[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / choroy / dempart / freeb / his / nara / trap / vichan ]

/ratanon/ - Rationalists Anonymous

Remember when /ratanon/ was good?

Catalog   Archive

Winner of the 83rd Attention-Hungry Games
/strek/ - Remove Hasperat

May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.



File: c04bedc093690b5⋯.jpg (575.96 KB, 2100x1200, 7:4, __hatsune_miku_fl_studio_a….jpg)

Some suggestions:

1. Use the fucking catalog.

2. Lurk before you post.

3. Don't make duplicate threads.

There is already a thread about this.




Gatebox is cool, though. I want tube 3D displays to become cheap and common.

File: d6bc73d894c12ed⋯.png (464.86 KB, 925x957, 925:957, 6jnmqv.png)

File: 09521c8a4324a43⋯.jpg (119.59 KB, 600x1040, 15:26, open_hypergamy_cartoon.jpg)

File: 5effeddb7250196⋯.jpg (233.86 KB, 1400x990, 140:99, redpill_comics_pic_23.jpg)

File: 2fba531f98152cb⋯.jpg (177.58 KB, 900x1220, 45:61, RnmIrMd.jpg)

File: de9c7d29b998384⋯.jpg (247.29 KB, 1300x1387, 1300:1387, sjsBDCj.jpg)


Once you have taken the redpill and realized how stupid and evil women's mating preferences really are (the hypergamy, the hybristophilia, the serial monogamy, the attraction to dark triad traits, the fact that five minutes of alpha is worth five years of beta… basically everything Scott admitted was in "Radicalizing the Romanceless" [http://web.archive.org/web/20140901014000/http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/31/radicalizing-the-romanceless/]) there really are only three coherent responses.

1. The traditional patriarchal response: Women, like children, are clearly too stupid, short-sighted, and impulsive to make their own sexual choices. They must be kept under close supervision from puberty to marriage, and in particular never left alone with a male who is not a member of her family. When she marries, it will be to a man of her social class who is of good character and has some means to support himself, as selected by her father (or, if the father is dead, her oldest brother). If something like dating is to be part of the courtship, chaperones are an absolute must; everyone in trad societies knows what happens when two people of opposite genders are alone together.

This, of course, is how the West dealt with the problem until very recently. And it is still how the Muslims, who make up one fifth of the world population, solve the problem.

2. The principled individualist libertarian response: Women have the right to make their own choices, just like everyone else. This will predictably result in women who have five bastards by five different baby daddies and no way to support themselves (see the black community), but that's their own fault and it is no one else's obligation to support them. If the bastards starve in gutters, not out problem. And if nice, smart, hard working men continue to be lonely virgins into their 30s, that's the price of freedom; there is no positive obligation on the part of women to sleep with productive men instead of violent criminals.

This is what we tried first when we got rid of patriarchy. It wasn't stablPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

56 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 09540051372a35e⋯.jpg (38.19 KB, 400x333, 400:333, hypergamy.jpg)

Okay anons, listen up, cuz I'm only gonna explain this once.

What's the most important word in the goddamn English language? If you answered "hypergamy" then congratulations, you're not a fucking bluepill. Everybody else better look up their old schools right now and ask for a refund because they didn't learn shit. This is fucking birds and bees kindergarten shit. You guys make a lot of sperm which you can spew after about a minute of effort, goddamn bunch of limpdicked quickshots. Bitches have to devote over 9 MONTHS to making a baby. So a man can have a basically unlimited number of children as long as he can find new women to keep on mating, while females have a very real limit on the number of fatherless bastards they can push out of their used up cunts before their uteruses dry out and they hang around for another 40 years waiting to die of old age. With me so far?

So the ideal male strategy is to impregnate as many females as possible. No shit. We all knew that already; that's why it is every guy's dream to score a threesome at least once in his life, and that's why lesbians are hot while fags are just fucking disgusting. Okay, so we all know this part; so far so good.

The part that most of us DON'T know about is the other half. The ideal female strategy. It consists of always finding the "best" male at any given moment. What's "best"? "Best" can take many form. Bitches love muscles, money, age, height, extroversion, power, and status. High quantities of any of this shit is like fucking viagra to them. But another thing they love is attractiveness. "But anon," you ask, "how can you be attracted to attractiveness itself?" Well, Timmy, I know it can be hard to grasp how truly fucked up the female mind is, but you've gotta stop drooling on the floor for a minute and make a fucking try. Are we clear? Good little retard!

See, there's this thing here called "pre-selection," which basically means that bitches are attracted to men that other females find attractive. Why? Because if this alpha guy is pulling all the bitches in this easily, then any son of his is ALSO gonna be scoring chicks like there is no tomorrow, spreading her genes even wider than she spreads her legs for alpha cock. This Post too long. Click here to view the full text.



This means that females reproduce by default, because unless a women is truly hideous, there isn't a red blooded male who isn't going to take one quick minute to impregnate the bitch. By contrast, males are divided into two very distinct groups. The 99% betas are destined to forever struggle for reproduction, perhaps raping one of the alpha's bitches while his back is turned, or lucking out and capturing a nice war bride after a successful battle with those bastards from accross the river (her husband was killed in the figthing, not that she will mind in a year or two). Meanwhile the 1% alphas get to impregnate all the women, which makes them sexier, which continues the fucking cycle, literally. In the world of sex, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Now this is the tricky part. A lot of men who get this far think that the answer is to teach everybody "game" and that as long as we can all be masterful PUAs, we can keep our bitches in line. This doesn't work because hypergamy is RELATIVE. It doesn't fucking MATTER how rich you are in absolute terms, if you own your own house and car while a middle age peasant barely owned his shit-stained underwear. All that matters to bitches is wether there are any men around who have it even better than you, in which case the cycle begins anew. That's why no matter how rich we become, we keep working just as hard in 40 hour jobs and 10 hour commutes; because we are not REALLY working for shit like food or electronics, which are cheap, but for bitches and status, which are zero-sum. They will always be scarce and we will always have to compete for them.

An important corollary to this is that females simply don't have the capacity to really fall in love. They just gina tingle. The moment you lose your job or otherwise get kicked out of your station in life, you can kiss the girl of your dreams goodbye. She didn't fall in love with you; she fell in love with what you had. It made her excited, and when the excitement is gone and she is unhaaaaaapy, she will just leave, taking your kids, half your stuff, alimony, child support, and your will to live. Then she finds some other high-status guy to get hitched to andPost too long. Click here to view the full text.



If you wrote this anon, you should make a blog where you retell the sequences.

>A lot of men who get this far think that the answer is to teach everybody "game" and that as long as we can all be masterful PUAs, we can keep our bitches in line. This doesn't work because hypergamy is RELATIVE. It doesn't fucking MATTER how rich you are in absolute terms, if you own your own house and car while a middle age peasant barely owned his shit-stained underwear.

Women are adaptation executors, not fitness maximizers. It makes sense that they perceive social status as relative because it is. That does not mean women's perception of men's smooth moves/dominance/personality/call it what you will is also zero-sum, or that status is important compared to personality. Teaching men game would almost certainly be positive-sum and eliminate a large percentage of incels. Another way to say it is that status seems to be something like 95% relative (the remainder is not living in a way that provokes an immediate disgust reaction, like being smeared with shit), but perceived smoothness/dominance/interestingness is only 30%-70% relative.



To that I should add that another famously doctrinal, buzzword-filled project of fostering "rationality" in Goyim was Objectivism; except Rand probably didn't consider herself Moshiach. As for SSC-aligned people, this place is at the far fringes of their cluster, so my theory applies to ratanons rather than to all of SSC crowd. Regarding your disbelief, I honestly don't care.



My takeaway is that /robowaifu/ has the right idea, we just need more r&d and commercialization.

File: 8072fa5f9eed1a6⋯.png (196.16 KB, 511x481, 511:481, dfb181f2a1a32feca615bafc99….png)


Are you a "transition so yudkowsky can paddle you" rationalist or a "transition so you can cuddle with scott" rationalist?

127 posts and 19 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: af144284ae03b3b⋯.png (286.21 KB, 447x768, 149:256, weird future.png)



i dont like rationalism since people who call themselves rationalists are supporting human rights and other shit


File: 108b19c594c7a87⋯.png (43.72 KB, 600x370, 60:37, the jews of gender.png)



>only comparing straight and gay trans women

I feel like there's missing information here.


>>10265 (OP)

<not a "transition so you can be a superior being" rationalist

>Transsexualism is a form of self-improvement. We are biologically male, or at least, we begin that way. We are attracted to women, but love women and femininity beyond simple sexual attraction. We modify our bodies using modern pharmacology (and sometimes surgery) to adopt the desirable traits of women, in specific, secondary sexual characteristics, while preserving those traits of men that are worth preserving. The sheer intelligence of men, the tact of a woman; the tall and slender body of a man, the graceful features of a woman; the courage of a man, the peacefulness of a woman; the stoicism of a man, the empathy of a woman. Obsolete no more, by means of transsexual transitioning, the now estrogenized male has upgraded herself to the best of both sexes and thus overcomes the weaknesses of both male and female.


File: 517b9c48a188613⋯.jpg (312.07 KB, 1200x860, 60:43, 5987-2.jpg)


In what unexpected places have you seen LW/SSC/… links and shibboleths?

12 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



They are parodying the "Polyhacking" post.

Kind of amusing to contemplate the depth of autism that would be required for a LW where someone would post a real "Lolihacking" post.



At least the motivation for polyhacking is clear, namely the promise of easier access to sex and intimacy. Why would anyone want to hack themselves into being a lolicon?



I'm sure you could come up with some reasons. One can make up arguments for anything.

Just to demonstrate the point by giving an example argument, perhaps something along the lines of MTGOW? "Lolis are innocent and pure, they won't scam you out of your life like adult women will" or something.

Of course you'd have to have some truly extreme autism and truly completely lack a superego to argue for this in the super earnest and serious way that is typical for LW. That's why it's amusing for me to contemplate someone like that existing.



Maybe you think all taboos are spooks and you want to be truly pansexual, or maybe you're just interested in the hacking process itself and you deliberately pick something you find revulsive.

(I'll admit that these motivations are a little more esoteric than simple access to sex and intimacy).



I like the way you think!

"We choose to love lolis, not because they are innocent and pure, but because we find them revulsive!" –JFK

File: 8296663d9362378⋯.jpg (102.72 KB, 800x1039, 800:1039, 800px-NRA_member,_we_do_ou….jpg)


>Political units should have total, and unquestioned sovereignty on their territory, because contrary situation leads to multipolar traps

>Yet at the same time they should be subordinated to market mechanism

Am I missing something, or are Moldbug's ideas somewhat inconsistent? Why is violence, or other rivalry through political means undesirable, but capitalism is not?


It's been a while since I read Moldbug, but I don't remember very much talk of market mechanisms? Certainly no advocacy for neoliberal stuff like competitive bidding for government functions, etc. He talked about countries being owned by shareholders who get dividends, but that in itself is not a market, any more than say the internal governance of IBM is market-based…


Moldbug wants to engineer a reduction in violence because violence is wasteful. He is not against all competition or conflict. He considers them inevitable. To him violence is wasteful pretty much by definition because it happens due to uncertainly about who would win in an armed conflict. People generally don't fight hopeless fights, so reducing uncertainly reduces armed conflict.

A market in state shares would allow for liquidation of failed states without the usual violence. At the same time it would align the quality of the services provided by states with the self-interest of their owners, making such states less likely to fail in the first place. It's the Mandate of Heaven with(out) a human face (being stamped on).

I don't remember Moldbug saying this outright, but he does not seem to believe that war is eugenic, at least in the present. It would be better if people competed through other means, like, again, capitalism.



I never understood why people thought Moldbug was such an inspiring thinker in the first place.


I brought up Urbit at work a couple days ago. Kind of worried that bringing it up will activate some coworker's purity monitors, associate me with Moldbug, and target me for destruction. Not clear to me whether that's something I actually should worry about, when I previously was in a group of social-justicey programmers, they certainly associated anyone talking about Urbit with NRX and disdained them, but maybe they were just hyper-active in their purity-enforcement.

File: ab0cbfce4ac1bd4⋯.png (7.74 KB, 300x100, 3:1, banner.png)


Banner design thread!

78 posts and 44 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



I think the other two are a little weak, and I'm also concerned about @dril tweets making up an outsized portion of our banners. Sorry to be a downer.



Yeah, I think we have enough of those.



Honestly, even the polycule banner seems weak, although the Bayesianism one is pretty good.



Makes sense. I'll remove some of the weaker ones.




I think the best of those are the Bayesianism and AI risk ones, and of the two I like the AI risk one best. The polycules one is a little confusing because it's not clear what "aids-theist" means. The HBD one is meh.

File: 41dd55c395afad4⋯.jpg (48.75 KB, 600x446, 300:223, 3359xw.jpg)


How can we improve the pitiful birthrates of the rationalist community?

5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



I believe an evolutionarily stable response has been found to "have sex"-posting. It is "bend over"-posting. It doesn't quite work in the context of reproduction, though.


Per the sister thread, I believe the solution is widespread gene editing to give the general population williams syndrome.


I don't really even care any more. Evolution selects against knowledge of evolution.

Let's all do STEM and produce AGI or transhumans. Better a bot world than a tropicalized world.



you're making a lot of assumptions about what's good for the future of humanity there.



"Dilate" seems to have won out as a response. Have you seen this, have you heard about this?

File: c7e47fb4df6dd6b⋯.png (664.36 KB, 640x960, 2:3, 1463366678835.png)


So /ratanon/, what animes do you like? Which ones do you think are a good fit for the rationalist-adjacent community, and why?

Pic naturally related.

82 posts and 11 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 39169c289121097⋯.jpg (85.73 KB, 640x640, 1:1, iris.jpg)

Fate/Zero's main plotline is an argument against utilitarianism in favor of something like virtue ethics.



I have never heard anything about Fate that didn't confuse me


File: a3e3676d2340190⋯.jpg (48.34 KB, 800x600, 4:3, 1553183881793.jpg)


Each of Fate/stay night's three routes is about letting go of utilitarianism (under different circumstances). What is actually pretty clever is that in one of the routes characters who bonded over utilitarianism abandon it for the sake of each other. It sort of makes you wish it happened more often in real life.



No it isn't, dude just gets visions of how the local Monkey's Paw magic item is going to use his utilitarianism to justify killing everyone when he makes his wish, and that plus having to murder his waifu (again) mind-breaks him and turns him into a virtue ethicist. No actual argument against utilitarianism, just a bunch of fucked up shit happens.


File: f3924d550284451⋯.jpg (86.41 KB, 750x560, 75:56, nataliakaminski.jpg)


Every real argument against utilitarianism is going to take a form that utilitarian true believers refuse to recognize as an argument.

Following utilitarianism broke him long before he got to the grail. It was just the idea of the grail that kept him going.

File: e37ba740e257fae⋯.png (10.19 KB, 518x104, 259:52, harassment.png)

File: 0b72157277aeef1⋯.png (11.72 KB, 521x120, 521:120, fight_me_irl.png)


What is it with Senpais respect for Vinay Gupta, which appears to be entirely uncalled for when looking at VG's online persona?

I haven't read the "Gupta on Enlightenment" post, because damn do I not care about the object level here, but VG posting in the comment section makes me think SA wasn't exactly being negative about him. I also didn't have the impression that he was being ironic when he was shilling the Luna Coin thing.

What am I missing here? Is VG much more likable / credible in person than in the comment section? Is VG revered by people in SA's circle of friends? Is it an in-joke?

18 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.




this is unbelievable

the fighting style is so fluid, it's like he can see through his enemy's defense and completely disregards all traditional styles for his own method

i'm convinced now of everything gupta claims



Don't you have other things to do in your life than trolling on 8chan, Vinay?



I blame the Bay Aryans. There's some strange force of memetics there which corrupts anyone that moves.


Aella is a True Rationalist anon. That is to say she's a bizarre woman deep into esotericism pursuing high variance life strategies like camgirling and weird crypto startups.


File: 412b10c2fc507ce⋯.jpg (135.16 KB, 932x531, 932:531, ThinWhiteDuke.jpg)

File: bbf2307abfd7a62⋯.jpg (33.21 KB, 299x362, 299:362, Saratesh Raman.jpg)


So what exactly is postrationalism and how does it differ from rationalism?

33 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.



> I don't know, Chapman has specifically called out this view as false and harmful.


True, although I'm not sure all the postrat (or still-rat or rat-adjacent) psychonaughts got the memo.

Advanced tentatively: Chapmanism is compatible with atheism and materialism but is perhaps in conflict with empiricism. It is an introspective, naval-gazing sort of philosophy; sure there's all sorts of emphasis on tantra and "play" and experiencing, but that isn't the sort of thing of which Karl Popper would approve: no repeatable, falsifiable knowledge is being produced, and even if it were, Chapman's hostility to quantifying anything would get in the way of adding the results to the sum of human knowledge anyway.

Come to think of it, that's kind of a common theme among the postrationalists: they accept the conclusions of science (unlike their fin-de-siècle/postmodernist/occultist/whatever predecessors), but their own epistemology prevents them from doing any science themselves (relevant: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/03/against-anton-wilsonism/)



Chapman also said Monism wins the conflict between it and dualism.

I mean, "Monism holds that all religions and philosophies are essentially the same, and that they point at the same ultimate truth." is not the only kind of monism, neither is "the denial of separateness and diversity."

The sophisticated monisms sound exactly like Chapman's "Patterned yet nebulous" shit.

One thing I don't like about Chapman is that he shows little ability to apply his own multi-systematicity.



lol yeah get back on that dragon army rationalist dojo fam among a gaggle of polyamorous trannies and diabetic neckbeards

afterwards you can meet at your swinger's meeting, talk AI/furry/fantasy fanfiction and mechanical keyboards while Jamal gives your non-primary gf the Warm Fuzzies

then he pascal mugs you but you realise by doing so you've become an Effective Altruist

rationalists are *huge winners*


File: 23ebc554d7b0d9a⋯.png (88.12 KB, 1062x470, 531:235, tmp_12459.png)

l o fucking l


File: 5d5a60a554876d0⋯.png (45.34 KB, 919x350, 919:350, yud speaks.png)

File: c3af50e65472be0⋯.png (5.48 KB, 322x153, 322:153, 2019-07-12_19-02-53.png)


autocorrect conspiracy

File: 36188c93098c64c⋯.jpg (87.54 KB, 770x730, 77:73, internet surfing.jpg)


Post interesting things for which you wouldn't make a separate thread.

This thread is a superset of >>13193 meant to be more easy to notice.

175 posts and 64 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



The post said

>no argument should ever be taken in bad faith (unless you're arguing that an argument should be taken in bad faith)



>In their defence, they did ban that 4chin anon

What had he done? Unless I'm missing some context his posts seemed to deliberately skirt around spelling out his actual ban reasons.


File: 998f588aeb7a89b⋯.jpg (63.13 KB, 1024x546, 512:273, testosterone.jpg)

https://twitter.com/TestosteroneCiv analyses societal trends from a scientific, quantitative perspective.



Reblog if the force-femmed boy on the right is just as beautiful as the bear on the left.


How To: Epistemic Competence

>You are 'taught' how to think critically in exactly the same way you are 'taught' to have a 200+ bench press. You can teach the training process, but the actual training is done to the self.


File: 5853eab9a01ab47⋯.png (133.09 KB, 278x384, 139:192, nyd.png)


I'll start:

>You've presented me a gish gallop of claims which are so anti-true that I am losing sleep over them. I have never experienced rage this intense in my entire life; I can actually feel slight nausea. I find myself wondering how you can even conjure up so many evil, slimy, bold-facedly inaccurate things to say. If you were as well-read in Eliezer's writings as would be required for you to be justified in having made any blanket evaluations of LW rationality, there's no way you would have conveyed your disagreement exactly like this, and I am lead to believe you are intentionally creating hostility for some reason, despite actually being oblivious to Eliezer's beliefs and the practices of the LW community.

>And I still want to reconcile with you, calmly and peacefully, because I expect that my gut is probably deceiving me about your intentions. There are so many causes for people saying wrong things, and usually the cause is not bad intent.

12 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Hey, is “grey tribe” done going on record over Ahmari-French to the extent that the idea of concepts, kinks even, as threatening to destroy society (and not just change it in a way you don’t like) to the extent of legitimating extraliberal suppression is ridiculous, porting over their existing takes on “antis” or whatnot?

‘cause for a while I’ve been expecting a cultural turn on correlation of forces grounds but it was severe enough I couldn’t possibly imagine how anyone could get to narrativizing it from where we are, and I just found an answer-shaped idea, it’s chillingly well precedented, the coalition that would be against it just spent the last decade defining themselves against each other, the premise and the motte are perfectly in line with modern goodthink, and the bailey is the most corrosive weapons-grade infohazard I’ve ever seen


But I'm not quite like Perevozchenko. I have more balls than him. And if I had been in Chernobyl, and I saw Dyatlov, my leader, behaving like a deranged modern jackass, I would have punched his lights out (Oh, how uncharitable, the horror!) and started executing my plan for dealing with the crisis (and I have such a plan), because Dyatlov is not in need of charity, he's in need of being smacked around the room, and charity, along with the other rules of the sub, are not the tool we need for this crisis, so mods, you have to suspend them for me, instead of locking my posts for Culture War like you're a Fahrenheit 451 fireman instead of a decent human being like me.

What's that mods? Was that uncharitable to you? Do you think that the ethical thing to do when O'Brien tells you 2 + 2 = 5 in Room 101, is to be charitable and play along, instead of biting his face off? How sure are you you're not O'Brien? Because you remind me of him. And when you ban me or lock me, you are saying 2 + 2 = 5, but without typing it out! That's how wrong you are! And I don't know what casuistry you have running through your head, that makes you think you're being the good guy when you deplatform me, but I'm sure it's worthy of r/SneerClub.



What the hell does this even mean?



It's Kontextmaschine (on tumblr) announcing that he thought of a genius scissor statment which will upset the political landscape, destroy the existing set of political coalitions, and sweep away the last remnants of the liberal order. At first he was all "oh no, I couldn't possibly let this basilisk lose", but now he seems to be saying that he might drop it if we flatter him enough.


File: 61d82b3f1dd897e⋯.png (217.17 KB, 651x306, 217:102, What did Godel know.png)


Has he posted it yet? Or at least let slip any clues about it? I'm only asking out of curiosity.

File: 48692f839e86b72⋯.jpg (58.09 KB, 540x960, 9:16, 4ad.jpg)


CMV: Suicide is a rational choice for many people

Life has no meaning.

Due to that the only thing that really matters is the quality of the journey. Do you enjoy the Dance/Game of life.

If most of the time Life is shitty for you (High amounts of suffering), even if nothing terrible really happens. You're probably better off dead. Why would you like to experience a shitty time?

Possible counterarguments – answers

Not everybody feel more suffering than joy in their life – It's true, but many do. I would assume > 10%. Many of these people choose to live only due to fear of death, or to serve ideologies, religions or other spooks. They are being used by the system just like animals that are bred for their meat. It doesn't mean their life worth experiencing.

Even if it's rational to commit suicide, it's not easy or sometimes even possible, Survival instinct is a bitch – I agree, My argument only says that's the "rational" thing to do, the one that makes sense. Not that's it's easy or always possible.

Some people live for other people – Agreed again, if you have dependents (like small children) maybe it's better you won't kill yourself and leave them alone. Your friends/parents/wife are also a reasonable reason, but weaker IMO - if they really love you they should understand that death might be better for you.

14 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



>The expected number of actual people trying the quantum billionaire trick is much smaller than the expected number of fictional people written by Scott trying it

Scott's only one man, and he won't likely be making the same kind of rationalist-y fiction you can hypothesise about by knowing Scott's writing decades from now, and he hasn't even written on the quantum billionaire trick, so the expectation that gives me is <1. What kind of assumptions are you making to get expectations that make a Pascal's-Mugging-adjacent "even a little bit" argument viable?



You know nobody's going to change your view, yet you have no intention of suicide. Funny that.



I think it's very unlikely that even one person is going to try the quantum billionaire trick, at least until ems are invented.

If you find yourself seriously considering it then you're arguably pretty likely to be a fictional character. If you care in the abstract about how fictional rationalisty people are portrayed, then you should take that into consideration, because there's a decent chance you'll influence that.

This consideration still isn't as important as the possibility of dying and/or becoming a billionaire, but it might be enough to change some specifics about the way you execute it, or be a tiebreaker.

It's not likely*important enough to be an imperative, but it's likely enough to take into consideration.



I was completely serious about >>14200, other than implementation specifics, and I'm not a fictional character as far as I can tell. I'm not suicidal, but in general I have a hard time believing the set of people who (believe they) have nothing to lose, from now until the invention of ems, contains 0 people who consider quantum suicide trickery worth messing with.

Also your whole argument still relies on fictional characters having a conscious experience. My intuition is that it would be wasteful to simulate a universe with this level of complexity simply for storytelling, so it would be relatively easy to identify your world as created for narrative purposes from the inside. Our universe would need to meet that criteria before I can bother worrying about whether I'm in a Scott masterwork or some plebeian mass entertainment.



>Also your whole argument still relies on fictional characters having a conscious experience.

It doesn't. By being the kind of person who would consider the possibility of being in a story, a fictional character based on people like you will be more likely to consider the possibility of being in a story.

That's the beauty of acausal decision theory. You can acausally influence the behavior of your simulation, often even if the simulation is insufficiently detailed to be conscious.

File: 8d374fa6fc9cf2b⋯.jpeg (95.76 KB, 1200x1141, 1200:1141, scottest.jpeg)



> Insofar as SSC makes any pretensions to rationality at all, it’s a rationalist picnic and not a rationalist monastery. (…) Everything above applies to SSC’s engagement with effective altruism too, except 100x more. (…) I’ve been consistently skeptical of claims that rationality has much practical utility if you’re already pretty smart and have good intuitions and domain-specific knowledge. (…) In any case, if rationality has much practical utility for your everyday life, you won’t find that practical utility here.

Did anything happen recently? Is it in response to something?

While Scott claims he doesn't distance himself from the community, it sounds like " rationality and EA are interesting, but they might make little to no practical difference, treat them as interesting concepts, but don't expect me to continue providing substantial input on things in the movement, calling out bad actors or addressing controversies". As much as I'd like Scott to remain heavily involved, I respect his need for autonomy and keeping SSC a place for people with diverse backgrounds.


File: a1a5d84ac9e2a46⋯.png (49.12 KB, 1029x530, 1029:530, tmp_32421.png)

Scott embraced cultural evolution and came out as NRx.


Scott just doesn't want to be blamed for everything associated with rationality and EA when he's only responsible for what he himself posts on SSC.

He's not the leader or the movement or anything, obviously, since there is no organized movement with leaders.



You mean he's a coward who doesn't stand by his own followers.

Delete Post [ ]
Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / choroy / dempart / freeb / his / nara / trap / vichan ]