this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2025
17 points (100.0% liked)

SneerClub

1182 readers
46 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

See our twin at Reddit

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
self@awful.systems
blakestacey@awful.systems
dgerard@awful.systems
17
Zack Davis doesn't like NYT's Cade Metz comparison of rationalism to religion (www.lesswrong.com)
submitted 16 hours ago by TinyTimmyTokyo@awful.systems to c/sneerclub@awful.systems
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Excerpt:

ZMD: Yeah, that was actually my second question here. I was a little bit disappointed by the article, but the audio commentary was kind of worse. You open the audio commentary with:

"We have arrived at a moment when many in Silicon Valley are saying that artificial intelligence will soon match the powers of the human brain, even though we have no hard evidence that will happen. It's an argument based on faith."

End quote. And just, these people have written hundreds of thousands of words carefully arguing why they think powerful AI is possible and plausibly coming soon.

CM: That's an argument.

ZMD: Right.

CM: It's an argument.

ZMD: Right.

CM: We don't know how to get there.

ZMD: Right.

CM: We do not—we don't know—

ZMD: But do you understand the difference between "uncertain probabilistic argument" and "leap of faith"? Like these are different things.

CM: I didn't say that. People need to understand that we don't know how to get there. There are trend lines that people see. There are arguments that people make. But we don't know how to get there. And people are saying it's going to happen in a year or two, when they don't know how to get there. There's a gap.

ZMD: Yes.

CM: And boiling this down in straightforward language for people, that's my job.

ZMD: Yeah, so I think we agree that we don't know how to get there. There are these arguments, and, you know, you might disagree with those arguments, and that's fine. You might quote relevant experts who disagree, and that's fine. You might think these people are being dishonest or self-deluding, and that's fine. But to call it "an argument based on faith" is different from those three things. What is your response to that?

CM: I've given my response.

ZMD: It doesn't seem like a very ...

CM: We're just saying the same thing.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 8 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

But do you understand the difference between "uncertain probabilistic argument" and "leap of faith"? Like these are different things.

The lack of understanding that he is right here but only because the first sentence is not a sentence normal people understand, is jarring. (Metz is also correct in that these are saying the same thing). Just amazing.

He could say, 'i dont like you framing it as a religion" but that would give the objection away and also cedes the argument, as now it is about subjective framing. And Davis wants to make it feel like something else.

E: Metz must also be a bit confused, considering the stance of the Rationalist Scripture on cults (which was written in reaction to him writing an article): https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yEjaj7PWacno5EvWa/every-cause-wants-to-be-a-cult, and how it seems to hint at Yud fearing the place does become a cult. "This essay is not a catalog of techniques for actively pumping against cultishness. I’ve described some such techniques before, and I’ll discuss more later. Here I just want to point out that the worthiness of the Cause does not mean you can spend any less effort in resisting the cult attractor." And : "Cultishness is quantitative, not qualitative. The question is not, “Cultish, yes or no?” but, “How much cultishness and where?". (Prob one of the reasons Metz said the 'But you and so many others ... use the same language.' thing).

(Yes, im 'gotcha' quoting the bible at Catholics here).

[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 11 points 9 hours ago (5 children)

From the comments:

I believe that Cade knows perfectly well what everyone has been saying for years; he's being disingenuous because the object level doesn't matter to him, and the only important thing is ensuring that these weirdos don't get status. He's never once engaged on simulacrum level 1 with this community.

Simulacrum level 1.

[–] mawhrin@awful.systems 2 points 41 minutes ago

very not a cult phrasing

[–] fnix@awful.systems 1 points 1 hour ago

The irony being that rather than writing good SCP themselves, they'd make for even better subjects of containment & study.

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 3 points 1 hour ago

Simulacrum level 1 features the swimming pool, exercise room, business center and continental breakfast lounge. Vending and ice machines are available on simulacrum level 2. In the event of a fire, please exit the simulacrum in an orderly manner using the stairs, not the elevators

[–] gerikson@awful.systems 2 points 1 hour ago

This is in the running for most LW comment ever.

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 6 points 4 hours ago

I believe that Cade knows perfectly well what everyone has been saying for years; he’s being disingenuous because purging engrams through auditing doesn’t matter to him, and the only important thing is ensuring that these thetans don’t get clear. He’s never once engaged on operating level 1 with this community.