I definitely learned a lot from Yudkowsky. And he taught me something, the fundamental question of the rationalist: "What do you think you know and how do you think you know it?" This sticks in my head anytime I read stories like this. It should not be hard to answer this question! In fact, it's great practice to do so on intervals -- maybe not every week or you'll just rehearse your memorized answer, but more often than once a year.
Vegan advocates in particular have been criticized in the rationality community for insufficient truth-seeking. It would behoove us to try asking each other and ourselves this question more often.
The most disruptive voices are the ones who publicly attack others, while those who prefer maintaining unity typically get pushed to the sidelines with no meaningful way to respond. Understanding this dynamic, and the publicly unopposed push of the toxicity, purity tests that hijack movements function as just another threshold phenomena (AKA "the 3.5% rule") as applied within the confines of the movement itself.
Without strong, focused leadership, it's a mathematical inevitability that such threshold phenomena will derail and corrupt growing nonviolent movements* long before they achieve the scale needed for broad societal change. Grassroots movement still need effective chaperones lest they decay under the arrow of social entropy, and (ironically) collapse under their own theories of social change.
* Clarification: I am not claiming that "Free Palestine" was ever nonviolent.
Is it that the AI kingpin wants news to tell people what to do, not tell them what is going on in the world, not put credibility on the table at all. Does this put AI instruction training in the area of Joseph Bernaysian training of public gullibility? Destruction of cultural records from before a religion's founding?
(Thanks for the shout!)
I definitely learned a lot from Yudkowsky. And he taught me something, the fundamental question of the rationalist: "What do you think you know and how do you think you know it?" This sticks in my head anytime I read stories like this. It should not be hard to answer this question! In fact, it's great practice to do so on intervals -- maybe not every week or you'll just rehearse your memorized answer, but more often than once a year.
Vegan advocates in particular have been criticized in the rationality community for insufficient truth-seeking. It would behoove us to try asking each other and ourselves this question more often.
love this.
The most disruptive voices are the ones who publicly attack others, while those who prefer maintaining unity typically get pushed to the sidelines with no meaningful way to respond. Understanding this dynamic, and the publicly unopposed push of the toxicity, purity tests that hijack movements function as just another threshold phenomena (AKA "the 3.5% rule") as applied within the confines of the movement itself.
Without strong, focused leadership, it's a mathematical inevitability that such threshold phenomena will derail and corrupt growing nonviolent movements* long before they achieve the scale needed for broad societal change. Grassroots movement still need effective chaperones lest they decay under the arrow of social entropy, and (ironically) collapse under their own theories of social change.
* Clarification: I am not claiming that "Free Palestine" was ever nonviolent.
Is it that the AI kingpin wants news to tell people what to do, not tell them what is going on in the world, not put credibility on the table at all. Does this put AI instruction training in the area of Joseph Bernaysian training of public gullibility? Destruction of cultural records from before a religion's founding?