zogwarg

I think a big difference between Thiel and Musk, is that Thiel views himself as an "intellectual" and derives prestige "intellectualism". I don't believe for a minute he's genuinely christian, but his wankery about end-of-times eschatology of armageddon = big-left-government, is a a bit too confused to be purely cynical, I think sniffing his own farts feeds his ego.

Of course a man who would promote open doping olympics isn't sober.

I'm under the impression that he essentially stated as much, though i'm a bit too lazy to go quote mining.

Oof on the part of the author though:

Eliezer Yudkowsky: Nope.

Algernoq (the blogpost author): I assume this is a "Nope, because of secret author evidence that justifies a one-word rebuttal" or a "Nope, you're wrong in several ways but I have higher-value things to do than retype the sequences". (Also, it's an honor; I share your goal but take a different road.) [...]

Richard_Kennaway: What goal do you understand yourself to share with Eliezer, and what different road?

Algernoq: I don't deserve to be arrogant here, not having done anything yet. The goal: I had a sister once, and will do what I can to end death. The road: I'm working as an engineer (and, on reflection, failing to optimize) instead of working on existential risk-reduction. My vision is to build realistic (non-nanotech) self-replicating robots to brute-force the problem of inadequate science funding. I know enough mechanical engineering but am a few years away from knowing enough computer science to do this.

And the extension of this to characters, and I don't actually remember at this point, if this exact way of phrasing it is original to me or not, is that you might think of a three dimensional character as one who contains at least two two-dimensional characters.

Ahhh! No! I can't! Just... NO. Two stereotypes don't make a full person! (screams into a pillow)

They're just very dedicated to the bit... right?

Funnily enough it isn't even required by their purported bayesian doctrine (which proves none of them do the math), you could simply "update forward" again based on the new evidence that the text is part-fictional.

Counter-theory: The now completely irrelevant search results and the idiotic summaries, are a one-two punch combo, that plunges the user in despair, and makes them close the browser out of disgust.

Subjectively speaking:

1. Pre-LLM summaries were for the most part actually short.
2. They were more directly lifted from human written sources, I vaguely remember lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits by newspapers over google infoboxes and copyright infringement in pre-2019 days, but i couldn't find anything very conclusive with a quick search.
3. They didn't have the sycophantic—hey look at me I'm a genius—overly-(and wrong)-detailed tone that the current batch has.

This is obviously a math olympiad gold medal performance, Fields medal worthy even!

It can't be that stupid, you haven't read the sequences hard enough.

I mean if you want to be exceedingly generous (I sadly have my moments), this is actually remarkably close to the "intentional acts" and "shit happens" distinction, in a perverse Rationalist way. ^^

But code that doesn’t crash isn’t necessarily code that works. And even for code made by humans, we sometimes do find out the hard way, and it can sometimes impact an arbitrarily large number of people.