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

How to spot cult leader personalities

sashachapin.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 63 posts

Re: How to spot cult leader personalities

#41

Post by zzzeek »

dnissley wrote: post #32
zzzeek wrote: post #9

There's lots and lots written about cults and cult leaders, which is worth reading, such as Combatting Cult Mind Control by Steven Hassan, or if you prefer a more traditional take, "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism" by Robert Jay Lifton. Or any of other dozens of good authoritative takes on the subject by people who have spent their careers formally studying such phenomena, which can draw lines between a…

This post is about "cult leader personalities", not literal "cult leaders". I imagine we've all had the experience of meeting such magnetic personalities, but probably only a tiny percentage have met an actual cult leader.

use a different word then

Re: How to spot cult leader personalities

#43

Post by matchapples »

zzzeek wrote: post #41
dnissley wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This post is about "cult leader personalities", not literal "cult leaders". I imagine we've all had the experience of meeting such magnetic personalities, but probably only a tiny percentage have met an actual cult leader.

use a different word then

> What's wrong with this blog post is that the author does not seem to have read any books at all on the subject,

Lol and you didn't read the blog post apparently

Re: How to spot cult leader personalities

#44

Post by alexb_ »

gwern wrote: post #29
alexb_ wrote: post #7

It's interesting how many of these traits line up perfectly with the actions of Eliezer Yudkowsky. Especially the parts about lacking humility to the point where they think their ideology will save the universe from certain doom. Or making people who follow his words say that everyone who thinks he's crazy just "doesn't get it" and is tragically unable to absorb the wisdom or goodness.

That's not interesting at all, because it was written partially to target Yudkowsky, with the goal that you won't "Pascal's mug"* yourself eg https://twitter.com/sashachapin/status/1657063187655843841 Keep in mind that a lot of tech-adjacent writing these days is just AI debates (and this is why he is not engaging with the actual cult literature or providing examples); this is not the place to debate the object-level…

I'm saying more that it's "interesting" in an argumentative way, not that it's actually of interest about how this is about EY. It should be interesting to followers of EY because all of these traits are things that cult leaders do, and are things that EY does, because EY is (intentionally or not) running a doomsday cult. It's impressive how much reach he's been able to get, to the point where his ideas of control and morality have seeped into the most important technology of our time, but it's still a cult founded on shaky conjecture nonetheless. I think it's pretty clear if you are interested in AI who this article is about, although I do agree it should have been much more explicitely followed up with "Here's how EY is these things".

It's made me very sad to see extremely smart people, who I once looked up to and really found very interesting (you're included in here!) fall victim to the irrational fear of AI spurred on by Eliezer. You can create as much literature as you want, and you can create as many hypothetical scenarios as possible, but it's not going to change the fact that dedicating your life into controlling AI so that you can "logically" justify your own life is nonsense.

It's not that I don't get it. I just disagree. I don't think AI will create a science fiction horror show to end all of humanity. I don't think AI will cause humans to stop being humans. I don't think AI will create the end of the world. Yes, I am not 100% sure. There is a 0.01% chance of this all happening. But that doesn't mean that we need to pay attention to it just because multiplying 0.0001 by 1,000,000 yields a big number. I think basing your morality and existence on trolley problems and mental experiments is abhorrent. And no, I can't give you an exact spelled out reason as to why. Do I have to justify basic human morality?

You're an extremely smart person. I love your blog posts, and I love the depth and time you put into them. It's incredible how disappointing it is for me to see you become another "rationalist" obsessed with a fantasy of AI doom.

Edit for your edit: Someone who is wealthy and has nothing to lose quitting his job to join the cult of AI doomerism is, in no way, proof that AI xrisk is meaningful. You're using someone else coming to a conclusion as a reason you are correct. I trust you are smart enough to know why this is awful logic.

Re: How to spot cult leader personalities

#46

Post by narag »

hn8305823 wrote: post #20

I was confused reading this. Is the author talking about literal suicide cult leaders like Jones, Koresh, and Applewhite, or "cult of personality" types like Jobs and Elon?

..."cult of personality" types like Jobs and Elon?

I haven't met Elon, but the impression I got from videos is very different to Jobs. He has a cult following indeed, but is it really because his magnetism or PUA tricks like in the article?

Re: How to spot cult leader personalities

#47

Post by goodpoint »

nonethewiser wrote: post #36
hn8305823 wrote: post #20

I was confused reading this. Is the author talking about literal suicide cult leaders like Jones, Koresh, and Applewhite, or "cult of personality" types like Jobs and Elon?

Did you read the part where he said they’re not always a net negative?

That does not help clarify which group you are talking about.

Re: How to spot cult leader personalities

#48

Post by sashachapin »

gwern wrote: post #29
alexb_ wrote: post #7

It's interesting how many of these traits line up perfectly with the actions of Eliezer Yudkowsky. Especially the parts about lacking humility to the point where they think their ideology will save the universe from certain doom. Or making people who follow his words say that everyone who thinks he's crazy just "doesn't get it" and is tragically unable to absorb the wisdom or goodness.

That's not interesting at all, because it was written partially to target Yudkowsky, with the goal that you won't "Pascal's mug"* yourself eg https://twitter.com/sashachapin/status/1657063187655843841 Keep in mind that a lot of tech-adjacent writing these days is just AI debates (and this is why he is not engaging with the actual cult literature or providing examples); this is not the place to debate the object-level…

Gwern, this seems like mind-reading. The real purpose of this essay was to muse about a set of character traits I find interesting, not participate in an AI debate. Most of the people I was thinking of are not involved in AI. (I'm much more a part of the meditation world than the AI world, and there's a LOT more cultiness there; and a more thorough survey of my twitter would have revealed that I think about meditation more than AI.)

Yudkowsky was definitely a case I thought of, but not the specific target of this article. AND, Yud is actually an example of one of these personalities that I think is probably net positive! Even if I have a lot of objections to the way he's presented himself and his specific arguments, I think he's doing a good job with moving the Overton window of taking AI seriously.

I grant that I probably do not fully understand Pascal's Mugging. But this tweet was a subtweet of someone who said that she was working on AI because an aligned AI would definitely end factory farming; whether or not this is true, this seems like the kind of thinking that will drive people crazy (all concerns must be suborned to the One Great Cause.)

Re: How to spot cult leader personalities

#50

Post by Brendinooo »

Not sure if it should be on the list but I think that epistemic certainty should be on the list as something distinct from personal humility. You can command a room by saying something like "I'm not all that smart, smart people overcomplicate this, but this is so simple..."

I tend to be a "only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" sort of guy, but when I run into someone who isn't like that, who seems to have it all figured out and says it with conviction, it definitely pulls at me. It does one of these:

1. Makes me think that I've overcomplicated it

2. Makes me think I have to convince him he's wrong (which is very hard to do unless you're as laser-focused as he is and he's engaging in good faith)

3. Makes me think it's not worth the effort because of what the other two options are

If you follow 1 or 3, you're ceding the argument. 2 is hard to do well.

Post reply on HN