this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
16 points (100.0% liked)

SneerClub

989 readers
6 users here now

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.]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
self@awful.systems
blakestacey@awful.systems
dgerard@awful.systems
16
If learning incorrect things is EY's only definition of trauma, his existence must be eternal torment. (nitter.net)
submitted 1 year ago by zogwarg@awful.systems to c/sneerclub@awful.systems
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

source nitter link

@EY
This advice won't be for everyone, but: anytime you're tempted to say "I was traumatized by X", try reframing this in your internal dialogue as "After X, my brain incorrectly learned that Y".

I have to admit, for a brief moment i thought he was correctly expressing displeasure at twitter.

@EY
This is of course a dangerous sort of tweet, but I predict that including variables into it will keep out the worst of the online riff-raff - the would-be bullies will correctly predict that their audiences' eyes would glaze over on reading a QT with variables.

Fool! This bully (is it weird to speak in the third person ?) thinks using variables here makes it MORE sneer worthy, especially since this appear to be a general advice, but i would struggle to think of a single instance in my life where it's been applicable.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fasterandworse@awful.systems 9 points 1 year ago (14 children)

I don't understand what he means by "my brain incorrectly learned" - he's comfortable reducing everyone's trauma down to X and Y variables AND asserting that their trauma is always based on a brain fart?

[–] elmtonic@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Someone in the replies brings this up, that trauma could be the result of learning something correct. Yud's brilliant response is that this makes no sense to describe this as trauma, because you don't get traumatized by physics class, right?

https://nitter.net/ESYudkowsky/status/1701691489548697793#m

I feel like this is where first-principles rationalism + his intelligence god complex really shines through. He thought he had figured out the root cause of trauma, was told that this wasn't the case, then tries to redefine trauma itself instead of admitting that his (extremely simple, by the way) idea was wrong. I mean look at the way he starts his response:

Why then describe it as trauma ... ?

Because it's traumatic, that's why. No further explanation required.

[–] 200fifty@awful.systems 10 points 1 year ago

Yud’s brilliant response is that this makes no sense to describe this as trauma, because you don’t get traumatized by physics class, right?

Isn't this literally formally fallacious? "There exist non-traumatizing true things" doesn't imply "all true things are non-traumatizing."

Ordinarily I'm not one to harp on logical fallacies, but come on Yudkowsky, you're supposed to be Mr. Rational!

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)