Nonetheless, the piece exhibited some patterns that gave me a pretty strong allergic reaction. It made or implied claims like: * a small circle of the smartest people believe this * i will give you a view into this small elite group who are the only who are situationally aware * the inner circle longed tsmc way before you * if you believe me; you can get 100x richer—there’s still alpha, you can still be early * This geopolitical outcome is “inevitable” (sic!) * in the future the coolest and most elite group will work on The Project. “see you in the desert” (sic) * Etc.
These are not just vibes—they are all empirical claims (except the last maybe). If you think they are wrong, you should say so and explain why. It’s not epistemically poor to say these things if they’re actually true.
These are not just vibes—they are all empirical claims (except the last maybe). If you think they are wrong, you should say so and explain why. It’s not epistemically poor to say these things if they’re actually true.
(instead of making all comments on both places, ill continue discussing over at lesswrong https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/i5pccofToYepythEw/against-aschenbrenner-how-situational-awareness-constructs-a#Hview8GCnX7w4XSre )