Aurelian🔸

Still, the initial reason for linking that post was to point at the karma; a post calling for a disavowal of Musk receiving 16 votes but only 6 karma does not indicate a strong consensus (as I was originally arguing against).

That few people are defending a controversial figure under a post calling for public disavowals doesn't shock me. Many forum users believe controversial things that they will not support openly in the comments.

That said, the lack of support is evidence in favour of 'EA community disavow Musk'

The funds is a different question and I should have made sure the link was only to the post. That was my mistake.

In some small cases, it might be counter-signalling; the author has Claude write a significant enough chunk of their post that they fear being caught using and LLM, so they sprinkle a few spelling mistakes to make it seem more human (since LLMs rarely make spelling mistakes of that sort).

The specific comment I linked to is also written by someone other than yourself (check the top of the webpage). Still, I apologise for the confusion.

I wasn't trying to link a specific comment and I apologise for doing so! I was intending to show the post, not the comment.

I only realised I had done so when I clicked the link. I couldn't figure out how to edit my tweet (apparently it's only available on the app).

Apologies David

You got me! "Glimmers" are indeed faint :D

Allow me to rephrase it as "a dim glimmer"

Without getting lost in defining 'glimmers', I don't see the slight 1-5% changes as much to be optimistic about. They're something, but not much of an update. I hope my first comment didn't come across as spiky!

Yes, fair. A faint glimmer.

My guess is that Peterson, Rogan and Brand weren't the product of Republicanss making keen bets on up + coming voices.

The popularity of these influencers is probably more demand based rather than supply.

These changes are all pretty small. Consistent, but still small.

I didn't pick up on the use of the "royal we."

The linked post indicates that the consensus you claimed exists doesn't appear to exists (more votes than karma, comments that don't clearly agree in one direction)

Who are you speaking for when you say "we disavow him"?

This post on the forum calling for 'EA' to disavow Musk doesn't indicate it's as uniform a view as you imply. forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/wjBXNj...

Further evidence; see well-paid EA community members taking the 1% pledge instead instead of 10%. 1% is in many ways signalling(and in my eyes, signalling the wrong thing). An increasing share of pledgers just take the 1% path. Better than nothing, but further from yee olden days.

An examination of what will replace humans. It seems like there is a absence of this kind of modelling. Do humans stay as they are, become appendages to SAI, some kind of light upgraded selves, become Jupiter brains. Maybe examine why we become one thing vs another.

It's fine if you accidentally learn things, just so long as none of them influence your decision to have kids.

@tobyord.bsky.social is missing, as is @wdmacaskill.bsky.social

Could also be a nod to Gemini—wishing for a user to die (though, admittedly, that happened pretty recently and maybe before the ad campaign). Or perhaps Bing Chat, for being unhinged.

'Lizardman's Constant' fails to account for surveys where the lizardmen themselves are participating

Lizardman's constant increasing?

This is true. Some people will agree with the above tweet (ingroup) and others won't (outgroup), neatly carving the world into two groups.

If humans were immoral, we'd escape the relentless attrition of brilliant minds to old age. Those minds could continue iterating forever and come up with an escape from the "everyone spends 70% of their life in education or employment just to keep society running" status-quo.