the second scott

this is low hanging fruit but: yeah absolutely rancid takes on the middle east from scootson. who would have thought he would produce such nuance-free, fascist opinions about geopolitics?

s/o to one of the comments basically saying that Scott is the Simone de Beauvoir of rationalism

It's probably been discussed a shit-ton already, but boy does this guy not get why he's a chud. Consider these two quotes, heavily edited for brevity:

I’m [...] a liberal Zionist, [...] etc. ([an identity] well-enough represented at LessOnline [...]).

and:

The closest to right-wing politics that I witnessed at LessOnline was [moderate politics].

Of course, one shouldn't expect s11n.blog to understand the fascist, let alone right-wing, nature of liberalism or Zionism. That is simply how fascists are.

Oh, that's a good angle too. Prompt the LLM with "what insights does this book have about B2B sales" or something.

take 2 minutes to think of precisely the information I need

I can’t even put into words the full nonsense of this statement. How do you think this would work? This is not how learning works. This is not how research works. This is not how anything works.

This part threw me as well. If you can think of it, why read for it? Didn’t make sense and so I stopped looking into this particular abyss until you pointed it out again.

I think the only interpretation of what this person said that approaches some level of rationality on their part is essentially a form of confirmation bias. They aren’t thinking of information that is in the text, they are thinking “I want this text to confirm X for me”, then they prompt and get what they want. LLMs are biased to be people-pleasers and will happily spin whatever hallucinated tokens the user throws at them. That’s my best guess.

That you didn’t think of the above just goes to show the failure of your unfeeble mind’s logic and reason to divine such a truth. Just kidding, sorta, in the sense that you can’t expect to understand an irrational thought process using rationality.

But if it’s not that I’m still thrown.

NBC/the media really killing it with painting him as a self-radicalised spook.

Science: “our current understanding of genetics leads us to believe IQ is not heritable”.

This fucking guy: “IQ is heritable and you just haven’t proved it yet. Citation: I belong to a race with good genetics, unlike you”

Second, is the more common "IQ isn't intelligence" trick. Sure, the measure doesn't encompass everything that is making intelligence, but it is still a somewhat interesting proxy as there is a high correlation between intelligence and IQ.

Any time you see something like this, what it’s really saying is:

IQ is intelligence to me and nothing you say can dissuade me. I just have a high enough IQ to write a disclaimer for plausible deniability.

See what’s really fun here is that once again the libertarians are blissfully unaware of their natural predator: bears.

The continuation of the stray cats thing:

One of these cats gave me fleas so I will no longer engage in petting stray cats

lol

She’s 35 and her sum total understanding of culture and race has lead to this. I think she has been effectively a Nazi from way back.