Strange man posts strange thing.
This linked interview of Brian Merchant by Adam Conover is great. I highly recommend watching the whole thing.
For example, here is Adam, decribing the actual reasons why striking writers were concerned about AI, followed by Brian explaining how Sam Altman et al hype up the existential risk they themselves claim to be creating, just so they can sell themselves as the solution. Lots of really edifying stuff in this interview.
Happy Valentine's Day everybody!
I think in their minds, there is this magical threshold below which all the brown and disabled people live, and once you get rid of all the people residing below that threshold all you have left is smart people who want to make the world better.
Only an EA could take seriously someone who approvingly cites journals like "Mankind Quarterly" and crackpots like Richard Lynn, Steven Hsu, Jonathan Anomaly, and Emil Kirkegaard.
The author considers himself a "rationalist of the right" and a libertarian who enjoys Richard Hanania and Scott Alexander. He describes ten tenets of right-wing rationalism, 8 of which are simply rephrasings of various ideas promoted by scientific racists. It would be an understatement to say this guy is monomaniacally focused on a single topic.
(Oh, and he publishes his brain farts on Substack. Because of course he does.)
She seems to do this kind of thing a lot.
According to a comment, she apparently claimed on Facebook that, due to her post, "around 75% of people changed their minds based on the evidence!"
After someone questioned how she knew it was 75%:
Update: I changed the wording of the post to now state: 𝗔𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝟳𝟓% 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘂𝗽𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻*
And the * at the bottom says: Did some napkin math guesstimates based on the vote count and karma. Wide error bars on the actual ratio. And of course this is not proof that everybody changed their mind. There's a lot of reasons to upvote the post or down vote it. However, I do think it's a good indicator.
She then goes on to talk about how she made the Facebook post private because she didn't think it should be reposted in places where it's not appropriate to lie and make things up.
Clown. Car.
People who use the term "race realism" unironically are telling on themselves.
The first comment and Yud's response.
One of the easiest ways to get downvoted on the orange site is to say anything even mildly critical of Scott Alexander Siskind. It's really amusing how much respect there is for him there.
I mean, of course he loves unfettered technology and capitalism. He's a fucking billionaire. He hit the demographic lottery.
EDIT: I just noticed his list of "techno-optimist" patrons. On the list? John Galt. LMAO. The whole list is pretty much an orgy of libertarians.
Roko's authoritative-toned "aktshually..." response to Annie's claims have me fuming. I don't know why. I mean I've known for years that this guy is a total boil on the ass of humanity. And yet he still manages to shock with the worst possible take on a topic -- even when the topic is sexual abuse of a child. If, like Roko, I were to play armchair psychiatrist, I'd diagnose him as a sociopath with psychopathic tendencies. But I'm not. So I won't.
I'm noticing that people who criticize him on that subreddit are being downvoted, while he's being upvoted.
I wouldn't be surprised if, as part of his prodigious self-promotion of this overlong and tendentious screed, he's steered some of his more sympathetic followers to some of these forums.
Actually it's the wikipedia subreddit thread I meant to refer to.