• @selfMA
    link
    English
    171 year ago

    what is this weak shit? the only points I’m picking out are:

    • the context for them purchasing an extremely expensive castle is they had a lot of money (no shit)
    • the org that bought it hid the purchase until it was too late and hasn’t given any altruistic reason for the purchase since then (they “refuse to show their equations” on why it’s a charitable purchase, meaning there aren’t any)
    • most EAs disagreed with the purchase in ways that included rightfully calling it out as an obvious grift (which the article spins as a PR problem)

    is this whole thing meant to be read as politely damning? I already know the answer to this since it’s fucking obvious and always has been, but is EA so much of a cult that you can’t disagree with and demand action on major problems within the EA community without cloaking it in a thick layer of either bad memes or fake politeness? are these people really just reinventing Mormonism but with AI and Bayes instead of stone tablets covered in fake Egyptian hieroglyphics?

    • @maol
      link
      English
      11
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      the context for them purchasing an extremely expensive castle is they had a lot of money (no shit)

      Ohhh the hypocrisy. Wasn’t EA meant to tackle these kind of inefficiencies???

      • @selfMA
        link
        English
        71 year ago

        the door-to-door TESCREAL missionaries are gonna hate meeting me

    • Coll
      link
      English
      3
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      No mention of the second castle either. And then Jan Kulveit says in this comment section:

      For me, unfortunately, the discourse surrounding Wytham Abbey, seems like a sign of epistemic decline of the community, or at least on the EA forum.

      While lying through his teeth in his comments on the post about the second castle.