought "I'm trans" was an explanation, but then found a better theory that https://somenuanceplease.substack.com/p/actually-i-was-just-crazy-the-whole sorrow at putting on a bad performance with respect to the discourse norms of the people I'm trying to rescue/convert; I think my hostile shorthand (saying that censorship costs nothing implies some combination "speech isn't useful" and "other people aren't real" is pointing at real patterns, but people who aren't already on my side are not going to be sympathetic) + + + + +https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1067300728572600320 +> You could argue that a wise policy is that we should all be called by terms and pronouns we don't like, now and then, and that to do otherwise is coddling. You could argue that Twitter shouldn't try to enforce courtesy. You could accuse, that's not what Twitter is really doing. + +https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1067302082481274880 +> But Twitter is at least not *ontologically confused* if they say that using preferred pronouns is courtesy, and claim that they're enforcing a courtesy standard. Replying "That's a lie! I will never lie!" is confused. It'd be sad if the #IDW died on that hill of all hills. + +> Acts aren't sentences, pronouns aren't lies, bathrooms aren't fundamental physical constants, and if you know what a motte-and-bailey is you're supposed to know that. +https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1067287459589906432 + +> I don't care whose point it is on this planet, the point I'm making would stand in any galaxy: You are not standing in noble defense of Truth when you ask who gets to use which bathroom. This is true across all possible worlds, including those with no sociologists in them. +https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1067187363544059905 + +------ + +https://twitter.com/davidxu90/status/1436007025545125896 + +I'm curious what might count for you as a crux about this; candidate cruxes I could imagine include: whether some categories facilitate inferences that *do*, on the whole, cause more harm than benefit, and if so, whether it is "rational" to rule that such inferences... + +...should be avoided when possible, and if so, whether the best way to disallow a large set of potential inferences is the proscribe the use of the categories that facilitate them--and if *not*, whether proscribing the use of a category in *public communication* constitutes... + +..."proscribing" it more generally, in a way that interferes with one's ability to perform "rational" thinking in the privacy of one's own mind. + +That's four possible (serial) cruxes I listed, one corresponding to each "whether". I could have included a fifth and final crux about whether, even *if* The Thing In Question interfered with rational thinking, that might be worth it; but this I suspect you would... + +...not concede, and (being a rationalist) it's not something I'm willing to concede myself, so it's not a crux in a meaningful sense between us (or any two self-proclaimed "rationalists"). + +My sense is that you have (thus far, in the parts of the public discussion I've had the opportunity to witness) been behaving as though the *one and only crux in play*--that is, the True Source of Disagreement--has been the fifth crux, the thing I refused to include with the... + +...others of its kind. Your accusations against the caliphate *only make sense* if you believe the dividing line between your behavior and theirs is caused by a disagreement as to whether "rational" thinking is "worth it"; as opposed to, say, what kind of prescriptions... + +..."rational" thinking entails, and which (if any) of those prescriptions are violated by using a notion of gender (in public, where you do not know in advance who will receive your communications) that does not cause massive psychological damage to some subset of people. + +Perhaps it is your argument that all four of the initial cruxes I listed are false; but even if you believe that, it should be within your set of ponderable hypotheses that people might disagree with you about that, and that they might perceive the disagreement to be... + +...*about* that, rather than (say) about whether subscribing to the Blue Tribe view of gender makes them a Bad Rationalist, but That's Okay because it's Politically Convenient. + +This is the sense in which I suspect you are coming across as failing to properly Other-model. + +· +Sep 9, 2021 +Crux: "If you say that Stalin is a dictator, you'll be shot, therefore Stalin is not a dictator" has the same structure as "If you say that trans women are male, they'll take massive psych damage, therefore trans women are not male"; both arguments should get the same response. +Zack M. Davis +@zackmdavis +· +Sep 9, 2021 +Thoughts on your proposed cruxes: 1 (harmful inferences) is an unworkable AI design: you need correct beliefs first, in order to correctly tell which beliefs are harmful. 4 (non-public concepts) is unworkable for humans: how do you think about things you're not allowed words for? + +https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1436025983522381827 +> Well, Zack hopefully shouldn't see this, but I do happen to endorse everything you just said, for your own personal information.