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 5 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Yeah it is interesting how much he fucks up and doesnt seem to notice. Like he doesn't realize he is talking to a journalist who knows he is being recorded.

(And how if this were a journalist looking for a hit job how much he would have failed. Im almost tempted to make an account on lw and post 'you did the king of the hill yall with the cult' meme, but I already made this joke here yesterday, and what was up with the "thats the joke" thing, hope that didnt land as awkward as it read. E: But just saying 'Davis, why do you think this was an interview, as it reads more like you defending lesswrong?' would be better, Davis seemingly speaks most of the time).