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

I ain't reading all this. I don't even know who Yglesias is.

My first thought: Man, why the fuck does the numbering of the sections annoy me so much?

Second thought: Ok, I'm skimming this because again fuck all these words. Looks like he's trying to explore something about "master" and "slave" morality that I will not dig into because it's probably a bunk formulation of thought. Why does Edward Teach, the pirate, come up? The section did not appear to explain it.

Final thought: Okay, I think I was right not to read any of this. Essentially, it is just a paean to some truly terrible people (Tate, Hanania, Ayn Rand etc.) in the form of a shaggy dog story, with Nietzche referenced a lot.

Anyway, now I'm fighting the urge to get drunk on scotch, listen to "No Surprises" by radiohead and walk into the fucking ocean

Yeah while they’re at it, they should water cool the oceans.

Counterpoint: it’s not not a dating app

Here’s my cocktail suggestion:

50 Shades (Sam Bankman) Fried:

Ingredients:

• 50 different liquors/liqueurs, as many different densities and colours as possible

Equipment:

• Transparent cylindrical urn with spigot

Steps:

1. Sort the ingredients in decreasing order or liquid density.
2. Pour 1/50th of the container capacity of each liquid in order into container, slowly and carefully to retain layers.

(Do not actually make this)

Summary point 5 is fun.

I conclude that the rate of criminal behavior amongst major philanthropists is high

Great!

which means that we should not expect altruism to substantially lower the risks compared to that of the general population,

Ok, not super clear what “the risks” are here. One interpretation is that they are saying “just because someone donates money doesn’t mean they aren’t a criminal”, which is correct. But it’s not clear! Anyway.

and that negative impacts to EA’s public perception may occur independently of whether our donors actually commit crimes (e.g. because even noncriminal billionaires have a negative public image).

So close! Why do “noncriminal” billionaires have a negative public image? It’s almost as if legality isn’t the decider of morality!

Perhaps one day EAs will gain class consciousness and a sense of morality beyond an uncritical elision of ethics via utilitarianism; we aren’t there yet.

my reference point for this kind of extension is the one that changes “social justice” and “sjw” with “skeleton” and “skeleton warrior.” For example:

“sjws are taking over X” -> “skeleton warriors are taking over X”

Actually now that I’m typing this I hope there’s a good one for “woke”.

actually I found this ancient text online that helps explain everything:

Eliezer Monogatari, chapter 69:

On his mighty steed Oververbosity, Eliezer is fast approaching the cliff edge overlooking the dreaded Chasm of Unreadability. His desire to cram more words and IQfulness into his text has deafened him to the wails of the Ghost of Editors Past, begging him to at least paste into Google Docs and fix a few squigglies.

In a moment of rational brilliance, he casts Bayesian Reasoning and epiphanisationalises that he can Just Add Metainfo to every line, exponentially increasing his QLAWPW (quality of life adjusted words per word), making him The Greatest Author. His loyal mount leaps into the air over the abyss, buoyed by clouds of self-delusion.

Of course, he crashes and falls into the chasm. But what's this? The miasma of unreadability... it's more clouds of self-delusion generated by the cult of TREACLES! He rises, unscathed, head three sizes bigger than before.^1^

1: Scholars are divided on whether this is because the toxic miasma mutated his sense of self-worth or if he hit his head on the chasm floor and it swelled. We will never know.

Hey guys look it's the Scott whisperer, Mr. Beandog. Let's see what he's got for us today:

I’m not a fanboy

sure

or necessarrily agree with his argument

surely then, you wouldn't feel the need to 'splain it

but you’re seriously missing the point of what he’s trying to say.

oh ok

He’s just talking about how big, mediapathic events can unduly influence people’s perception of probability and risk

No, that isn't what he is saying, actually.

He doesn’t need actual real world numbers to show how this works, he’s just demonstrating how the math works and how the numbers change

He does, actually. You can't make fake mathematical statements about the real world and expect me to just buy your argument. He is demonstrating how the math hypothetically works in a scenario where he cooks the numbers. There is no reason why one should extrapolate that to the real world.

He isn’t trying to convince stupid people of anything, they aren’t his target audience and they will never think this way.

Oh ok. prior updated. Coulda sworn his target audience was morons.

Now I want Shark Tank but it’s all treacles luminaries. Wait that’s just the VC scene in silicon valley. Never mind

Ok, you do see that you’ve written a self-own, right? Because if you do, bravo, you can eat with us today. But if not, you’re gonna have to do some deep learning elsewhere.

OP putting the Large L in LLM