Q🌱🏴
@quane130.bsky.social
any/all (enby/agender)🏳️⚧️, atheist, ace/grayro, autistic, ascetic
Interested in entropy/complexity/philosophy. I rarely post; here for news and interesting people. Dilettante ABD. EN/CN
hard incompatibilitist, transhumanist, socially anxious, FNB🤝Givewell
Interested in entropy/complexity/philosophy. I rarely post; here for news and interesting people. Dilettante ABD. EN/CN
hard incompatibilitist, transhumanist, socially anxious, FNB🤝Givewell
Fellow BW enjoyer, always good to see. You follow the ASL?
November 9, 2025 at 1:02 AM
Fellow BW enjoyer, always good to see. You follow the ASL?
Yup, and gets exponentially more difficult the more hierarchies we want to dismantle. Libs (including Statist lefties) might think it's already a tall order to fight fash, but that's child's play because ultimately they can still rely on the state sooner or later. Anarchists don't have that luxury.
October 26, 2025 at 8:06 PM
Yup, and gets exponentially more difficult the more hierarchies we want to dismantle. Libs (including Statist lefties) might think it's already a tall order to fight fash, but that's child's play because ultimately they can still rely on the state sooner or later. Anarchists don't have that luxury.
Like I think Jacobin is just as problematic as Cosmo for different reasons, but if you read the review of Flowers for Marx the article links, it basically contextualizes the whole thing -- just a Greatest Hits collection of inter-Marxist squabbles between the orthodox view and the analytics.
October 16, 2025 at 9:02 PM
Like I think Jacobin is just as problematic as Cosmo for different reasons, but if you read the review of Flowers for Marx the article links, it basically contextualizes the whole thing -- just a Greatest Hits collection of inter-Marxist squabbles between the orthodox view and the analytics.
To be fair, much of Cosmonaut has a fairly orthodox Marxist line and holds the Jacobin demsoc milieu in contempt. I do think Chibber is a partisan hack (did like his subaltern critiques), but like, I'd take Cosmo's rendition of Jacobin with a grain of salt. Tribune is a subsidiary of Jacobin btw.
October 16, 2025 at 8:59 PM
To be fair, much of Cosmonaut has a fairly orthodox Marxist line and holds the Jacobin demsoc milieu in contempt. I do think Chibber is a partisan hack (did like his subaltern critiques), but like, I'd take Cosmo's rendition of Jacobin with a grain of salt. Tribune is a subsidiary of Jacobin btw.
I used to be in online debate circles unfortunately, and even the reactionaries saw Kirk as bottom tier. The only time I saw Kirk debate someone passable was against Ben Burgis (also mediocre both in rhetoric and ideas), and Kirk was unknowingly supporting dialetheism against the Euthyphro lmao.
September 13, 2025 at 11:28 PM
I used to be in online debate circles unfortunately, and even the reactionaries saw Kirk as bottom tier. The only time I saw Kirk debate someone passable was against Ben Burgis (also mediocre both in rhetoric and ideas), and Kirk was unknowingly supporting dialetheism against the Euthyphro lmao.
Oh look, another dumbass who has a superficial understanding of what entropy means, and hamfists it in some vacuous way that might ostensibly sound deep to their stupid audience. I remember reading McManus's review of this book, and this guy got really pissy about it lmao.
September 13, 2025 at 3:49 PM
Oh look, another dumbass who has a superficial understanding of what entropy means, and hamfists it in some vacuous way that might ostensibly sound deep to their stupid audience. I remember reading McManus's review of this book, and this guy got really pissy about it lmao.
Funnily enough, that post mentions using private language/definitions, and I think likely many in EA also use private definitions for their own political views. Someone like Bostrom might very well still consider themselves center-left because in totality their left-wing views outnumber right.
September 7, 2025 at 12:51 PM
Funnily enough, that post mentions using private language/definitions, and I think likely many in EA also use private definitions for their own political views. Someone like Bostrom might very well still consider themselves center-left because in totality their left-wing views outnumber right.
That ideological breakdown is also pretty consistent with what we generally think of what EA comprises anyways: a majority are centrist/center-left libs, which is probably what most of the loudest advocates of EA are anyways (Singer, MacAskill, etc.)
September 7, 2025 at 12:36 PM
That ideological breakdown is also pretty consistent with what we generally think of what EA comprises anyways: a majority are centrist/center-left libs, which is probably what most of the loudest advocates of EA are anyways (Singer, MacAskill, etc.)
Agreed. I remember reading through some of the responses in this thread forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/gm2ggn... a while ago, and while some were reasonable (even the "reasonable" one was praising Jason Brennan's critique of Cohen, which reads like someone not engaging deeply and used an LLM).
Why not socialism? — EA Forum
I. Introduction and a prima facie case • It seems to me that most (perhaps all) effective altruists believe that: …
forum.effectivealtruism.org
September 7, 2025 at 12:29 PM
Agreed. I remember reading through some of the responses in this thread forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/gm2ggn... a while ago, and while some were reasonable (even the "reasonable" one was praising Jason Brennan's critique of Cohen, which reads like someone not engaging deeply and used an LLM).
...used our current understanding of physics. Therefore, if it predicts we're also likely to be BBs, then why trust that understanding of physics (and that model), given the nature of BBs? Those laws have an overwhelmingly high probability of also being complete gibberish, are false memories, etc.
August 8, 2025 at 7:18 PM
...used our current understanding of physics. Therefore, if it predicts we're also likely to be BBs, then why trust that understanding of physics (and that model), given the nature of BBs? Those laws have an overwhelmingly high probability of also being complete gibberish, are false memories, etc.
You don't need to know much about statmech for this, although it helps if you want to read papers on this subject: arxiv.org/pdf/1505.02780 or arxiv.org/pdf/1702.00850
Any physics model that predicts Boltzmann brains are overwhelmingly likely to be self-refuting, because that model (presumably)...
Any physics model that predicts Boltzmann brains are overwhelmingly likely to be self-refuting, because that model (presumably)...
arxiv.org
August 8, 2025 at 7:16 PM
You don't need to know much about statmech for this, although it helps if you want to read papers on this subject: arxiv.org/pdf/1505.02780 or arxiv.org/pdf/1702.00850
Any physics model that predicts Boltzmann brains are overwhelmingly likely to be self-refuting, because that model (presumably)...
Any physics model that predicts Boltzmann brains are overwhelmingly likely to be self-refuting, because that model (presumably)...
In my head cannon, this came to be about a century ago, when Hilbert (famous atheist) started pushing formalism, and got slapped down by Gödel (famous theist). Formalism never quite recovered, although Hilbert honestly should have been braver with his heterodoxy and embraced intuitionism.
August 7, 2025 at 12:15 AM
In my head cannon, this came to be about a century ago, when Hilbert (famous atheist) started pushing formalism, and got slapped down by Gödel (famous theist). Formalism never quite recovered, although Hilbert honestly should have been braver with his heterodoxy and embraced intuitionism.
All true, but the modal mathematician (the most rigorous of them all in many respects) is probably more religious or at least, more prone to religiosity/platonistic thinking than the modal physicist. Different kind of reactionary of course, but problematic all the same.
August 7, 2025 at 12:12 AM
All true, but the modal mathematician (the most rigorous of them all in many respects) is probably more religious or at least, more prone to religiosity/platonistic thinking than the modal physicist. Different kind of reactionary of course, but problematic all the same.
True, but you could also say that analytical Marxists like Cohen argued that rational human responses to material needs, and not class struggle, is the prime mover of tech innovation (his late-career evolved thesis on technological determinism). This obviously isn't the orthodox Marxist view.
August 1, 2025 at 9:42 PM
True, but you could also say that analytical Marxists like Cohen argued that rational human responses to material needs, and not class struggle, is the prime mover of tech innovation (his late-career evolved thesis on technological determinism). This obviously isn't the orthodox Marxist view.
These dumbass libs do not want to *actually* read the academics they so pretend to revere.
The rationality of voting/topic of voting has been a deeply studied area in polisci/phil for decades, but it seems like the fucking public discourse is still stuck in the stone age (much like veganism).
The rationality of voting/topic of voting has been a deeply studied area in polisci/phil for decades, but it seems like the fucking public discourse is still stuck in the stone age (much like veganism).
August 1, 2025 at 6:49 PM
These dumbass libs do not want to *actually* read the academics they so pretend to revere.
The rationality of voting/topic of voting has been a deeply studied area in polisci/phil for decades, but it seems like the fucking public discourse is still stuck in the stone age (much like veganism).
The rationality of voting/topic of voting has been a deeply studied area in polisci/phil for decades, but it seems like the fucking public discourse is still stuck in the stone age (much like veganism).
Original G Brennan work: philosophy.unc.edu/wp-content/u...
Barnett's response: philpapers.org/rec/BARWYS (this paper links to many books/arguments, including J Brennan)
Response to Barnett: philpapers.org/rec/LIRTCF
I'm unconvinced of the magnitude in the EV calcs, and SC issue has no counter.
Barnett's response: philpapers.org/rec/BARWYS (this paper links to many books/arguments, including J Brennan)
Response to Barnett: philpapers.org/rec/LIRTCF
I'm unconvinced of the magnitude in the EV calcs, and SC issue has no counter.
philosophy.unc.edu
August 1, 2025 at 6:39 PM
Original G Brennan work: philosophy.unc.edu/wp-content/u...
Barnett's response: philpapers.org/rec/BARWYS (this paper links to many books/arguments, including J Brennan)
Response to Barnett: philpapers.org/rec/LIRTCF
I'm unconvinced of the magnitude in the EV calcs, and SC issue has no counter.
Barnett's response: philpapers.org/rec/BARWYS (this paper links to many books/arguments, including J Brennan)
Response to Barnett: philpapers.org/rec/LIRTCF
I'm unconvinced of the magnitude in the EV calcs, and SC issue has no counter.
Yup, ofc smug libs not updating:
-Variant of Brennan (G and J) argument: irrational due to myriad factors (link papers next post)
-Responses: positive EV due to astronomical stakes despite tiny probability
-Yet, in sufficiently close elections (what responses rely on), SC steps in anyways (see 2000)
-Variant of Brennan (G and J) argument: irrational due to myriad factors (link papers next post)
-Responses: positive EV due to astronomical stakes despite tiny probability
-Yet, in sufficiently close elections (what responses rely on), SC steps in anyways (see 2000)
August 1, 2025 at 6:35 PM
Yup, ofc smug libs not updating:
-Variant of Brennan (G and J) argument: irrational due to myriad factors (link papers next post)
-Responses: positive EV due to astronomical stakes despite tiny probability
-Yet, in sufficiently close elections (what responses rely on), SC steps in anyways (see 2000)
-Variant of Brennan (G and J) argument: irrational due to myriad factors (link papers next post)
-Responses: positive EV due to astronomical stakes despite tiny probability
-Yet, in sufficiently close elections (what responses rely on), SC steps in anyways (see 2000)
I can't stand Doom 1 because of no SSG. The SSG is so versatile that once you get used to it, you can't go back (I used to record demos for some PWADs like 10 years ago as a kid, lol).
Tons of great content being made every month in the doom community, most of which is much better than the IWADS.
Tons of great content being made every month in the doom community, most of which is much better than the IWADS.
July 31, 2025 at 12:57 PM
I can't stand Doom 1 because of no SSG. The SSG is so versatile that once you get used to it, you can't go back (I used to record demos for some PWADs like 10 years ago as a kid, lol).
Tons of great content being made every month in the doom community, most of which is much better than the IWADS.
Tons of great content being made every month in the doom community, most of which is much better than the IWADS.
One thing that Tao said is that the amount of effort required to suss out lines of immaculate bullshit output by LLMs in proofs is not worth. Basically, LLMs are good at outputting plausible looking math (still gibberish) that can fool anyone unless they spend hours working through the proof.
July 19, 2025 at 1:10 PM
One thing that Tao said is that the amount of effort required to suss out lines of immaculate bullshit output by LLMs in proofs is not worth. Basically, LLMs are good at outputting plausible looking math (still gibberish) that can fool anyone unless they spend hours working through the proof.
The stuff that Lean can do in proof-checking is amazing. As for actual LLMs, they're found wanting, but to be fair, what Tao's doing is professional level (not graduate level) work. Maybe in some years the cutting edge stuff can also be handled, but the conceptual gap is large.
July 19, 2025 at 12:47 PM
The stuff that Lean can do in proof-checking is amazing. As for actual LLMs, they're found wanting, but to be fair, what Tao's doing is professional level (not graduate level) work. Maybe in some years the cutting edge stuff can also be handled, but the conceptual gap is large.
Yeah, Tao's been pushing this stuff for years. Recently he's been doing interviews and making YT vids on proof-formalizing using Lean + various LLMs www.youtube.com/@TerenceTao27 (I know, it looks like the thing in academia where the ones who can't keep up anymore start doing public outreach shit).
www.youtube.com
July 19, 2025 at 12:44 PM
Yeah, Tao's been pushing this stuff for years. Recently he's been doing interviews and making YT vids on proof-formalizing using Lean + various LLMs www.youtube.com/@TerenceTao27 (I know, it looks like the thing in academia where the ones who can't keep up anymore start doing public outreach shit).
There's literally hundreds of different tofu dishes in Chinese cuisine alone. I'm biased since I grew up on that shit, but tofu wins ez. Hell, the fermented shit spread on buns already mogs anything tempeh can do.
July 6, 2025 at 2:08 AM
There's literally hundreds of different tofu dishes in Chinese cuisine alone. I'm biased since I grew up on that shit, but tofu wins ez. Hell, the fermented shit spread on buns already mogs anything tempeh can do.
I never bothered with Singer's work on Marx, because honestly from some reviews I remember it just sounded like standard left-lib critiques that are mostly obvious (USSR/China bad, welfare state capitalism the best we can do for now, etc.).
But yeah, Singer's less-longtermist vision of EA is good.
But yeah, Singer's less-longtermist vision of EA is good.
July 4, 2025 at 1:18 PM
I never bothered with Singer's work on Marx, because honestly from some reviews I remember it just sounded like standard left-lib critiques that are mostly obvious (USSR/China bad, welfare state capitalism the best we can do for now, etc.).
But yeah, Singer's less-longtermist vision of EA is good.
But yeah, Singer's less-longtermist vision of EA is good.
Robinson's critiques are misplaced, and I know you don't fully agree with Mac/Singer, but a more cynical reading of this can simply be that they were already heavily predisposed to certain centrist/lib milieus. Stereotypical "how I left the left" type shit.
July 3, 2025 at 2:09 PM
Robinson's critiques are misplaced, and I know you don't fully agree with Mac/Singer, but a more cynical reading of this can simply be that they were already heavily predisposed to certain centrist/lib milieus. Stereotypical "how I left the left" type shit.
Yup, annoys me when people act as if their deeply squishy, unscientific, and facile understanding of politics is not ideological. That political data and history that doesn't control for myriad variables is unbiased. Ironically, the "apolitical" who checked out long ago, intuitively understand this.
June 27, 2025 at 12:51 PM
Yup, annoys me when people act as if their deeply squishy, unscientific, and facile understanding of politics is not ideological. That political data and history that doesn't control for myriad variables is unbiased. Ironically, the "apolitical" who checked out long ago, intuitively understand this.