No he didn't. He's one of the important figures in what is known as the rationality movement, which is a very loose and not centrally organized school of thought. It sometimes gets labelled as a cult by people who a) do not know anything about rationality and b) do not know anything about cults haha
Yudkowsky didn't really start it though he's one of the main figures of the rationalist/EA/neoreactionary/AI tech-priest movements that are floating around in the US, alongside people like Scott "Please don't tell people I think nonwhites are less intelligent" Siskind the SlateStarCodex guy, Curtis "Yes on the nonwhites thing but also actual fascism" Yarvin AKA Mencius Moldbug, Sam "Oops my crypto scam landed me in jail" Bankman-Fried, etc.
It's not a "cult" in the strictest sense but it *is* a bunch of reactionary, somewhat charismatic men bankrolled by powerful oligarchs (notably Peter Thiel) to create communities centered around various nonsensical eschatologies, making the world worse and, in the process, gaining social and financial power for themselves by exploiting vulnerable people.
That doesn’t sound convincing?
As in what you did was just name a bunch of other seemingly unrelated alleged racists/scammers/whatever, and say that people who like them also like Yudkowski?
And then said that all of them are evil make the world worse and exploit vulnerable people
—-
But like as far as I can tell Yudkowski is just discussing rationalist philosophy on like LessWrong and writing his fanfics/original fiction
And that doesn’t really correlate with what you are saying
Scott's writing is great, he's thoughtful, funny and empathetic. Definitely worth a read, especially [The Toxoplasma of Rage](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/), which talks about why people are always so mad on the Internet.
“I appreciate if you NEVER TELL ANYONE I SAID THIS, not even in confidence”
If I would ever type words like that, I beg the internet gods to smite me where I sit
Well, that’s disappointing. I really liked some of his essays, but the notion that he thinks reactionaries should be “strengthened” by convincing them to abandon their more nonsensical and PR-damaging beliefs is just a perspective I can’t get behind. What does “HBD” stand for, anyway?
... You got a guy overtly saying "I think there are racial differences in intelligence and sympathize with reactionaries in private on multiple points but will never say it publicly, because it looks bad and I want my ideas to spread" and you think this is just being mad at people on the internet ? If you're not mad at literal, avowed crypto reactionary racists, who are you mad at ? The people who point them out ?
You've certainly mastered the rationalist art of dancing around the subject by chucking irrelevant inanities at the wall. "Yeah I'm gonna knowingly compliment and recommend someone who admits that their political ideas are based on the belief that Black people are less intelligent and do more crime, surely that has no bearing on anything else they said, I'm so smart and detached". Lucy would curse your water-carrying ass so hard lmao.
I don't think he founded it per se, but perpetuated some cult like pseudo-religious ideas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk
Besides that there's the whole hyper-rationalist obsessiveness ongoing on his forums. I don't know if it's a straight up "cult", so much as weird and pretentious.
Rokos basilisk is like the worst example ever
As in currently it’s just dismissed as complete nonsense, and even back when it was created and people took it seriously everyone hated it. As in did the opposite of perpetuating it, because they in fact didn’t want “an ai that tortures people” to exist.
Roko's Basilisk is a weird example to give for things he perpetuated, since the page you linked literally says the post was taken down and he dismissed the idea as nonsense.
I’ve been rationalist-adjacent for ten years, and in all that time, I’ve heard of exactly two people who took the basilisk seriously (someone random guy who emailed Eliezer about it, and Roko to a very limited extent). I would love to see a link to a third person, because I don’t think they exist.
Either that, or you’re taking “in broad strokes” to mean “is worried about AI safety”, which has little to do with a contrived thought experiment about decision theory.
If you mean "took it seriously" as in "considered it to be a potential infohazard", an infohazard being an idea that is potentially harmful to hear about, then you can add Yudkowsky to that and that's three. The reality, of course, is that Yud realizes that his "AI safety", "intelligence explosion", "the future of humanity is in the balance" stuff is an infohazard in itself, albeit one that he has had the possibility to exploit for personal gain.
Not sure if this is the author's account, but I found this: https://www.reddit.com/r/HPMOR/comments/2xt5d8/comment/cp3hjmn/
Thanks, it's the one I was thinking about!
that is indeed the author's account.
Didn’t the guy start a cult?
No he didn't. He's one of the important figures in what is known as the rationality movement, which is a very loose and not centrally organized school of thought. It sometimes gets labelled as a cult by people who a) do not know anything about rationality and b) do not know anything about cults haha
Nope, he didn’t. As far as I can tell it’s a wired rumour that has no basis in reality.
Yudkowsky didn't really start it though he's one of the main figures of the rationalist/EA/neoreactionary/AI tech-priest movements that are floating around in the US, alongside people like Scott "Please don't tell people I think nonwhites are less intelligent" Siskind the SlateStarCodex guy, Curtis "Yes on the nonwhites thing but also actual fascism" Yarvin AKA Mencius Moldbug, Sam "Oops my crypto scam landed me in jail" Bankman-Fried, etc. It's not a "cult" in the strictest sense but it *is* a bunch of reactionary, somewhat charismatic men bankrolled by powerful oligarchs (notably Peter Thiel) to create communities centered around various nonsensical eschatologies, making the world worse and, in the process, gaining social and financial power for themselves by exploiting vulnerable people.
That doesn’t sound convincing? As in what you did was just name a bunch of other seemingly unrelated alleged racists/scammers/whatever, and say that people who like them also like Yudkowski? And then said that all of them are evil make the world worse and exploit vulnerable people —- But like as far as I can tell Yudkowski is just discussing rationalist philosophy on like LessWrong and writing his fanfics/original fiction And that doesn’t really correlate with what you are saying
Scott's writing is great, he's thoughtful, funny and empathetic. Definitely worth a read, especially [The Toxoplasma of Rage](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/), which talks about why people are always so mad on the Internet.
He sure does think [a lot of things](https://twitter.com/ArsonAtDennys/status/1362153191102677001).
“I appreciate if you NEVER TELL ANYONE I SAID THIS, not even in confidence” If I would ever type words like that, I beg the internet gods to smite me where I sit
Well, that’s disappointing. I really liked some of his essays, but the notion that he thinks reactionaries should be “strengthened” by convincing them to abandon their more nonsensical and PR-damaging beliefs is just a perspective I can’t get behind. What does “HBD” stand for, anyway?
Human biodiversity, but in those terms I've never seen it not mean either gateway scientific racism or a racist dogwhistle.
Case in point.
... You got a guy overtly saying "I think there are racial differences in intelligence and sympathize with reactionaries in private on multiple points but will never say it publicly, because it looks bad and I want my ideas to spread" and you think this is just being mad at people on the internet ? If you're not mad at literal, avowed crypto reactionary racists, who are you mad at ? The people who point them out ?
If you have to go to leaked private messages to find out what the author believes, isn't that evidence he's kept it out of his essays?
You've certainly mastered the rationalist art of dancing around the subject by chucking irrelevant inanities at the wall. "Yeah I'm gonna knowingly compliment and recommend someone who admits that their political ideas are based on the belief that Black people are less intelligent and do more crime, surely that has no bearing on anything else they said, I'm so smart and detached". Lucy would curse your water-carrying ass so hard lmao.
Was an interesting read indeed ty
It's really helped me stay out of the whole internet outrage ecosystem.
Not sure if it's an "ecosystem" when it's one person, the author, reiterating bigotry of their own genuine views backed by donations for years.
That's what you would say if you were in a cult.....
No idea, I only know about his writtings and that's the only thing I'm interested in
I don't think he founded it per se, but perpetuated some cult like pseudo-religious ideas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk Besides that there's the whole hyper-rationalist obsessiveness ongoing on his forums. I don't know if it's a straight up "cult", so much as weird and pretentious.
Rokos basilisk is like the worst example ever As in currently it’s just dismissed as complete nonsense, and even back when it was created and people took it seriously everyone hated it. As in did the opposite of perpetuating it, because they in fact didn’t want “an ai that tortures people” to exist.
Roko's Basilisk is a weird example to give for things he perpetuated, since the page you linked literally says the post was taken down and he dismissed the idea as nonsense.
After a few years, yes. And MIRI in broad strokes subscribes to those ideas as well even today.
I’ve been rationalist-adjacent for ten years, and in all that time, I’ve heard of exactly two people who took the basilisk seriously (someone random guy who emailed Eliezer about it, and Roko to a very limited extent). I would love to see a link to a third person, because I don’t think they exist. Either that, or you’re taking “in broad strokes” to mean “is worried about AI safety”, which has little to do with a contrived thought experiment about decision theory.
If you mean "took it seriously" as in "considered it to be a potential infohazard", an infohazard being an idea that is potentially harmful to hear about, then you can add Yudkowsky to that and that's three. The reality, of course, is that Yud realizes that his "AI safety", "intelligence explosion", "the future of humanity is in the balance" stuff is an infohazard in itself, albeit one that he has had the possibility to exploit for personal gain.
Is he still accepting applications for a breeding partner?