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

SneerClub

1182 readers
47 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
19
Zack Davis doesn't like NYT's Cade Metz comparison of rationalism to religion (www.lesswrong.com)
submitted 18 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.

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] corbin@awful.systems 2 points 4 hours ago

A word of rhetorical advice. If somebody accuses you of religious fervor, don't nitpick their wording or fine-read their summaries. Instead, relax a little and look for ways to deflate their position by forcing them to relax with you. Like, if you're accused of being "near-religious" in your beliefs or evangelizing, consider:

  • "Ha, yeah, we're pretty intense, huh? But it's just a matter of wording. We don't actually believe it when you put it like that." (managing expectations, powertalking)
  • "Oh yeah, we're really working hard to prepare for the machine god. That's why it takes us years just to get a position paper out." (sarcastic irony)
  • "Oh, if you think that we're intense, just wait until you talk to the Zizians/Thiel-heads/Final Fantasy House folks." (Hbomberguy's scapegoat)
  • "Haha! That isn't even close to our craziest belief." (litote)
  • "It's not really a cult. More of a roleplaying group. I think that we talk more about Catan than AI." (bathos)

You might notice that all of these suck. Well, yeah; another word of rhetorical advice is to not take a position that you can't dialectically defend with evidence.

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 8 points 9 hours ago

ZMD: […] What is the word "near-religious" doing in that sentence? You could have just cut the word and just said, "their concerns about AI", and it would be a perfectly informative sentence.

CM: My job is to explain to people what is going on. These are laypeople. They don't necessarily have any experience with the tech industry or with your community or with what's going on here. You have to make a lot of decisions in order to do that, right? The job is to take information from lots and lots and lots of people who each bring something to the article, and then you consolidate that into a piece that tries to convey all that information. If you write a article about Google, Google is not necessarily going to agree with every word in the article.

ZMD: Right, I definitely understand that part.

What’s fun is that ZMD doesn’t understand how someone could boil down the entire worldview of the rats from millions of words to just “near religious”, not only at the conceptual level of it being culty but also just on the level of efficiency of language.

[–] Amoeba_Girl@awful.systems 9 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

God, poor Zack doesn't know how to do anything but publish instances of himself getting owned

[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 5 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 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).

[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 8 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 10 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 10 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 3 points 2 hours ago

very not a cult phrasing

[–] fnix@awful.systems 2 points 2 hours 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 3 hours 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 3 hours ago

This is in the running for most LW comment ever.

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 6 points 6 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.

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 6 points 13 hours ago

Previous SneerClub mention of the Cade Metz story in question

[–] istewart@awful.systems 11 points 15 hours ago

Despite Mr. Davis' commitment to verbose apologetics, his faith movement is based around the devotional practice of wandering around pulling spurious probability estimates out of one's ass

A recent innovation on this practice, among the degenerate indulgence-retailers of the movement, is the posting of graphs showing hopelessly low-liquidity betting pools on prediction market websites

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 13 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Calling it "Religious" is a lot more friendly than the alternative of calling it delusional.

[–] YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 9 points 12 hours ago

Yeah. Better to call it religious and compare them to millenarian Christians rather than calling it science fiction and comparing them to literal toddlers in their inability or refusal to tell fact from fiction.