Ya know, all perfectly fair.

Good choice on reddit. As much as I love a good 'ol sneer, there’s a lot of jargon and clowning to wade through. There are a lot of genuinely solid critiques of his views there, though.

I appreciate you doing your due diligence on this, but I’m not really sure where to keep this discussion going. I still stand by my original comment’s warning. Reading Siskind is probably not going to corrupt an unassuming reader to immediately think XYZ bad thing. His writings tend to be very data heavy and nuanced, to his credit.

Is he Hitler 2.0? No, far from it.

But he shares a set of core assumptions with the other ideologies, and the circles between his community and the other communities have large overlap. If you start with one, it’s likely you encounter the other. If you start to think like one, it’s a small jump to start thinking like the other. (From experience).

In my opinion, anyone encountering Siskind for the first time is well-served by an understanding of TESCREAL—which they are likely to encounter in either his posts, its comments, or linked material—, and its critiques—which should help them assess what they encounter through a critical lense.

That’s more or less what I wanted to give caution about, which may or may not have come across correctly.

(Not that his stuff is entirely innocent either, but beside the point)

I understand, a good instinct to have. Unfortunately I have read so much in such a piecemeal way I cannot really compile a specific list. But I can point you to where “evidence” can be found. I don’t expect you to read any of this, but if you want to evaluate Alexander’s views further it will help:

• The New York Times did a piece on him that does a good job outlining Alexander’s ties to and influence on Silicone Valley. Probably the best actual piece of journalism on him.
• There used to be a reddit community (/r/SneerClub) that would read his (mountainous, as you point out) posts and pull out errors and misteps to “sneer” at, but that’s been dead since the API revolts. The old posts are still up. Basically you had a club of people that spent years finding (cherry-picking, mind) the juicy bits for you.
• You may find some passing reference to Alexander is one of Émile Torres’s articles or interviews on the subject of TESCREAL, but probably nothing substantial.
• If you spend time on communites like LessWrong and the EA Forum, you will see heavy reference to and influence from Alexander’s writing among members.

A lot of what I say comes from my experiencd spending way too much time following these socisl circles and their critics online. Unfortunately, the best way I know to see for yourself is to dive in yourself. Godspeed, if you choose to go that way.

Edit: of course, reading his work itself is a great way , too, if you have time for that.

The example is pretty standard, but I feel obligated to caution people about the author (just because he’s linked to here and some unassuming people might dive in).

Scott Alexander falls loosely under the TESCREAL umbrella of ideologies. Even in this article, he ends up concluding the only way out is to build a superintelligent AI to govern us… which is like the least productive, if not counterproductive, approach to solving the problem. He’s just another technoptimist shunting problems onto future technologies that may or may not exist.

So, yeah, if anyone decides they want to read more of his stuff, make sure to go in informed / having read critiques of TESCREALism.

That kind of model is unfortunately common for university courses. I had it for my language courses, and a couple of the core maths courses.

The online platform justifies a subscription by providing additional resources, homework grading, etc. Fair enough, honestly, if they want to charge you $15 or something reasonable. But when textbook access gets rolled into the bundle, it tends to inflate the subscription cost and also have the convenient-for-the-publisher side effect of temporary access to the text. Lose-lose, from a student perspective.

I had a course that required we buy a license to Pearson’s service in order to submit homework. $100+ to view a pdf for a semester and submit homework through a buggy form interface. I still hold a grudge against everyone in the department for that decision.

Yeah, I was complaining too. Or am I not understanding you?

Having express self-checkoit is great. The Kroger near me went full-self-checkout. They have large kiosks that mimmic the traditional checkout belt kiosks, except the customer scans at the head of the belt and the items move into the bagging area.

If you have a full cart, you scan all the items, checkout, walk to the end of the belt, and bag all of your items. Takes twice as long as bagging while a cashier scans (for solo shoppers), and because of the automatic belt the next customer cannot start scanning until you finish bagging, or their items will join the pile of your items.

It effectively destroys all parallelism is the process (bagging while scanning, customers pre-loading their items with a divider while the prior customer is still being serviced), and with zero human operated checkouts running you get no choice

Sorry for the long reply, I got carried away. See the section below for my good-faith reply, and the bottom section for “what are you implying by asking me this?” response.

From the case studies in my scientific ethics course, I think she probably would have lost her job regardless, or at least been “asked to resign”.

The fact it was in national news, and circulated for as long as it did, certainly had to do with her identity. I was visiting my family when the story was big, and the (old, conservative, racist) members of the family definitely formed the opinion that she was a ‘token hire’ and that her race helped her con her way to the top despite a lack of merit.

So there is definitely a race-related effect to the story (and probably some of the “anti- liberal university” mentality). I don’t know enough about how the decision was made to say whether she would have been fired those effects were not present.

Just some meta discussion: I’m 100% reading into your line of questioning, for better or worse. But it seems you have pinned me as the particular type of bigot that likes to deny systemic biases exist. I want to just head that off at the pass and say I didn’t mean to entirely deny your explanation as plausible, but that given a deeper view of the cultural ecosystem of OpenAI it ceases to be likely.

I don’t know your background on the topic, but I enjoy following voices critical of effective altruism, long-termism, and effective accelerationism. A good gateway into this circle of critics is the podcast Tech Won’t Save Us (the 23/11/23 episode actually discusses the OpenAI incident). Having that background, it is easy to paint some fairly convincing pictures for what went on at OpenAI, before Altman’s sexuality enters the equation.

Fair enough. I disagree, but we’re both in the dark here so not much to do about it until more comes to light.

I mean, their press release said “not consistently candid”, which is about as close to calling someone a liar as corporate speak will get. Altman ended up back in the captain’s chair, and we haven’t heard anything further.

If the original reason for firing made Altman look bad, we would expect this silence.

If the original reason was a homophobic response from the board, we might expect OpenAI to come out and spin a vague statement on how the former board had a personal gripe with Altman unrelated to his performance as CEO, and that after replacing the board everything is back to the business of delivering value etc. etc.

I’m not saying it isn’t possible, but given all we know, I don’t think the fact that Altman is gay (now a fairly general digestible fact for public figures) is the reason he was ousted. Especially if you follow journalism about TESCREAL/Silicon Valley philosophies it is clear to see: this was the board trying to preserve the original altruistic mission of OpenAI, and the commercial branch finally shedding the dead weight.

I seriously doubt it had anything to do with his wedding. I don’t think the sexuality of a CEO is that big an issue in this day (see: Tim Cook).

Especially considering how Atman’s has steered OpenAI vs. the boards’ stated mission, it seems much more likely that his temporary ousting had to do with company direction rather than his sexuality.

SBF’s peak was a few years ago. This year all he’s done is show during his trial how deluded these techbros/EAs can actually be. At least SBF had the common courtesy to remove himself from public life within 5 years. Style points for the life-in-prison ending, while simultaneously killing mainstream crypto.

We’re stuck with Altman for the foreseeable future, and now with a recently purged OpenAI board that will let him continue the industry-wide commercialization of copyright infringement (but only of the laypersons’ IP. Better not ask it to draw Mickey Mouse, though).

It’s also really unclear where OpenAI lies on the EA/Longtermist/E Acc pipeline. Altman is likely letting whackos have some pretty serious power.

I’ll just add that “designed to be burned up” is the correct approach to these types of satellite constellations. SpaceX has that aspect correct, at least.

Agree with everything else. Musk is a batshit egomaniac, and letting him dictate use of large infrastructure is careless. Government subsidies should entail a certain public influence over the operation of the system.

It bugs me how easily people (a) trust the accuracy of the output of ChatGPT, (b) feel like it’s somehow safe to use output in commercial applications or to place output under their own license, as if the open issues of copyright aren’t a ten-ton liability hanging over their head, and © feed sensitive data into ChatGPT, as if OpenAI isn’t going to log that interaction and train future models on it.

I have played around a bit, but I simply am not carefree/careless or am too uptight (pick your interpretation) to use it for anything serious.

deleted by creator