Or maybe people love Peter Thiel, Musk and red pills here? In this case, I guess, there’s not much to discuss. At least I expected some answers. It’s as if people don’t even bother to explain what is being done—just assumed to be “correct”?
In addition, we are issuing a warning to sergia, for this and other comments. Sergia, please read the EA Forum norms post and, if you’re in doubt of whether your comment is meeting those norms, please wait for a while and revise your comment.
I’m mostly leaving—I have said basically the same thing over and over again. In a polite way. In a more twitter way like here. The Concerned EAs said it in an EA forum style post. At this point, I see that I have done everything that I could.
In general, I feel this conversation between leftists and EAs fails because of holistic vs logical reasoning.
EAs tend to believe that “logical reasoning” is superior to “holistic reasoning”
Holistic reasoning is good at spotting patterns. Logic is good at disproving the patterns exist, by cutting the thing into a taxonomy with a sharp razor of this logical reasoning.
What I’m presenting is a pattern. Of course it’s not a completely correct statement in a logical sense: I don’t really know how it is. All I say is: I’m concerned that I see it.
What I get in response is not “sure, let’s brainstorm, steelman it”. Or better “sure, let’s see if it’s a valid pattern by taking action and see if the response is consistent with the pattern (active exploration, needed to uncover the causal structure. I did a thesis on this). It’s not possible to obtain the correct model from observation alone in some cases. Neither internal monologue about the observation would help the agent. Only action and testing the hypothesis”
I feel it’s like a paper review, not beanstormig. “Everything wrong with this in a 1000 words” rather than “here’s what I agree with. Here’s what I disagree with. Here’s my evidence”.
That’s why it feels not friendly for me to talk to EAs. I tried it soo sooo many times, every time my pattern that is connected to my personality gets dissected, traumatizing and invalidating me. Questioning my very axioms that I have discovered with sweat and pain, rather than saying whether they agree with a statement itself.
Questioning my holistic thinking that lives with the logical one quite well together for me.
To me some posts read us a call for me to abandon my emotional side and use only logic (such as, libertarian utilitarianism by Sabs or “red pill is OK in EA” in the most downvoted subthread here)
I want balance, I want both. To me “only logic, only one way of thinking” is very extreme. You saw my other posts—I can do mathy things too. Just, I believe that if I only see and do mathy things, my world model would be incomplete, my exploration would be doomed, and my prior will not be universal. It would be “intelligence used to shoot itself in the foot”
There is no way to explain it. It just happened to me once that I met a person who showed this to me, reminded me of something I forgot. The dream I had of “math being superior to humanities and such” collapsed, like in the Inception movie.
Where I am now feels better. I can feel again. I feel whole. And I can still do math. I am sometimes uncomfortable with using math without emotion. Like, taking about genocide and saying “it’s not significant because the number of dead people is low”
It’s not the way.
See my post about the matrix trilogy: https://dair-community.social/@sergia/109979018708128244 and about how sometimes the seeming necessity of a choice is the problem, an artifact of the decision-making system rather than an objective necessity.
I see emotion as something helping to see a bit beyond the tunnel vision of logic.
It all changed for me when I saw the intensity of suffering of just one person who is not like me. I couldn’t think of it as pure numbers or “mere ripples”. Feeling what they feel.
I don’t want this—never again anyone has to feel this bad.
I reject utilitarianism : I am from an ex-communist country which loved utilitarianism (and still does: Putin says “I’m going to save the world from the evil west, but to do so we’re gonna need to kill a lot of people”—people believe in this there!)
I believe this can be done, caring about everyone, at least, I will do my best. That doesn’t require any viokence I believe, not at all. Those who did agressive violence in the name of peace were utilitarians! Lenin and those people. F them :) they totally didn’t get anything I think.
(Side note: it is at the same time surprising but I feel this many times so it’s not surprising at all now: a complete and total lack of interest from EAs towards asking questions about my story, the actual evidence I have. Like, nobody cares what happened in real-life with real people—only if there’s some mathy philosophy anything is worth anything 💔💔💔)
That can’t be explained, no matter how many walls of text I write. That one life is worth more than any philosophy or any belief system or any ideology, anything like that
I will say this out loud: I am extremely concerned that a secretive group of people who see superiority as acceptable (men over women in “red pill”, majority vs minority in “utilitarianism”, big over small in “total libertarianism”) are engineering an “AI revolution” with manifestos and promises of “UBI”, with no plan how to get there, only promises and handwaving, and ignore current crimes and harms done by them in the face of some “greater good” they imagine in their utopian manifestos.
If we replace “red pill” with “male supremacy”, “libertarianism” with “communism” and “AI” with “collectivism”, and “UBI” well with “UBI”, we have a clear parallel between now and a 100 years ago. first in Moscow now in silicon valley. Both were not nice to women (and had a “theory of all theories” to justify that), not nice to minorities (both saw them as a nuisance, didn’t believe ever that “people are different”, saw everyone the same because they themselves never met anyone not like them, of course, with a “theoretical justification”). Both imagined some “grand future” for which it was acceptable (and kinda encouraged) to do crimes in the present.
The story a 100 years ago went like this: the Red Communists, the most utilitarian ones, killed everyone who had concerns over the validity of their philosophy.
If it comes to this, you’ll see that I’ll not defend myself. I don’t want to be in a world dominated by utilitarians. All full of utopias in their heads, and actual real poor people on the streets. All imagined, all fake. I’ll do my peaceful thing. That is it.
Just one life is more important than all those mental sandcastles.
That is it—that is goodbye.
There were some nice things, some nice people I met in EA. I still want to talk to them
In general, this is a goodbye.
Goodbye!
I would totally love to talk “real”. A conversation that doesn’t feel I talk to a sociopath who would rather believe in some philosophy than even try to help real people.
The real thing is:
it takes 10 minutes to write a question to Anthropic
there’s potential upside
there’s no potential downside in asking a question
Instead people here ask “well shall I even spend 1 second on making sense of it, or is it all total bs”?
It’s not a school assignment. It’s like you say “oh teacher the assignment seems contrarctory” and the teacher is like “oh sure that’s a typo”. I’m not here to fix typos. I did it and it didn’t lead to answers.
It’s real world. Nobody knows the full truth, there’s no one true theory, there’s no reward for an assignment and there’s no assignment.
Since some of you are in a country where culture war is going up, I’d strongly recommend to learn from partially correct information—inferring emotion instead of “parse error on line 1”.
Then we can heal it. There’s not one single person who’s perfect.
What does seem odd is completely downvoting a person for asking questions to the core of a philosophy.
What does seem odd is seeing a post advocating for “Even More Centralisation” after all that has transpired and all that has been said. It’s heartbreaking to me because I know where it leads. I have that experience. For you it’s a “map”, I have memory of real territory. For you it’s “form”, for me it has meaning.
Please reach out to someone who knows the territory. Someone outside of this group that believes they have answers to everything...
This subthread seems to be going in a bad direction. I would encourage those wanting to discuss the net-value of Elon Musk and Peter Thiel on the world to do so elsewhere.
Well, I feel the “red pill” part is directly relevant to alignment, both for current and long-term issues, the values that go into the AI part, and the power structure of the AI company that does it part.
I guess that’s why I included it into my post, don’t really know, I did it with mostly emotion and emotion is not well-interpretable always (sometimes for the best).
I do feel we (EA , tech, finance and related) need to discuss this as a community, the “red pill” stuff and whether it’s extreme (my experience n=1 and my interpretation of m=~100 other people says that yes, it’s a poorly and vaguely phrased partial theory that mostly explains how traumatic, unhappy, unhealthy relationships work (traumatized people are ones who will be most responsive to the “push-pull” pickup artistry, not because “this is how people are” but because “this is how traumatized people try to be happy and fail”), giving a phenomenological explanation with a completely wrong and actively harmful explanation of the underlying causes, with links to fascism and dehumanisation, agressiveness and fatalism)
Personally, I feel in a lot of cases this ideology is the reason people are unsuccessful in relationships: it is a fake cure for a problem that was probably “just” trauma and misunderstanding in the first place. Like, a society-wide misunderstanding between genders. Again, my personal view.
See my other comments about how “a society which is not aligned within itself is unlikely to be able to align other entities well”. Something as massive as this I believe should be addressed first before anything external can be taken care of
Same reason I feel the discussion “apple&android vs Nokia&fxtec” in another thread is very very very directly relevant to alignment, again, both power structure-wise and values themselves-wise.
Don’t really know to best do such a discussion, again, I’m only one person, I don’t really know :)
I am tired. I want a vacation from all this.
I have hope in the community that they are smart and capable and can sort these things through.
I understand that downvotes can be hurtful – but afaik the post has been up for 45min, so maybe it would be a good idea to wait a bit before reading too much into the reaction/non-reaction?
personally I love Thiel & Musk and think they’ve been massive net positives for the world!
Strong agree with Musk (undecided on Thiel), and it frustrates me so much that people on this forum casually dismiss him. I would go so far as to say I think he’s been a much bigger net positive than much if not all of the EA movement—massively improving our prospects from climate change, and reducing existential risk by moving us towards being multiplanetary as fast as possible.
The standard counterarguments seem to be ‘bunkers > planets’, ‘AI makes being multiplanetary irrelevant’, and ‘climate change isn’t a big deal so Tesla doesn’t matter’. I think all three of these arguments are a) probably wrong and more importantly b) almost completely unargued for.
I’m unclear who I feel has the burden of proof on such issues. In some sense burden of proof is a silly concept here, but in another I feel like it’s very important. When 80k et al regularly talk people out of becoming engineers to go into AI safety research or similar, a view which is then often picked up by the wider community, it seems very important that those same EAs should put serious thought into counterfactuals .
well clearly Musk is much better than all the EAs, he built these massive multi-billion-dollar companies and created loads of value on the way! We’re going back to space with Elon! How cool is that? If you disagree, well, ok, I guess that’s a very bold take considering the stock market’s opinion....
re EVs, agree as well, even if you don’t believe the climate stuff (I do w/ some caveats) then Teslas are very beautiful, great cars and almost certainly good for the world on other dimensions (i.e less local pollution in urban areas etc)
How do you feel about the “red pill” they seem to embrace (Musk openly and Thiel by evidence)? Do you feel this worldview affects their actions? Do you think it is extreme? Which political affiliation does “red pill” seem to belong to—left or right? Do you believe in those “sexual markets” stuff? Thank you for your replies.
I would have upvoted but for the red pill paragraph, which seemed needlessly uncharitable to Thiel and Musk. Your comment here seems more like it’s spoiling for a fight than looking for a discussion.
IIRC Musk once tweeted ‘take the red pill’ with no context, a phrase which traditionally referred to any instance of people having a radical perspective shift. When asked, he said he didn’t know about the pick up artistry subgroup of the same name. I see no reason to disbelieve this, and I haven’t heard him say anything particularly in line with their views elsewhere.
The red pill philosophy is broadly associated with—though strictly unrelated to—right wing politics. What does that have to do with anything? Plenty of EAs are right wing. It’s not a pejorative.
To sum up my other comment, yes, I want to confront you with normalizing red pill. I think it’s fascist and dehumanising.
Yes, I also think it’s relevant to AI alignment, because a community that is not aligned itself, that is “at war” between it’s own genders (tech people), is unlikely to align something else well.
Saying this as a person from a fascist country who kinda supports an ex-fascist politician trying to do better and be kinder (see Navalny)
Saying this as a sexual abuser and mentally abused.
Saying this as one who apologized and saw that what I did was wrong. And one who now sees how stupid and unnecessary it was.
Saying this as one who talked to pro-Putin people a lot to understand how this all works.
There are ways to have both emotion and logic at peace and harmony. Together. Not at war.
Which “right wing” do you mean? I think it was about “small government” (but not “zero government”).
How is “red pill” related to “small government”? :)
You’re using the other “right wing”, which is something related to traditional family. That is one step there—a patriarch in the family. “Red pill” is asserting that it has enough explanatory power to overwhelm the aspect of free will in decisions of women and men, that the “sexual market” is a more clear explanation for how relationships go.
I’d say it’s a bit of an extreme step, because it claims a single simple objective for the whole of humanity: “women procreate, men fight”, creating a “stereotype of masculinity” being about “winning fights, physical or metaphorical”.
This theory completely ignores male singers who don’t seem to be into this stereotype. Some women loved Michael Jackson, and he doesn’t seem to be the “fighting type”, rather the feelings one.
This theory has blind spots, and is asserted quite forcefully: it has a mechanism of one being scared that they’re “poisoning their market value” if they do something out of line, seen in “chad/incel” memes for example.
Saying this as a person from Russia who saw the rise of fascism in our country, how our culture war went from the internet to the battlefield. I believed in this. I have seen this to be false. Saying this as a person who is responsible for sexual assault and who tries to heal and be better. “Red pill” is b.s. see my posts on Mastodon to see more on this.
It’s an extreme theory that ignores important corner cases (queer people), and tends to make people resentful towards anything not fitting in the theory, all while taking away “free will” to replace it with a “simple objective function”, without any research and clear outliers/exceptions, and is linked to male violence. Ironically, turning people into machines, the very thing the real “red pill from the movie” was not really pro: the concept name itself is stolen from a movie by trans authors and basically turned upside down in an evil twisted way: Neo was like “I’m gonna talk to the machines and bring peace to y’all. The war is gonna end”. Red pillers are like “we like guns, force and fighting and don’t like to talk about complex things much” 🤷♀️
“Small government” right wing is not a pejorative. “Traditional cisgender relationship with a man deciding things” is ok too if a women likes it too (and not forcefully taken into that). “Red pill” is, like, way out there for me—it’s a notion that a man can take any woman—nonsense if we consider that some women cheered when Trump was like “grab them and such”, and some women would not like a single violation of consent, like tagging on Twitter. Women are just people. People are different.
“If I loved him any less, I’d make him stay
But he has to be the best , player of games”
She asserts she is aware of the ongoing “push-pull” pickup artistry from him, but refuses to apply it herself to achieve her goal, then says thay the dude is always at work basically
I’d say by the video, using subjective holistic judgement, that he’s legit red-pilled.
And my post above says that red pill is extreme and linked to fascism.
And I say it’s related to so many cases of sexual assault in tech, EA, finance—people see “simple markets” where there’s just so much more complexity, and not much markets necessarily :)
So you don’t have any further reason to think Musk has anything to do with red pill philosophy, but you’re going to cast a bunch of aspersions on him and then randomly insult me at the end.
Or maybe people love Peter Thiel, Musk and red pills here? In this case, I guess, there’s not much to discuss. At least I expected some answers. It’s as if people don’t even bother to explain what is being done—just assumed to be “correct”?
In addition, we are issuing a warning to sergia, for this and other comments. Sergia, please read the EA Forum norms post and, if you’re in doubt of whether your comment is meeting those norms, please wait for a while and revise your comment.
I’m mostly leaving—I have said basically the same thing over and over again. In a polite way. In a more twitter way like here. The Concerned EAs said it in an EA forum style post. At this point, I see that I have done everything that I could.
In general, I feel this conversation between leftists and EAs fails because of holistic vs logical reasoning.
EAs tend to believe that “logical reasoning” is superior to “holistic reasoning”
Holistic reasoning is good at spotting patterns. Logic is good at disproving the patterns exist, by cutting the thing into a taxonomy with a sharp razor of this logical reasoning.
What I’m presenting is a pattern. Of course it’s not a completely correct statement in a logical sense: I don’t really know how it is. All I say is: I’m concerned that I see it.
What I get in response is not “sure, let’s brainstorm, steelman it”. Or better “sure, let’s see if it’s a valid pattern by taking action and see if the response is consistent with the pattern (active exploration, needed to uncover the causal structure. I did a thesis on this). It’s not possible to obtain the correct model from observation alone in some cases. Neither internal monologue about the observation would help the agent. Only action and testing the hypothesis”
I feel it’s like a paper review, not beanstormig. “Everything wrong with this in a 1000 words” rather than “here’s what I agree with. Here’s what I disagree with. Here’s my evidence”.
That’s why it feels not friendly for me to talk to EAs. I tried it soo sooo many times, every time my pattern that is connected to my personality gets dissected, traumatizing and invalidating me. Questioning my very axioms that I have discovered with sweat and pain, rather than saying whether they agree with a statement itself.
Questioning my holistic thinking that lives with the logical one quite well together for me.
To me some posts read us a call for me to abandon my emotional side and use only logic (such as, libertarian utilitarianism by Sabs or “red pill is OK in EA” in the most downvoted subthread here)
I want balance, I want both. To me “only logic, only one way of thinking” is very extreme. You saw my other posts—I can do mathy things too. Just, I believe that if I only see and do mathy things, my world model would be incomplete, my exploration would be doomed, and my prior will not be universal. It would be “intelligence used to shoot itself in the foot”
There is no way to explain it. It just happened to me once that I met a person who showed this to me, reminded me of something I forgot. The dream I had of “math being superior to humanities and such” collapsed, like in the Inception movie.
Where I am now feels better. I can feel again. I feel whole. And I can still do math. I am sometimes uncomfortable with using math without emotion. Like, taking about genocide and saying “it’s not significant because the number of dead people is low”
It’s not the way.
See my post about the matrix trilogy: https://dair-community.social/@sergia/109979018708128244 and about how sometimes the seeming necessity of a choice is the problem, an artifact of the decision-making system rather than an objective necessity.
I see emotion as something helping to see a bit beyond the tunnel vision of logic.
It all changed for me when I saw the intensity of suffering of just one person who is not like me. I couldn’t think of it as pure numbers or “mere ripples”. Feeling what they feel.
I don’t want this—never again anyone has to feel this bad.
I reject utilitarianism : I am from an ex-communist country which loved utilitarianism (and still does: Putin says “I’m going to save the world from the evil west, but to do so we’re gonna need to kill a lot of people”—people believe in this there!)
I believe this can be done, caring about everyone, at least, I will do my best. That doesn’t require any viokence I believe, not at all. Those who did agressive violence in the name of peace were utilitarians! Lenin and those people. F them :) they totally didn’t get anything I think.
See more on why I believe so here: https://dair-community.social/@sergia/109977128036067592
(Side note: it is at the same time surprising but I feel this many times so it’s not surprising at all now: a complete and total lack of interest from EAs towards asking questions about my story, the actual evidence I have. Like, nobody cares what happened in real-life with real people—only if there’s some mathy philosophy anything is worth anything 💔💔💔)
That can’t be explained, no matter how many walls of text I write. That one life is worth more than any philosophy or any belief system or any ideology, anything like that
I will say this out loud: I am extremely concerned that a secretive group of people who see superiority as acceptable (men over women in “red pill”, majority vs minority in “utilitarianism”, big over small in “total libertarianism”) are engineering an “AI revolution” with manifestos and promises of “UBI”, with no plan how to get there, only promises and handwaving, and ignore current crimes and harms done by them in the face of some “greater good” they imagine in their utopian manifestos.
If we replace “red pill” with “male supremacy”, “libertarianism” with “communism” and “AI” with “collectivism”, and “UBI” well with “UBI”, we have a clear parallel between now and a 100 years ago. first in Moscow now in silicon valley. Both were not nice to women (and had a “theory of all theories” to justify that), not nice to minorities (both saw them as a nuisance, didn’t believe ever that “people are different”, saw everyone the same because they themselves never met anyone not like them, of course, with a “theoretical justification”). Both imagined some “grand future” for which it was acceptable (and kinda encouraged) to do crimes in the present.
The story a 100 years ago went like this: the Red Communists, the most utilitarian ones, killed everyone who had concerns over the validity of their philosophy.
If it comes to this, you’ll see that I’ll not defend myself. I don’t want to be in a world dominated by utilitarians. All full of utopias in their heads, and actual real poor people on the streets. All imagined, all fake. I’ll do my peaceful thing. That is it.
Just one life is more important than all those mental sandcastles.
That is it—that is goodbye.
There were some nice things, some nice people I met in EA. I still want to talk to them
In general, this is a goodbye.
Goodbye!
I would totally love to talk “real”. A conversation that doesn’t feel I talk to a sociopath who would rather believe in some philosophy than even try to help real people.
The real thing is:
it takes 10 minutes to write a question to Anthropic
there’s potential upside
there’s no potential downside in asking a question
Instead people here ask “well shall I even spend 1 second on making sense of it, or is it all total bs”?
It’s not a school assignment. It’s like you say “oh teacher the assignment seems contrarctory” and the teacher is like “oh sure that’s a typo”. I’m not here to fix typos. I did it and it didn’t lead to answers.
It’s real world. Nobody knows the full truth, there’s no one true theory, there’s no reward for an assignment and there’s no assignment.
Since some of you are in a country where culture war is going up, I’d strongly recommend to learn from partially correct information—inferring emotion instead of “parse error on line 1”.
Then we can heal it. There’s not one single person who’s perfect.
What does seem odd is completely downvoting a person for asking questions to the core of a philosophy.
What does seem odd is seeing a post advocating for “Even More Centralisation” after all that has transpired and all that has been said. It’s heartbreaking to me because I know where it leads. I have that experience. For you it’s a “map”, I have memory of real territory. For you it’s “form”, for me it has meaning.
Please reach out to someone who knows the territory. Someone outside of this group that believes they have answers to everything...
Save yourself. Really.
This subthread seems to be going in a bad direction. I would encourage those wanting to discuss the net-value of Elon Musk and Peter Thiel on the world to do so elsewhere.
Well, I feel the “red pill” part is directly relevant to alignment, both for current and long-term issues, the values that go into the AI part, and the power structure of the AI company that does it part.
I guess that’s why I included it into my post, don’t really know, I did it with mostly emotion and emotion is not well-interpretable always (sometimes for the best).
I do feel we (EA , tech, finance and related) need to discuss this as a community, the “red pill” stuff and whether it’s extreme (my experience n=1 and my interpretation of m=~100 other people says that yes, it’s a poorly and vaguely phrased partial theory that mostly explains how traumatic, unhappy, unhealthy relationships work (traumatized people are ones who will be most responsive to the “push-pull” pickup artistry, not because “this is how people are” but because “this is how traumatized people try to be happy and fail”), giving a phenomenological explanation with a completely wrong and actively harmful explanation of the underlying causes, with links to fascism and dehumanisation, agressiveness and fatalism)
Personally, I feel in a lot of cases this ideology is the reason people are unsuccessful in relationships: it is a fake cure for a problem that was probably “just” trauma and misunderstanding in the first place. Like, a society-wide misunderstanding between genders. Again, my personal view.
See my other comments about how “a society which is not aligned within itself is unlikely to be able to align other entities well”. Something as massive as this I believe should be addressed first before anything external can be taken care of
Same reason I feel the discussion “apple&android vs Nokia&fxtec” in another thread is very very very directly relevant to alignment, again, both power structure-wise and values themselves-wise.
Don’t really know to best do such a discussion, again, I’m only one person, I don’t really know :)
I am tired. I want a vacation from all this.
I have hope in the community that they are smart and capable and can sort these things through.
I understand that downvotes can be hurtful – but afaik the post has been up for 45min, so maybe it would be a good idea to wait a bit before reading too much into the reaction/non-reaction?
personally I love Thiel & Musk and think they’ve been massive net positives for the world!
Strong agree with Musk (undecided on Thiel), and it frustrates me so much that people on this forum casually dismiss him. I would go so far as to say I think he’s been a much bigger net positive than much if not all of the EA movement—massively improving our prospects from climate change, and reducing existential risk by moving us towards being multiplanetary as fast as possible.
The standard counterarguments seem to be ‘bunkers > planets’, ‘AI makes being multiplanetary irrelevant’, and ‘climate change isn’t a big deal so Tesla doesn’t matter’. I think all three of these arguments are a) probably wrong and more importantly b) almost completely unargued for.
I’m unclear who I feel has the burden of proof on such issues. In some sense burden of proof is a silly concept here, but in another I feel like it’s very important. When 80k et al regularly talk people out of becoming engineers to go into AI safety research or similar, a view which is then often picked up by the wider community, it seems very important that those same EAs should put serious thought into counterfactuals .
well clearly Musk is much better than all the EAs, he built these massive multi-billion-dollar companies and created loads of value on the way! We’re going back to space with Elon! How cool is that? If you disagree, well, ok, I guess that’s a very bold take considering the stock market’s opinion....
re EVs, agree as well, even if you don’t believe the climate stuff (I do w/ some caveats) then Teslas are very beautiful, great cars and almost certainly good for the world on other dimensions (i.e less local pollution in urban areas etc)
How do you feel about the “red pill” they seem to embrace (Musk openly and Thiel by evidence)? Do you feel this worldview affects their actions? Do you think it is extreme? Which political affiliation does “red pill” seem to belong to—left or right? Do you believe in those “sexual markets” stuff? Thank you for your replies.
I would have upvoted but for the red pill paragraph, which seemed needlessly uncharitable to Thiel and Musk. Your comment here seems more like it’s spoiling for a fight than looking for a discussion.
IIRC Musk once tweeted ‘take the red pill’ with no context, a phrase which traditionally referred to any instance of people having a radical perspective shift. When asked, he said he didn’t know about the pick up artistry subgroup of the same name. I see no reason to disbelieve this, and I haven’t heard him say anything particularly in line with their views elsewhere.
The red pill philosophy is broadly associated with—though strictly unrelated to—right wing politics. What does that have to do with anything? Plenty of EAs are right wing. It’s not a pejorative.
To sum up my other comment, yes, I want to confront you with normalizing red pill. I think it’s fascist and dehumanising.
Yes, I also think it’s relevant to AI alignment, because a community that is not aligned itself, that is “at war” between it’s own genders (tech people), is unlikely to align something else well.
Saying this as a person from a fascist country who kinda supports an ex-fascist politician trying to do better and be kinder (see Navalny)
Saying this as a sexual abuser and mentally abused.
Saying this as one who apologized and saw that what I did was wrong. And one who now sees how stupid and unnecessary it was.
Saying this as one who talked to pro-Putin people a lot to understand how this all works.
There are ways to have both emotion and logic at peace and harmony. Together. Not at war.
Red pill ain’t it.
It’s extreme, agressive, ugly, stolen, perverted, dead.
Which “right wing” do you mean? I think it was about “small government” (but not “zero government”).
How is “red pill” related to “small government”? :)
You’re using the other “right wing”, which is something related to traditional family. That is one step there—a patriarch in the family. “Red pill” is asserting that it has enough explanatory power to overwhelm the aspect of free will in decisions of women and men, that the “sexual market” is a more clear explanation for how relationships go.
I’d say it’s a bit of an extreme step, because it claims a single simple objective for the whole of humanity: “women procreate, men fight”, creating a “stereotype of masculinity” being about “winning fights, physical or metaphorical”.
This theory completely ignores male singers who don’t seem to be into this stereotype. Some women loved Michael Jackson, and he doesn’t seem to be the “fighting type”, rather the feelings one.
This theory has blind spots, and is asserted quite forcefully: it has a mechanism of one being scared that they’re “poisoning their market value” if they do something out of line, seen in “chad/incel” memes for example.
Saying this as a person from Russia who saw the rise of fascism in our country, how our culture war went from the internet to the battlefield. I believed in this. I have seen this to be false. Saying this as a person who is responsible for sexual assault and who tries to heal and be better. “Red pill” is b.s. see my posts on Mastodon to see more on this.
It’s an extreme theory that ignores important corner cases (queer people), and tends to make people resentful towards anything not fitting in the theory, all while taking away “free will” to replace it with a “simple objective function”, without any research and clear outliers/exceptions, and is linked to male violence. Ironically, turning people into machines, the very thing the real “red pill from the movie” was not really pro: the concept name itself is stolen from a movie by trans authors and basically turned upside down in an evil twisted way: Neo was like “I’m gonna talk to the machines and bring peace to y’all. The war is gonna end”. Red pillers are like “we like guns, force and fighting and don’t like to talk about complex things much” 🤷♀️
“Small government” right wing is not a pejorative. “Traditional cisgender relationship with a man deciding things” is ok too if a women likes it too (and not forcefully taken into that). “Red pill” is, like, way out there for me—it’s a notion that a man can take any woman—nonsense if we consider that some women cheered when Trump was like “grab them and such”, and some women would not like a single violation of consent, like tagging on Twitter. Women are just people. People are different.
Musk’s ex-wife made a song about him.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ADHFwabVJec
“If I loved him any less, I’d make him stay But he has to be the best , player of games”
She asserts she is aware of the ongoing “push-pull” pickup artistry from him, but refuses to apply it herself to achieve her goal, then says thay the dude is always at work basically
I’d say by the video, using subjective holistic judgement, that he’s legit red-pilled.
And my post above says that red pill is extreme and linked to fascism.
And I say it’s related to so many cases of sexual assault in tech, EA, finance—people see “simple markets” where there’s just so much more complexity, and not much markets necessarily :)
Bite me :)
So you don’t have any further reason to think Musk has anything to do with red pill philosophy, but you’re going to cast a bunch of aspersions on him and then randomly insult me at the end.
Bye.
I’m not insulting you. I’m challenging your belief.
And, where is the insult? Which line?.. I’m saying that the red pill ideology is fascist. How does it insult you? Well, unless...
And yes, I think that if his multiple wifes all say kinda the same thing, it’s legit evidence. Yes.
And yes, I believe this is relevant for alignment. Directly. A community of red pillers creates an AI. Where would it go and what would it do?..