I’m quoted in this, which does about as good a job overviewing the topic as a New York Times profile can be expected to.

Major oversights in it as I see.

First, It does not acknowledge the fact that Yudkowsky is, at heart, a complete crank. This remains, to my mind, crucial to understanding the rationalist community’s influence on the world: they’re sci-fi writers being mistaken for scientists.
You can’t really understand the harmful effects of SSC until you realize that it’s part of a larger movement of bullshit artists serving as cult leaders to the techbros.
Second, and more importantly, it never really explains the harm that’s being done by Scott Siskind and his followers. It comes close, noting that “SJWs” were the only group not welcome in SSC, but it doesn’t capture the harm of that because it doesn’t unpack the term.
What is meant in practice when “SJWs” aren’t welcome in a space is that marginalized people speaking of the harm they experience are silenced.

That’s it. That’s the meaning.
When Sam Altman complains that concerns about sexism and racism inhibit innovation, the point that really needs to be made, and that Cade should have asked for a response quote on, is that innovations unconcerned with sexism and racism hurt people.
Like, what are we talking about here in practice? We’re talking about image identification algorithms that mistake black people for gorillas. And fixing that by just removing gorillas as a thing the algorithm can identify. https://t.co/gyP3WZ4VSH
We’re talking about financial algorithms that bring back redlining. https://t.co/dHHISoAjRJ
We’re talking about social media moderation that is trivially weaponized against women and trans women. (I’d link, but you’re already on the site I’m talking about.)
And we’re talking about shit like Boston Dynamics, where the use case for their cool robot videos is unmistakably police robots, being developed by fucking billionaires who think the Black Lives Matter movement oppresses them.
The message of SSC was that ignoring people who say “these things cause me harm” was virtuous, and that the people you really had to take seriously and think about were fucking nazis.
And the fact that the tech industry viewed that as an absolutely essential message to hear is horrifying on a scale that Cade’s article ultimately only gestures at.
The real headline is “Silicon Valley would rather listen to nazis than feminists.”
I focused on the macro level in this thread because it’s what the NYT article focused on, but having read accounts of people’s abuse within the “rationalist” community, it is just as toxic a cesspool on the micro level as the macro. https://t.co/e74k2bd13S
Anyway. If you like this thread, I have a whole book about the rationalist movement, white supremacists, and the fact that we are all fucked and the reasons why are very stupid. It is, if I may say so, pretty good. https://t.co/DXtw6oLIyw

More from Tech

You May Also Like

@EricTopol @NBA @StephenKissler @yhgrad B.1.1.7 reveals clearly that SARS-CoV-2 is reverting to its original pre-outbreak condition, i.e. adapted to transgenic hACE2 mice (either Baric's BALB/c ones or others used at WIV labs during chimeric bat coronavirus experiments aimed at developing a pan betacoronavirus vaccine)

@NBA @StephenKissler @yhgrad 1. From Day 1, SARS-COV-2 was very well adapted to humans .....and transgenic hACE2 Mice


@NBA @StephenKissler @yhgrad 2. High Probability of serial passaging in Transgenic Mice expressing hACE2 in genesis of SARS-COV-2


@NBA @StephenKissler @yhgrad B.1.1.7 has an unusually large number of genetic changes, ... found to date in mouse-adapted SARS-CoV2 and is also seen in ferret infections.
https://t.co/9Z4oJmkcKj


@NBA @StephenKissler @yhgrad We adapted a clinical isolate of SARS-CoV-2 by serial passaging in the ... Thus, this mouse-adapted strain and associated challenge model should be ... (B) SARS-CoV-2 genomic RNA loads in mouse lung homogenates at P0 to P6.
https://t.co/I90OOCJg7o