I don’t know what’s more disgusting, the nature of this prose or that
it raises the question of whether they’ve banged or he’s just trying to
smash here. Either way, ugh.
Yeah, I have a morbid curiosity about their history. My intuition is they have banged before, but it’s been a while and she’s moved on (for obvious reasons) but he is still salty and thirsty.
Edit: reading this again, I actually think they haven’t banged, but they’ve obviously had the opportunity, and he’s salty/thirsty that it hasn’t happened.
damn. i hate when im reading through old stuff on reddit and in the
middle of a sparkling, scintillating discussion i find someone has
written over all her old comments with nonsense, fragmenting the
discussion permanently. what hilarious, moving, romantic, haunting
things could she have said? just to wash it all away, in this digital
era of permanency? wow. that takes courage. i bet she was really cute,
too
That was what I came here to post! Given the source, it really feels a bit like "can I get some of the cool queer discourse but without having to hear from any
\*shudder\* _leftists_?"
huh, you know, i think that idea kinda explains a lot about prominent rationalists. literally such a high opinion of themselves that they intrinsically believe good, fair, thought-out conversation simply can't exist unless they're at the front and center of it. no wonder all the "hey maybe sit back and let marginalized groups have things // tell their stories" gets their hackles up so badly
the idea of "my opinion is factually correct, but I am not the right person to be saying it, nor is this the right time, thus I should stfu" really is a gigantic hurdle for a lot of these people
Yeah this is a whole new level for me.
~~I mean the weird _____ aspects of HPMoR have been discussed on here but~~ I had never really delved deep into the Yud mythos.
Is this normal for him or is he feeling himself particularly now that GPT 3 has dropped and he has fooled himself into believing that his life's work has been vindicated?
E. It appears I may have gotten my rats tangled up. I may have been thinking of discussions of the other prominent piece of fiction written by a rationalist, though I have read neither and so I will leave it unnamed in the interest of not spreading misinformation.
I saw a ACX article where Scoot had posted an image of GPT being tasked with responding as though it is Yud to queries regarding AI alignment, and now all I can imagine is Big Yud glued to his computer screen like Narcissus conversing with himself ad infinitum.
Perhaps the bot was taken down for maintainance and he was forced back into the world, still riding the high that comes from rubbing shoulders with his own celestial countenance.
AGI was truly born when Yud ran a GPT chatbot trained on his own writing and the result was a simulated ego so large it couldn't help but be self aware.
A self importance singularity.
Had he actually said this? If so, that really drives home how much of an ignorant hack he is. Anyone who actually knows a little bit about AI knows how little GPT-style language models have to do with any kind of actually thinking entities, and it's not just a matter of "not there yet".
Yeah I’m with /u/DieLichtung, not sure why you need a reason. I’ve never read a Dan Brown novel cover to cover. And he’s just an ordinary, day to day, reactionary!
at least Dan Brown's hackery did result in a film that features sexy evil Ewan McGregor in a cassock jumping out of an exploding helicopter. that's a damn sight better than anything the rationalists have yet inspired.
For my sins, I was listening to a Slavoj Zizek talk earlier. I’m not proud of it, but nothing else grabbed me
He pointed out that that movie is also the first movie of the books where there *is* sex in the book, and yet *no* sex in the movie. In all of the other movies there’s no sex because there’s none in the book. And yet it had sexy evil Ewan McGregor in a cassock jumping out of an exploding helicopter.
Zizek was making a point about repression, and now this!
Whaaaaat, you can't mention Žižek without those scrumptious diacritics!
No-sex and all, though, at least it was a better flick than *The Da Vinci Code*, which was about as interesting as a EULA and would have won a "best waste of an otherwise fantastic cast" statuette if those existed.
"If you think you can point to an unnecessary sentence within it, go ahead and try." —[Eliezer Yudkowsky, August 2022](https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/ww27yu/challenge/)
I don’t think i ever mentioned what I love most about that challenge, which is that of course it’s entirely possible that you wrote hundreds of thousands of words of complete garbage which is also intricately interconnected and wholly reliant on every single shitcringing part of itself
I may be mistaken, but judging by the small quantity of Yud's writing that I have read, some of which was non-HPMoR related fiction, it will not be well written from a prose standpoint at all.
If you just want basically functional prose as a means to tell a story, maybe it's tolerable, but if you want something of literary merit look elsewhere.
E. I forgot that we were in a thread the seed of which happens to be a perfect sample of the kind of self indulgent tripe you'd be treated to for 600,000 odd words. Look no further.
I'm imagining a Rationalist movie turning out like the [*Atlas Shrugged* trilogy](https://www.avclub.com/atlas-shrugged-part-iii-plays-like-a-cheap-knock-off-o-1798181352) from a few years ago.
You could always try reading it. I did because I wanted to understand the jokes bagging on it but only made it about a dozen parts in before I couldn't take it anymore. It is wildly self-indulgent and pleased with itself, which I don't think will come as much surprise, but which I found increasingly intolerable until I had to stop.
I guess if your friends think it gets better later they may not be happy with this, but the older I get the less that kind of argument holds any weight. There is no requirement to put up with media that doesn't work for you in the hopes that it will later.
I may be thinking of another piece of rationalist fiction.
I couldn't find anything directly addressing HPMoR on google so you'll have to forgive me if I'm misremembering.
The big race related thing I can think of in HPMOR is in chapter 7.
Draco talks to Harry about how he wants to rape Luna Lovegood. In response, the narrator waxes about how the belief that members of the nobility can do violence against peasants is common to any place not directly descended from the Enlightenment (including magical Britain), so Draco saying this is to be expected.
[Apparently](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/34ytwg/comment/cr12q9e/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), although I couldn't find a copy through the Internet Archive, the original includes the line:
> Even in Muggle-land it [discussions about raping a child and how to get away with it] was probably still happening, somewhere in Saudi Arabia or the darkness of the Congo.
You can see Yud mention the Congo quote here: https://www.fanfiction.net/r/5782108/27/
>I've also tried a rewrite on Ch. 7 which I don't feel is a literary improvement, but which does make it clearer that Harry is talking about the Enlightenment having mostly solved the problem of nobility rather than the problem of rape, and which eliminates the explicit reference to Saudi Arabia and the Congo as specific non-Enlightenment countries. Most readers, it's pretty clear, didn't take that as racist, but it now also seems clear that if someone is told to *expect* racism and pointed at the chapter, that's what they'll see. Aren't preconceptions lovely things?
(Also, it didn't really solve the problem of nobility. Most ultra rich wealth is still inherited.)
Glad there's an even early confirmation. Thanks!
If we're actually criticising Yud and not just laughing at him, I'd think the wealth critique doesn't go far enough.
1. I don't think he's correctly stating the meaning of the current passage. Even the amended passage says 'even grimmer lands where it wasn't just the nobility.' It seems pretty clear to me that this has stopped being about the nobility itself.
2. His view of the Enlightenment seems simplistic. The Enlightenment was a multigenerational, multiregional, multi-tendency project. I'm not on the radical vs. non-radical Enlightenment train, but there certainly seemed a difference between Condorcet and Chaumette.
3. If I read him as saying the solution the Enlightenment provided was political equality, maybe, but that equality was contested throughout.
E.g. Enlightenment figures disagreed if political equality meant suffrage contingent on property, on gender, or universal for all adults. Or the development of racial theories during the Enlightenment.
4. And if I read it as being about rape, I mean the US had marital rape exceptions until the 1990s. Not even getting into issues of rape and race or how the previous conduct of the victim could be used as a defense.
Ok. Done. I've spent way more time trying to think through Yud's muddle of thoughts about equality, rape, and the Enlightenment than I wanted to.
Edit: My posts are always too long didn't read, but I'll add one thing. I'm sceptical about the formal equality before the law reading because it's literally Draco talking about a scheme to get away with rape. Maybe he wants it to be psychological - about how someone believes they are above the law. But I'm even more sceptical that the Enlightenment solved that problem.
I mean, the Congo and Saudi have both been declared to be rape bastions from various groups but we don't actually have the statistics. It's just a low hanging jab at some perceived groups. So blanket statements like that are mostly useless. Sweden is in the top 5 and the USA is in the top 15. Reporting matters to those statistics I am sure.
I think it was just an afterthought of a cop-out. He *was* talking about rape. Throughout the paragraph that is what "it" (being above the law) refers to (but also other things that nobility being above the law are privy to have).
You can see how Yud's brain works though, "nobility are above the law because they're nobility, if we get rid of nobility, then no ones above the law." It's so simplistic that it is laugh-worthy, if people didn't take it very seriously.
Nevermind in the next damn line Harry chokes and spits out his Comed-Tea (com-ed-ty, comedy, a drink that make you do a spit take if something is funny; or rather it compels you to take a drink if something funny is coming next). Yud is writing a funny joke about rape.
what's the rationale (tee-hee) for including rape like this here at all? it's so creepy.
if he wanted to make Draco seem evil, the same thing could have been accomplished with an ambiguous "When I'm old enough, I intend to corner that miscreant and exact, shall we say, *proper punishment*" or sth. it's maybe violence, maybe SA, maybe both, but the reader can decide; it still totally fits with the "I'm going to harm a social inferior with impunity" theme without going from 0 to child rape in 5 seconds.
One of my favorite sneers - can't remember if it was here or on Twitter - was in response to him listing orgasm denial as one of his kinks: "That's convenient."
Oh yeah. I'm not defending Saudi Arabia or the Congo. I'm arguing that his explanation doesn't hold water.
And I completely agree that it's both clearly talking about rape, the nobility thing is a cop out, and the defense Yud makes shows how little he's actually thought about the issue.
Also I didn't notice the Comed-Tea bit before. Definitely changes my reading a bit.
wait, is this that thing about hyper-optimized future humans and there's some "Superhappies" (really...?) faction and let me have a google at it -- ope, yep.
I tried reading that a while ago. it's telling/creepy that the big example of said future humans' moral dissonance with our present day is "rape is fine actually". out of every other possibility for Weird Disturbing Future Ethics, that's what was chosen, OK.
here's a tidbit
https://vocaroo.com/1nVmcnIPt19j
Years ago, I was convinced that I knew nothing about morality.
For all I knew, morality could require the extermination of the human species; and if so I saw no virtue in taking a stand against morality, because I thought that, by definition, if I postulated that moral fact, that meant human extinction was what "should" be done.
Why would anyone say this for any reason ever
I don’t know what’s more disgusting, the nature of this prose or that it raises the question of whether they’ve banged or he’s just trying to smash here. Either way, ugh.
damn. i hate when im reading through old stuff on reddit and in the middle of a sparkling, scintillating discussion i find someone has written over all her old comments with nonsense, fragmenting the discussion permanently. what hilarious, moving, romantic, haunting things could she have said? just to wash it all away, in this digital era of permanency? wow. that takes courage. i bet she was really cute, too
A wonderful illustration of why it’s better to get hookups via the aromantic queer discourse.
[deleted]
pasted into a text to speech app after selecting The Simpson’s comic book guy’s voice :https://vocaroo.com/1oyqXnhfSZOL
[furiously farts himself away through the mist of his on putrid breath]
Did he just say he has immortal reasoning?
I think this is the moment where I fully realize… I hate this fucking guy.
I always used to think of him as a joke to be laughed at. But this is the end of my patience.
Big Yud sings “My Way”, but every lyric is “math pets”
Groace
It must get tiring sitting an an empty room all day because him and his ego take up all the space.
I was assuming this was tongue-in-cheek. But the fact that I can’t be sure is not a great look for the guy.
He’s laying it on thick for sure.
Obligatory ‘with friends like these…’
This actually makes me laugh. What a mad lad!
Yud sounds way too much lke Dr Teeth here for me
What is “mortal reasoning” to begin with? These people sure love their nonsense…