These people shouldn’t make policy.

We might some day have “AI Safety”, as a science or policy area, that is not primarily a sex cult in Berkeley, California, but it does not currently exist.

TW: Sexual Assault

  • zabadoh@ani.social
    198·
    2 days ago

    Just because anybody’s a sex pervert doesn’t mean they’re wrong about something completely other than sex.

    Adopting that judgement about their person means that only white Christian monogamous hetero cis men are valued for their expertise.

    • comrade@piefed.socialOPEnglish
      16·
      2 days ago

      I urge you to read beyond the headline. The author intentionally buries the lede; it is too obscene to be taken seriously if stated flat. I agree with your statement.

      This piece is not some ad homenim attacking the character of these prominent AI safety figures, using this attack on their character to claim that their work on AI safety is wrong/incorrect/invalid because of their sex cult.

      This is about exposing the power dynamics which core leaders of AI safety groups which are highly influential across tech in SF. These persons fetishistically prefer simulated rape, and are bonded together by this preference.

      All of the main content of rationalism is a trick. Every time Yudkowsky’s writing explains some trick your brain can pull, it is the magician showing you his sleeves while he palms a card: it is meant to convince you that whatever trick he is about to do next is impossible, and to prevent you from figuring out how it was done or ever believing it had happened

      For the Rationalists in the audience: The purpose of explaining Pascal’s Mugging was to make you think you had figured it out so that you would believe you were too smart and well-informed to be Pascal’s Mugged, and to make it impossible to convince you that it had happened to you later once it had.