the context for them purchasing an extremely expensive castle is they had a lot of money (no shit)
the org that bought it hid the purchase until it was too late and hasn’t given any altruistic reason for the purchase since then (they “refuse to show their equations” on why it’s a charitable purchase, meaning there aren’t any)
most EAs disagreed with the purchase in ways that included rightfully calling it out as an obvious grift (which the article spins as a PR problem)

is this whole thing meant to be read as politely damning? I already know the answer to this since it’s fucking obvious and always has been, but is EA so much of a cult that you can’t disagree with and demand action on major problems within the EA community without cloaking it in a thick layer of either bad memes or fake politeness? are these people really just reinventing Mormonism but with AI and Bayes instead of stone tablets covered in fake Egyptian hieroglyphics?

[–] maol@awful.systems 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

the context for them purchasing an extremely expensive castle is they had a lot of money (no shit)

Ohhh the hypocrisy. Wasn't EA meant to tackle these kind of inefficiencies???

[–] jonhendry@iosdev.space 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@self @dgerard

This is going to end with a new myth that Bayes found some magic stones that let him see probabilities.

[–] self@awful.systems 7 points 1 year ago

the door-to-door TESCREAL missionaries are gonna hate meeting me

[–] Collectivist@awful.systems 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

No mention of the second castle either. And then Jan Kulveit says in this comment section:

For me, unfortunately, the discourse surrounding Wytham Abbey, seems like a sign of epistemic decline of the community, or at least on the EA forum.

While lying through his teeth in his comments on the post about the second castle.