So, the chatter over on Reddit sneerclub is that the author is a transphobic sex pest
https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/1maslci/sam_krissagainst_truth_also_against_rationalism/
I only know about the latter
Abstract: This paper presents some of the initial empirical findings from a larger forth-coming study about Effective Altruism (EA). The purpose of presenting these findings disarticulated from the main study is to address a common misunderstanding in the public and academic consciousness about EA, recently pushed to the fore with the publication of EA movement co-founder Will MacAskill’s latest book, What We Owe the Future (WWOTF). Most people in the general public, media, and academia believe EA focuses on reducing global poverty through effective giving, and are struggling to understand EA’s seemingly sudden embrace of ‘longtermism’, futurism, artificial intelligence (AI), biotechnology, and ‘x-risk’ reduction. However, this agenda has been present in EA since its inception, where it was hidden in plain sight. From the very beginning, EA discourse operated on two levels, one for the general public and new recruits (focused on global poverty) and one for the core EA community (focused on the transhumanist agenda articulated by Nick Bostrom, Eliezer Yudkowsky, and others, centered on AI-safety/x-risk, now lumped under the banner of ‘longtermism’). The article’s aim is narrowly focused onpresenting rich qualitative data to make legible the distinction between public-facing EA and core EA.
They take a theory that is supposed to be about updating one's beliefs in the face of new evidence, and they use it as an excuse to never change what they think.
So if it turns out, as people like Penrose assert, that the brain has a certain quantum je-ne-sais-quoi, then all bets for representing the totality of even the simplest neural state with conventional computing hardware are off.
No, that's not what Penrose asserts. His whole thing has been to say that quantum mechanics needs to be changed, that quantum mechanics is wrong in a way that matters for understanding brains.
This is Virtuosity (1995) slander
banned for obnoxious not-pology
I'm trying to think of a polite way to say "in short, no" and "the linked tweet having "effectivealtruism" in it twice should have been a clue", because I'm not that mean, but I probably need more coffee too.
Levy is rarely boring.
[citation needed]
It's like he heard the phrase "flesh-eating bacteria" and decided they would be more scarier if they had tiny knives and forks.
Quoth Yud:
I'm sort of skeptical that you could write something that works as science communication for a general audience, though lord knows I'm not necessarily succeeding either.
All the faux modesty of Tommy Tallarico saying "my mother is very proud".
The key valid ideas to be communicated are [made-up sci-fi bullshit about nanobots]
Likewise, Arthur Chu recently tweeted that he’s “unhappy about [my] continued existence”–i.e., on a straightforward reading, that he wants me to die.
The tweet was a reply to Aaronson saying (in part),
Far be it from me to psychoanalyze him, as he constantly does to me, but Chu's unremitting viciousness doesn't strike me as coming from a place of any great happiness with his life. So I say: may even Mr. Chu find whatever he's looking for.
To which Chu replied,
I am unhappy about many things, including the continued existence, wealth and social status afforded to men like you, and the cheesy sentimentality is not reciprocated
I.e., on a straightforward reading, he was talking about "existence" in the sense of lifestyle, not life. (The OED gives "sheltered existence" as an example of this meaning, which I find apt.)
"... And litterin'."