I'm sure ol' Petey Tooter has done the calculus to justify why it's worth pouring out a gallon of water every time someone wants to use a worse ctrl+f on his collected works.
Honestly that’s an edit distance of like 2 from too many trashy harem isekai
Welcome! Please leave.
ah you see cryonics does increase life expenctancy, i.e. E(life length). As long as P(cryobubonics works) > 0, which, according to Yudkowskian Probability Theory, is true for any probability, then E(life length) = infinity, since cryonica will let us live forever /big fat fucking S
I initially deleted this because these ideas aren’t really that fascist, so I was gonna take a second pass. Then I remembered that thinking of fascist ideas makes me feel awful so here we are.
If Yud did his cult sermons IRL:
yud walks out onto stage, wearing a hat with a 🚫 sign with a period under it
Crowd: “Leader is wearing the silly hat!!! It’s a silly sermon! Prepare to laugh!!!!”
Yud: “There should be a gulag for low IQ people and Swedes!”
Crowd: “Amazing joke, leader! We must now justify the humor!!!”
There are some follow up tweets.
To the commenters shocked that Zvi’s probability numbers don’t come from an “objective calculation”:
Not shocked. At this point I am numb to it though.
- Approximating numerical probabilities is required if you want to make coherent decisions.
Average bayesist when they need to pee:
“Hmm, I suspect I need to pee. The decision I now must make is whether or not I should use my toilet or my sink.”
half an hour of examining priors, searching LW for urination sequences and setting up a prediction market later
“Hmm, it appears I have peed my pants.”
- Probability is subjective (a property of our belief-state) for us Bayesians.
Oh my god, he admit it!
Is it just me or does the author just… not really spend any time trying to defend forced birth? Like, other than quoting counterarguments to abortion defences. It’s like he’s sort of assuming everyone already has ideas about why abortion itself is bad, but find it permissible for whatever reason. Is this a correct characterisation of the EA community? That they all harbour anti-abortion sentiment but for whatever reason permit abortion?
Overall it reads like a business proposal. Is this how you’re supposed to talk to an EA person? Instead of saying “here is why you should care about x”, you have to pitch them on the potential ROI of caring about something? If so, that’s a fucking frustrating way to think about the world, and this was a fucking awful article to read, just like every other treacles-y long form logorrhoea you get from these people.
It's cute how Yud is trying to construct a dichotomy between EA AI X-riskers and e/acc AI chuds like Andreessen, as if one side is correct and the other isn't. Call me a centrist if you like: both sides bad.
Being a doomsday cult leader who denies being a cult leader must be hard. On one hand, you always need to say the end is nigh. On the other hand, if something resembling your foretold end appears, you need to downplay its apocalyptic potential while also praising it as a harbinger of the one true apocalypse. You must find the right balance so that your believers adhere to their faith, lest you lose your power source. Sounds exhausting!
Ok I figured out how to salvage it. People come on and pitch sensible business ideas that get shot down. We’d also get quotes like:
Aella: “If I take on an advisory role, will I be required to shower?”
Pinker: draws line up and to the right on graph “This problem is already as good as solved. I don’t see why any action on my part is necessary.”
EY: “You do not think in sufficient detail, and for that reason, I’m out.”
swlabr
joined 2 years ago
Haven’t read the article yet but I can only assume the book is “Lolita X” where they find the cryonically frozen body of humbert humbert and they bring him to space