Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)
Instead of increasing the capabilities of llms a lot of work is done in the field of downplaying human capabilities to make llms look better in comparison. You would assume that the 'be aware of biasses, and learn to think rationally' place would notice this trap. But nope, nobody reads the sequences anymore. (E: for the people not in the know, the sequences is the Rationalist bible written by Yud (extremely verbose, the new bits are not good and the good bits are not new) used here as a joke, reading it (and saying you should) used to be part of the cultic milieu of LW).
Wait even LWers aren't reading the sequences anymore? Or rather aren't pretending to have done so?
It wasn't really done that much during the era when Scott A was called the new leader of lesswrong so not sure if it has increased again. I assume a lot still do, as I assume a lot also pretend to have read it. Never looked into any stats, or if those stats are public. I know they put them all on a specific site in 2015. (https://www.readthesequences.com/) The bibliography is a treat (esp as it starts with pop sci books, and a SSC blog post, but also: "Banks, Iain. The Player of Games. Orbit, 1989.", and not one but 3 of the Doc EE Smith lensmen books).
Why put in the work when you can ask Claude to summarize them for you and reap those sweet sweet internet points?