titotal

Thanks! I strive for accuracy, clarity, humility, and good faith. Aka, everything I learned not to do from reading the sequences.

If you want more of this, I wrote a full critique of his mangled intro to quantum physics, where he forgets the whole "conservation of energy" thing.

My impression is that the toxicity within EA is mainly concentrated in the bay area rationalists, and in a few of the actual EA organizations. If it's just a local meetup group, it's probably just going to be some regular-ish people with some mistaken beliefs that are genuinely concerned about AI.

Just be polite and present arguments, and you might actually change minds, at least among those who haven't been sucked too far into Rationalism.

Obvious reminder: do not assume that anonymous tumblr posts are accurate. (this is the only post the tumblr account made).

Has anyone attempted a neutral unpacking of the mess of claims and counterclaims around Ziz and related parties?

I roll a fair 100 sided dice.

Eliezer asks me to state my confidence that I won't roll a 1.

I say I am 99% confident I won't roll a 1, using basic math.

Eliezer says "AHA, you idiot, I checked all of your past predictions and when you predicted something with confidence 99%, it only happened 90% of the time! So you can't say you're 99% confident that you won't roll a 1"

I am impressed by the ability of my past predictions to affect the roll of a dice, and promptly run off to become a wizard.

As a physicist, this quote got me so mad I wrote an excessively detailed debunking a while back. It's staggeringly wrong.