Rationalist check-list:

  1. Incorrect use of analogy? Check.
  2. Pseudoscientific nonsense used to make your point seem more profound? Check.
  3. Tortured use of probability estimates? Check.
  4. Over-long description of a point that could just have easily been made in 1 sentence? Check.

This email by SBF is basically one big malapropism.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
3 points

With the amount of lies, scams, cults and frauds that have been perpetuated in online fandoms, particularly big ones like Harry Potter, I suppose HP fans could spot a cult leader at 10 paces. They certainly had Yudkowsky’s number pretty quickly

permalink
report
parent
reply

SneerClub

!sneerclub@awful.systems

Create post

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.]

Community stats

  • 201

    Monthly active users

  • 335

    Posts

  • 7.9K

    Comments