(I'm referring to how this comment, objecting to the other comments as unduly negative, has been upvoted to the top of the thread.)
(p.s. this is not a criticism!)
>This happens so frequently that I think it must be a product of something hard-wired in the medium *[I mean the medium of the internet forum]
I would say it's only hard-wired in the medium of tree-style comment sections. If HN worked more like linear forums with multi-quote/replies, it might be possible to have multiple back-and-forths of subgroup consensus like this.
I once called rationalists infantile, impotent liberal escapism, perhaps that's the novel take you are looking for.
Essentially my view is that the fundamental problem with rationalists and the effective altruist movement is that they are talking about profound social and political issues, with any and all politics completely and totally removed from it. It is liberal depoliticisation[1] driven to its ultimate conclusion. That's just why they are ineffective and wrong about everything, but that's also why they are popular among the tech elites that are giving millions to associated groups like MIRI[2]. They aren't going away, they are politically useful and convenient to very powerful people.
https://wedontagree.net/technically-radical-on-the-unrecogni...
as well as the better but much older "The professional-managerial class" Ehrenreich (1976) :
https://libcom.org/article/professional-managerial-class-bar...
"Rationalists" do seem to be in some ways the poster children of consumerist atomization, but do note that they also resisted it socially by forming those 'cults' of theirs.
(If counter-cultures are 'dead', why don't they count as one ?? Alternatively, might this be a form of communitarianism, but with less traditionalism, more atheism, and perhaps a Jewish slant ?)
Cults are a whole biome of personalities. The prophet does not need to be the same person as the leader. They sometimes are and things can be very ugly in those cases, but they often aren’t. After all, there are Christian cults today even though Jesus and his supporting cast have been dead for approaching 2k years.
Yudkowsky seems relatively benign as far as prophets go, though who knows what goes on in private (I’m sure some people on here do, but the collective We do not). I would guess that the failure mode for him would be a David Miscavige type who slowly accumulates power while Yudkowsky remains a figurehead. This could be a girlfriend or someone who runs one of the charitable organizations (controlling the purse strings when everyone is dependent on the organization for their next meal is a time honored technique). I’m looking forward to the documentaries that get made in 20 years or so.
The story from the outside is usually reduced to something like "rationalism is a wacky cult", with the recent ones tacking on "and some of its members include this Ziz gang who murdered many people". Like the NYT article a week ago.
In practice, I don't remember reading an article on the rationality community written from such position. Most articles are based on other articles, which are based on yet other articles... ultimately based on someone's opinion posted on their blogs. (Plus the police reports about the Zizians.)
I think it would be really nice for a change if e.g. some journalist infiltrated the rationality community under a fake identity, joined one of their meetups or workshops, talked to a few people there, and then heroically exposed to the public all the nefarious plans... or the lack thereof. Shouldn't be that hard, I think. New people are coming all the time, no one does a background check on them. Yet for some mysterious reason, this never happens.
Notice how this article describes more bad things in the community than a typical outsider-written article. Three specific rationalist cults were named! The difference is not insider vs outsider, but having specific information vs vibes-based reporting.
No conspiracy, I agree. Only clickbait, and one obsessed Wikipedia admin.
However, different newspapers have different quality; sometimes dramatically different. Ironically, Zizians are usually reported on by the ones that keep professional standards. So it's quite funny to see how psychopathic murderers are treated with respect and reported on factually, while nerds who study artificial intelligence and send money to anti-malaria charities are accused of... well, whatever the journalists' imagination can accuse them of.
(Have you heard of the "TESCREAL" theory? Apparently, effective altruists are secretly Nazis, because... you know, the idea of improving the world is related to the genre of science fiction, and some science fiction fans in previous century also happened to be fans of eugenics, therefore... you know, wink wink. Seriously, this is documented in Wikipedia, because it comes from a "reliable source".)
The key takeaway from the article is that if you have a group leader who cuts you off from other people, that's a red flag – not really a novel, or unique, or situational insight.
Because if you're going to set up a hierarchical (explicitly or implicitly) isolated organization with a bunch of strangers, it's good to start by asking "How much do I trust these strangers?"
Even better: a social group with a lot of invented lingo is a red flag that you can see before you get isolated from your loved ones.
Edit: it seems most people don't understand what I'm pointing out.
Having terminology is not the red flag.
Having intricate terminology without a domain is the red flag.
In science or mathematics, there are enormous amounts of jargon, terms, definitions, concepts, but they are always situated in some domain of study.
The "rationalists" (better call them pseudorationalists) invent their own concepts without actual corresponding domain, just life. It's like kids re-inventing their generation specific words each generation to denote things they like or dislike, etc.
sure, theres lots of nasty side effects of how academia is run, rewarded, etc..
but thats not because of precision of language employed.
do you want scientists recycling the same words and overloading ever more meanings onto ever more ambiguous words?
I think your argumentation is a generalization that's close to a rationalist fallacy we're discussing:
> a social group with a lot of invented lingo is a red flag that you can see before you get isolated from your loved ones.
Groups of artists do this all the time for the sake of agency over their intentions. They borrow terminology from economics, psychology, computer science etc., but exclude economists, psychologists and computer scientists all the time. I had one choreographer talk to me about his performances as if they were "Protocols". People are free to use any vocabulary to describe their observed dynamics, expressions or phenomena.
As far as red flag moments go, the intent to use a certain terminology still prevails any choice of terminology itself.
If you have groups talking about "expected value" or "dot products", that's different from groups who talk a lot about "privilege" or "the deep state". Even though the latter would claim they're just using jargon between experts, just like the scientists.
Well yes and no. The reason why I think the insight is so interesting is that these groups were formed, almost definitionally for the purpose of avoiding such "obvious" mistakes. The name of the group is literally the "Rationalists"!
I find that funny, ironic, and saying something important about this philosophy, in that it implies that the rest of society wasn't so "irrational" after all.
As a more extreme and silly example, imagine there was a group called "Cults suck, and we are not a cult!", that was created for the very purpose of fighting cults, and yet, ironically, became a cult into and of itself. That would be insightful and funny.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Scroll to the bottom of the page.