people without disposable income are now excluded

The article does say/link:

I’ve previously talked about how it may not always be ethical to require people to bet on their beliefs, and talked about how the interests of rich people could bias certain prediction markets

As for

The bullshit artist prevention also doesnt work

In the footnote it does say:

This doesn’t work for very longterm bets, and it also wouldn’t convince everyone, since conspiracy theorists still exist. Still, I expect it to be helpful on average.

Although there’s likely still an overestimation of how much it would help

get em while they’re hot!

1 April 2024

(also baller move to publish it on april fools)

Well naive bayesianism, as practiced by the rationalists. Bayesianism itself can be reformed to get rid of most its problems, though I’ve yet to see a good solution for the absent-minded driver problem.

This is another example of the dangers of wealth inequality. A lot of EAs tried to start a youtube channel (e.g.), but the only one that could get funded was this one, the one promoting bitcoins and charter cities. Now this is the largest EA channel, attracting more of those types and signalling clearly that if you want to succeed in EA you gotta please the capitalist funders.

I read the article, not a single mention of things like the research on stereotype threat in chess. I wish rationalists would crack open a sociology book at some point in their lives. They’re so interested in social phenomena, but while Less Wrong has a tag for psychology (with 287 posts), history (245 posts), and economics (462 posts), they seem unwilling to look at sociology for explanations, with it not even having a tag on LW.

Remember this: Sam Bankman-Fried encouraged Adderall use says ex-girlfriend Caroline Ellison in bid to avoid prison

How do you find these things? How do you read these things? I’m starting to worry about your health David; such a continuous stream of highly concentrated horseshit can’t be good for you.

This could be a sex thing or maybe they want young blood for their blood transfusions. Maybe they saw Marx’s criticism that capitalists were akin to vampires, sucking the metaphorical blood out of the poor, and thought to themselves: he’s right, we should take their literal blood too.

Some EAs have tried to make an “EA case” for cryonics, and I just want someone to comment on it: “But couldn’t you safe many more people by using that money to buy malaria bednets, or vaccines, or almost anything else?”

Yeah, I didn’t say he only makes those videos, just that he makes a lot of them

This guy has like a billion videos that are just some variation of “Here’s a tech bro startup making a gadgetbahn and here’s why it wouldn’t work and trains are a thousand times better”. Great that it exists, but since these startups never learn from others’ mistakes and thus keep making the same missteps over and over and over again, it makes the videos very samey after a while. Not sure what I would do in his position.

He wanted to be the foundation, but he was scaffolding

That’s a good quote, did you come up with that? I for one would be ecstatic to be the scaffolding of a research field.

I have a tremendously large skull (like XXL hats) - maybe that’s why I can still do some basic math after the testosterone brain poison during puberty? […] Now I’m looking at tech billionaires. Mostly lo-T looking men. Elon Musk & Jeff Bezos were big & bald but seem to have pretty big skulls to compensate

Mark phrenology off your bingo cards, Foppington’s law strikes again:

Once bigotry or self-loathing permeate a given community, it is only a matter of time before deep metaphysical significance is assigned to the shape of human skulls.

No no, not the term (my comment is about how he got his own term wrong), just his reasoning. If you make a lot of reasoning errors, but two faulty premises cancel each other out, and you write, say, 17000 words or sequences of hundreds of blog posts, then you’re going to stumble into the right conclusion from time to time. (It might be fun to model this mathematically, can you err your way into being unerring?, but unfortunately in reality-land the amount of premises an argument needs varies wildly)

Zack thought the Times had all the justification they needed (for a Gettier case) since he thought they 1) didn’t have a good justification but 2) also didn’t need a good justification. He was wrong about his second assumption (they did need a good justification), but also wrong about the first assumption (they did have a good justification), so they cancelled each other out, and his conclusion ‘they have all the justification they need’ is correct through epistemic luck.

The strongest possible argument supports the right conclusion. Yud thought he could just dream up the strongest arguments and didn’t need to consult the literature to reach the right conclusion. Dreaming up arguments is not going to give you the strongest arguments, while consulting the literature will. However, one of the weaker arguments he dreamt up just so happened to also support the right conclusion, so he got the right answer through epistemic luck.

It made me think of epistemic luck in the rat-sphere in general, him inventing then immediately fumbling ‘gettier attack’ is just such a perfect example, but there are other examples in there such as Yud saying:

Personally, I’m used to operating without the cognitive support of a civilization in controversial domains, and have some confidence in my own ability to independently invent everything important that would be on the other side of the filter and check it myself before speaking. So you know, from having read this, that I checked all the speakable and unspeakable arguments I had thought of, and concluded that this speakable argument would be good on net to publish[…]

Which @200fifty points out:

Zack is actually correct that this is a pretty wild thing to say… “Rest assured that I considered all possible counterarguments against my position which I was able to generate with my mega super brain. No, I haven’t actually looked at the arguments against my position, but I’m confident in my ability to think of everything that people who disagree with me would say.” It so happens that Yudkowsky is on the ‘right side’ politically in this particular case, but man, this is real sloppy for someone who claims to be on the side of capital-T truth.

The sense of counter-intuitivity here seems mostly to be generated by the convoluted grammar of your summarising assessment, but this is just an example of bare recursivity, since you’re applying the language of the post to the post itself.

I don’t think it’s counter-intuitive and the post itself never mentioned ‘epistemic luck’.

Perhaps it would be interesting if we were to pick out authentic Gettier cases which are also accusations of some kind

This seems easy enough to contstruct, just base an accusation on a Gettier case. So in the case of the stopped clock, say we had an appointment at 6:00 and due to my broken watch I think it’s 7:00, as it so happens it actually is 7:00. When I accuse you of being an hour late it is a “Gettier attack”, it’s a true accusation, but it isn’t based on knowledge because it is based on a Gettier case.

While the writer is wrong, the post itself is actually quite interesting and made me think more about epistemic luck. I think Zack does correctly point out cases where I would say rationalists got epistemically lucky, although his views on the matter seem entirely different. I think this quote is a good microcosm of this post:

The Times’s insinuation that Scott Alexander is a racist like Charles Murray seems like a “Gettier attack”: the charge is essentially correct, even though the evidence used to prosecute the charge before a jury of distracted New York Times readers is completely bogus.

A “Gettier attack” is a very interesting concept I will keep in my back pocket, but he clearly doesn’t know what a Gettier problem is. With a Gettier case a belief is both true and justified, but still not knowledge because the usually solid justification fails unexpectedly. The classic example is looking at your watch and seeing it’s 7:00, believing it’s 7:00, and it actually is 7:00, but it isn’t knowledge because the usually solid justification of “my watch tells the time” failed unexpectedly when your watch broke when it reached 7:00 the last time and has been stuck on 7:00 ever since. You got epistemically lucky.

So while this isn’t a “Gettier attack” Zack did get at least a partial dose of epistemic luck. He believes it isn’t justified and therefore a Gettier attack, but in fact, you need justification for a Gettier attack, and it is justified, so he got some epistemic luck writing about epistemic luck. This is what a good chunk of this post feels like.

Wait they had Peter’s arguments and sources before the debate? And they’re blaming the format? Having your challenger’s material before the debate, while they don’t have yours is basically a guaranteed win. You have his material, take it with you to the debate and just prepare answers in advance so you don’t lose $100K! Who gave these idiots a $100K?

people who are my worst enemies - e/acc people, those guys who always talk about how charity is Problematic - […] weird anti-charity socialists

Today I learned that ‘effective accelerationists’ like CEO of Y-combinator Garry Tan, venture capitalist Marc Andreessen and “Beff Jezos” are socialists. I was worried that those evil goals they wanted to achieve by simply trying to advance capitalism might reflect badly on it, but luckily they aren’t fellow capitalists after all, they turned out to be my enemies the socialists all along! Phew!