I wonder if Scott is the person who stood up during Michael Levin's talk on (non genetic) bio-electric circuits storing morphological memory across time and said, “those animals can’t exist!”

Just like neuroscientists try to read out and decode the memories inside a living brain, we can now read and write (a little bit…) the anatomical goals and memories of the collective intelligence of morphogenesis. The first time I presented this at a conference – genetically wild-type worms with a drastically different, rewritten, permanent, target morphology – someone stood up and said that this was impossible and “those animals can’t exist”. Here’s a video taken by Junji Morokuma, of them hanging out.

Why protest when you could spend far less energy and just "not be wrong" and "have no stake" by over-fitting your statistical model to the past?

If I could sum up everything that's wrong with EA, it'd be,

"We can use statistics to do better than emotions!" in reality means "We are dysregulated and we aren't going to do anything about it!!!!"

I had a friend for many years who would do this. To be clear, this person was otherwise a decent friend and I had good times with them. But they would constantly declare, loudly, to everyone, how fat they were. They would make constant comments on how fat, their relatives were. They'd insist that other people were making special arrangements for them because of their fatness.

No matter how many times people would assure this person that we largely did not care or consider their weight as any factor in hanging out with them or interacting with them, they would deny it. No matter how many times I or anyone else carefully suggested that there may be some value in speaking to a therapist about their anxiety around their weight, they would not listen.

This same person would also complain how much fat shame society as a whole inflicts. But they refused to acknowledge their own.

It is sad, and infuriating, and it eventually pushed me and many other people away.

It's also, probably wrong. Modern views of intelligence (see Multiple realizability of cognition and Multi-level competency collective intelligence and Free Energy Principle models) suggest you are better of measuring intelligence by measuring it's metabolism or through perturbation and interactions.

Which isn't reductive enough for these people.

If only he were neither constrained by technical hurdles or resources, dang.

Maybe unpopular take here, but I love discord as an excellent fit for specific use cases. I think plenty of groups that should be web forums use discord wrong, but for several of my favorite communities:

1. They are better smaller, I don't necessarily want or need them to be discoverable aside from word of mouth.
2. They are better without search history, because the discussion is more ephemeral and personal instead of assuming that anyone is digging history in after hours
3. Ad hoc voice chat rooms is a useful boon because of exactly 1 and 2.
4. No ads. Yes I understand the privacy issues, but I would still prefer to have opt in subscriptions, no ads, and my chats are harvested than many alternatives for small communities that need to subsidize costs. (Again fediverse, if not ads, requires a buy in in terms of technical operational costs)
5. Trivial to build specialized addons in the case your community has a need.

Good examples for me are: Friend of Friend Groups for organizing dinners or parties Online gaming communities Book clubs Co-worker chat alternative to slack

"I'm LessWrong than you're implying!!!"

When, arguing with people like yudkowsky, you can never decisively 'win' or change his mind, because he and other doomers can quickly retreat to the classic hole: "You can't prove X is impossible!! Nature isn't already perfectly optimal!!!" Searching for some kind of "hard limit" on how nature or technology can evolve will always end up empty handed. Lots of really awful things are possible. (Lots of super fascinating things are also possible.) Searching for some singular hard reason why nature as it is, is totally safe from future threats or change will always end up empty handed.

Capability, is not interesting. Capability, is not the real test. Economics, is the real master of it. And specifically, the open system economics of the entire environment in which something is embedded. It's why the Voyager, a technology planned, built, and launched with 80 year old techniques and knowledge is SOTA for space exploration and contribution to science, and Starship is still just a huge dark hole for money and talent.

if I want to understand historical biology, I do not go looking for the alien intelligence and engineering capability that built it, I look for the environmental forces that contributed to, and eventually supported the homeostasis of, it.

Unfortunately such characters tend to dump stat WIS.

Yes, I agree. My personal thoughts are also that long term energy maximization is synonymous with regulatorial systems and dealing with the complications of energy use. Paradoxically long term maximization is defeated by any naive short term abuse. Only a naive understanding of physics supports the idea that you can simply, just produce and use more energy just like that.

Which is why theae takes don't mean, anything. It's a revelation to want money and do stupid without consequence.

Looking forward to when the grizzly bear grunts in his direction and he has to decide which reaction is the clear non consent one.