Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why are there so many rationalist cults?

asteriskmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 947 posts

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#331

Post by throw0101a »

inasio wrote: post #263
JohnMakin wrote: post #85

One of a few issues I have with groups like these, is that they often confidently and aggressively spew a set of beliefs that on their face logically follow from one another, until you realize they are built on a set of axioms that are either entirely untested or outright nonsense. This is common everywhere, but I feel especially pronounced in communities like this. It also involves quite a bit of navel gazing that m…

Saw once a discussion that people should not have kids as it's by far the highest increase in your carbon footprint in your lifetime (>10x than going vegan, etc) be driven all the way to advocating genocide as a way of carbon footprint minimization

> Saw once a discussion that people should not have kids as it's by far the highest increase in your carbon footprint in your lifetime (>10x than going vegan, etc) be driven all the way to advocating genocide as a way of carbon footprint minimization

The opening scene of Utopia (UK) s2e6 goes over this:

> "Why did you have him then? Nothing uses carbon like a first-world human, yet you created one: why would you do that?"

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcx-nf3kH_M

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#332

Post by godelski »

jl6 wrote: post #187
JohnMakin wrote: post #85

One of a few issues I have with groups like these, is that they often confidently and aggressively spew a set of beliefs that on their face logically follow from one another, until you realize they are built on a set of axioms that are either entirely untested or outright nonsense. This is common everywhere, but I feel especially pronounced in communities like this. It also involves quite a bit of navel gazing that m…

I don’t think it’s just (or even particularly) bad axioms, I think it’s that people tend to build up “logical” conclusions where they think each step is a watertight necessity that follows inevitably from its antecedents, but actually each step is a little bit leaky, leading to runaway growth in false confidence. Not that non-rationalists are any better at reasoning, but non-rationalists do at least benefit from some…

  > I don’t think it’s just (or even particularly) bad axioms
IME most people aren't very good at building axioms. I hear a lot of people say "from first principles" and it is a pretty good indication that they will not be. First principles require a lot of effort to create. They require iteration. They require a lot of nuance, care, and precision. And of course they do! They are the foundation of everything else that is about to come. This is why I find it so odd when people say "let's work from first principles" and then just state something matter of factly and follow from there. If you want to really do this you start simple, attack your own assumptions, reform, build, attack, and repeat.

This is how you reduce the leakiness, but I think it is categorically the same problem as the bad axioms. It is hard to challenge yourself and we often don't like being wrong. It is also really unfortunate that small mistakes can be a critical flaw. There's definitely an imbalance.

  >> The smartest people I have ever known have been profoundly unsure of their beliefs and what they know.
This is why the OP is seeing this behavior. Because the smartest people you'll meet are constantly challenging their own ideas. They know they are wrong to at least some degree. You'll sometimes find them talking with a bit of authority at first but a key part is watching how they deal with challenging of assumptions. Ask them what would cause them to change their minds. Ask them about nuances and details. They won't always dig into those can of worms but they will be aware of it and maybe nervousness or excited about going down that road (or do they just outright dismiss it?). They understand that accuracy is proportional to computation, and you have exponentially increasing computation as you converge on accuracy. These are strong indications since it'll suggest if they care more about the right answer or being right. You also don't have to be very smart to detect this.

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#333

Post by photios »

greenavocado wrote: post #42
mlinhares wrote: post #4

> One is Black Lotus, a Burning Man camp led by alleged rapist Brent Dill, which developed a metaphysical system based on the tabletop roleplaying game Mage the Ascension. What the actual f. This is such an insane thing to read and understand what it means that i might need to go and sit in silence for the rest of the day. How did we get to this place with people going completely nuts like this?

Humans are compelled to find agency and narrative in chaos. Evolution favored those who assumed the rustle was a predator, not the wind. In a post-Enlightenment world where traditional religion often fails (or is rejected), this drive doesn't vanish. We don't stop seeking meaning. We seek new frameworks. Our survival depended on group cohesion. Ostracism meant death. Cults exploit this primal terror. Burning Man's te…

Gnosticism... generating dumb cults that seem smart on the outside for 2+ thousand years. Likely to keep it up for 2k more.

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#334

Post by danaris »

twic wrote: post #305
JKCalhoun wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An interesting point you make there — one would assume that if recursive self-improvement were a thing, Nature would have already lead humans into that "hall of mirrors".

There's a variant of this that argues that humans are already as intelligent as it's possible to be. Because if it's possible to be more intelligent, why aren't we? And a slightly more reasonable variant that argues that we're already as intelligent as it's useful to be.

While I'm deeply and fundamentally skeptical of the recursive self-improvement/singularity hypothesis, I also don't really buy this.

There are some pretty obvious ways we could improve human cognition if we had the ability to reliably edit or augment it. Better storage & recall. Lower distractibility. More working memory capacity. Hell, even extra hands for writing on more blackboards or putting up more conspiracy theory strings at a time!

I suppose it might be possible that, given the fundamental design and structure of the human brain, none of these things can be improved any further without catastrophic side effects—but since the only "designer" of its structure is evolution, I think that's extremely unlikely.

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#335

Post by psunavy03 »

A problem with this whole mindset is that humans, all of us, are only quasi-rational beings. We all use System 1 ("The Elephant") and System 2 ("The Rider") thinking instinctively. So if you end up in deep denial about your own capacity for irrationality, I guess it stands to reason you could end up getting led down some deep dark rabbit holes.

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#336

Post by eschaton »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #235

> Many of them also expect that, without heroic effort, AGI development will lead to human extinction. Odd to me. Not biological warfare? Global warming? All-out nuclear war? I guess The Terminator was a formative experience for them. (For me perhaps it was The Andromeda Strain .)

It makes a lot of sense when you realize that for many of the “leaders” in this community like Yudkowsky, their understanding of science (what it is, how it works, and its potential) comes entirely from reading science fiction and playing video games.

Sad because Eli’s dad was actually a real and well-credentialed researcher at Bell Labs. Too bad he let his son quit school at an early age to be an autodidact.

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#337

Post by tbrake »

Muromec wrote: post #251
Mizza wrote: post #231

It's amphetamine. All of these people are constantly tweaking. They're annoying people to begin with, but they're all constantly yakked up and won't stop babbling. It's really obvious, I don't know why it isn't highlighted more in all these post Ziz articles.

How do you know?

having known dozens of friends, family, roommates, coworkers etc both before and after they started them. The two biggest telltale signs -

1. tendency to produce - out of no necessity whatsoever, mind - walls of text. walls of speech will happen too but not everyone rambles.

2. Obnoxiously confident that they're fundamentally correct about whatever position they happen to be holding during a conversation with you. No matter how subjective or inconsequential. Even if they end up changing it an hour later. Challenging them on it gets you more of #1.

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#338

Post by PaulHoule »

ar-nelson wrote: post #200
JohnMakin wrote: post #85

One of a few issues I have with groups like these, is that they often confidently and aggressively spew a set of beliefs that on their face logically follow from one another, until you realize they are built on a set of axioms that are either entirely untested or outright nonsense. This is common everywhere, but I feel especially pronounced in communities like this. It also involves quite a bit of navel gazing that m…

I find Yudowsky-style rationalists morbidly fascinating in the same way as Scientologists and other cults. Probably because they seem to genuinely believe they're living in a sci-fi story. I read a lot of their stuff, probably too much, even though I find it mostly ridiculous. The biggest nonsense axiom I see in the AI-cult rationalist world is recursive self-improvement. It's the classic reason superintelligence tak…

Yeah, to compare Yudkowsky to Hubbard I've read accounts of people who read Dianetics or Science of Survival and thought "this is genius!" and I'm scratching my head and it's like they never read Freud or Horney or Beck or Berne or Burns or Rogers or Kohut, really any clinical psychology at all, even anything in the better 70% of pop psychology. Like Hubbard, Yudkowsky is unreadable, rambling [1] and inarticulate -- how anybody falls for it boggles my mind [2], but hey, people fell for Carlos Castenada who never used a word of the Yaqui language or mentioned any plant that grows in the desert in Mexico but has Don Juan give lectures about Kant's Critique of Pure Reason [3] that Castenada would have heard in school and you would have heard in school too if you went to school or would have read if you read a lot.

I can see how it appeals to people like Aella who wash into San Francisco without exposure to education [4] or philosophy or computer science or any topics germane to the content of Sequences -- not like it means you are stupid but, like Dianetics, Sequences wouldn't be appealing if you were at all well read. How is people at frickin' Oxford or Stanford fall for it is beyond me, however.

[1] some might even say a hypnotic communication pattern inspired by Milton Erickson

[2] you think people would dismiss Sequences because it's a frickin' Harry Potter fanfic, but I think it's like the 419 scam email which is riddled by typos which is meant to drive the critical thinker away and, ironically in the case of Sequences, keep the person who wants to cosplay as a critical thinker.

[3] minus any direct mention of Kant

[4] thus many of the marginalized, neurodivergent, transgender who left Bumfuck, AK because they couldn't live at home and went to San Francisco to escape persecution as opposed to seek opportunity

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#339

Post by dan_quixote »

jl6 wrote: post #187
JohnMakin wrote: post #85

One of a few issues I have with groups like these, is that they often confidently and aggressively spew a set of beliefs that on their face logically follow from one another, until you realize they are built on a set of axioms that are either entirely untested or outright nonsense. This is common everywhere, but I feel especially pronounced in communities like this. It also involves quite a bit of navel gazing that m…

I don’t think it’s just (or even particularly) bad axioms, I think it’s that people tend to build up “logical” conclusions where they think each step is a watertight necessity that follows inevitably from its antecedents, but actually each step is a little bit leaky, leading to runaway growth in false confidence. Not that non-rationalists are any better at reasoning, but non-rationalists do at least benefit from some…

As a former mechanical engineer, I visualize this phenomenon like a "tolerance stackup". Effectively meaning that for each part you add to the chain, you accumulate error. If you're not damn careful, your assembly of parts (or conclusions) will fail to measure up to expectations.

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#340

Post by throw0101a »

thedudeabides5 wrote: post #304

Purity Spirals + Cheap Talk = irrational rationalists

> Purity Spirals

This is an interesting idea (phenomenon?):

> A purity spiral is a theory which argues for the existence of a form of groupthink in which it becomes more beneficial to hold certain views than to not hold them, and more extreme views are rewarded while expressing doubt, nuance, or moderation is punished (a process sometimes called "moral outbidding").[1] It is argued that this feedback loop leads to members competing to demonstrate the zealotry or purity of their views.[2][3]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purity_spiral

Post reply on HN