No no, not the term (my comment is about how he got his own term wrong), just his reasoning. If you make a lot of reasoning errors, but two faulty premises cancel each other out, and you write, say, 17000 words or sequences of hundreds of blog posts, then you’re going to stumble into the right conclusion from time to time. (It might be fun to model this mathematically, can you err your way into being unerring?, but unfortunately in reality-land the amount of premises an argument needs varies wildly)

Zack thought the Times had all the justification they needed (for a Gettier case) since he thought they 1) didn’t have a good justification but 2) also didn’t need a good justification. He was wrong about his second assumption (they did need a good justification), but also wrong about the first assumption (they did have a good justification), so they cancelled each other out, and his conclusion ‘they have all the justification they need’ is correct through epistemic luck.

The strongest possible argument supports the right conclusion. Yud thought he could just dream up the strongest arguments and didn’t need to consult the literature to reach the right conclusion. Dreaming up arguments is not going to give you the strongest arguments, while consulting the literature will. However, one of the weaker arguments he dreamt up just so happened to also support the right conclusion, so he got the right answer through epistemic luck.

It made me think of epistemic luck in the rat-sphere in general, him inventing then immediately fumbling ‘gettier attack’ is just such a perfect example, but there are other examples in there such as Yud saying:

Personally, I’m used to operating without the cognitive support of a civilization in controversial domains, and have some confidence in my own ability to independently invent everything important that would be on the other side of the filter and check it myself before speaking. So you know, from having read this, that I checked all the speakable and unspeakable arguments I had thought of, and concluded that this speakable argument would be good on net to publish[…]

Which @200fifty points out:

Zack is actually correct that this is a pretty wild thing to say… “Rest assured that I considered all possible counterarguments against my position which I was able to generate with my mega super brain. No, I haven’t actually looked at the arguments against my position, but I’m confident in my ability to think of everything that people who disagree with me would say.” It so happens that Yudkowsky is on the ‘right side’ politically in this particular case, but man, this is real sloppy for someone who claims to be on the side of capital-T truth.

The sense of counter-intuitivity here seems mostly to be generated by the convoluted grammar of your summarising assessment, but this is just an example of bare recursivity, since you’re applying the language of the post to the post itself.

I don’t think it’s counter-intuitive and the post itself never mentioned ‘epistemic luck’.

Perhaps it would be interesting if we were to pick out authentic Gettier cases which are also accusations of some kind

This seems easy enough to contstruct, just base an accusation on a Gettier case. So in the case of the stopped clock, say we had an appointment at 6:00 and due to my broken watch I think it’s 7:00, as it so happens it actually is 7:00. When I accuse you of being an hour late it is a “Gettier attack”, it’s a true accusation, but it isn’t based on knowledge because it is based on a Gettier case.

While the writer is wrong, the post itself is actually quite interesting and made me think more about epistemic luck. I think Zack does correctly point out cases where I would say rationalists got epistemically lucky, although his views on the matter seem entirely different. I think this quote is a good microcosm of this post:

The Times’s insinuation that Scott Alexander is a racist like Charles Murray seems like a “Gettier attack”: the charge is essentially correct, even though the evidence used to prosecute the charge before a jury of distracted New York Times readers is completely bogus.

A “Gettier attack” is a very interesting concept I will keep in my back pocket, but he clearly doesn’t know what a Gettier problem is. With a Gettier case a belief is both true and justified, but still not knowledge because the usually solid justification fails unexpectedly. The classic example is looking at your watch and seeing it’s 7:00, believing it’s 7:00, and it actually is 7:00, but it isn’t knowledge because the usually solid justification of “my watch tells the time” failed unexpectedly when your watch broke when it reached 7:00 the last time and has been stuck on 7:00 ever since. You got epistemically lucky.

So while this isn’t a “Gettier attack” Zack did get at least a partial dose of epistemic luck. He believes it isn’t justified and therefore a Gettier attack, but in fact, you need justification for a Gettier attack, and it is justified, so he got some epistemic luck writing about epistemic luck. This is what a good chunk of this post feels like.

Wait they had Peter’s arguments and sources before the debate? And they’re blaming the format? Having your challenger’s material before the debate, while they don’t have yours is basically a guaranteed win. You have his material, take it with you to the debate and just prepare answers in advance so you don’t lose $100K! Who gave these idiots a $100K?

The way this is categorized, this 18.2% is also about things like climate change and pandemics.

the data presented on that page is incredibly noisy

Yes, that’s why I said it’s “less comprehensive” and why I first gave the better 2019 source which also points in the same direction. If there is a better source, or really any source, for the majority claim I would be interested in seeing it.

Speaking of which,

AI charities (which is not equivalent to simulated humans, because it also includes climate change, nearterm AI problems, pandemics etc)

AI is to climate change as indoor smoking is to fire safety, nearterm AI problems is an incredibly vague and broad category and I would need someone to explain to me why they believe AI has anything to do with pandemics. Any answer I can think of would reflect poorly on the one holding such belief.

You misread, it’s 18.2% for long term and AI charities [emphasis added]

The linked stats are already way out of date

Do you have a source for this ‘majority’ claim? I tried searching for more up to date data but this less comprehensive 2020 data is even more skewed towards Global development (62%) and animal welfare (27.3%) with 18.2% for long term and AI charities (which is not equivalent to simulated humans, because it also includes climate change, nearterm AI problems, pandemics etc). Utility of existential risk reduction is basically always based on population growth/ future generations (aka humans) and not simulations. ‘digital person’ only has 25 posts on the EA forum (by comparison, global health and development has 2097 post). It seems unlikely to me that this is a majority belief.

I spend a lot of time campaigning for animal rights. These criticisms also apply to it but I don’t consider it a strong argument there. EA’s spend an estimated 1.8 million dollar per year (less than 1%, so nowhere near a majority) on “other longterm” which presumably includes simulated humans, but an estimated 55 million dollar per year (or 13%) on farmed animal welfare (for those who are curious, the largest recipient is global health at 44%, but it’s important to note that it seems like the more people are into EA the less they give to that compared to more longtermist causes). Farmed animals “don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct, they don’t need money, they don’t bring cultural baggage…” yet that doesn’t mean they aren’t a worthy cause. This quote might serve as something members should keep in mind, but I don’t think it works as an argument on its own.

people who are my worst enemies - e/acc people, those guys who always talk about how charity is Problematic - […] weird anti-charity socialists

Today I learned that ‘effective accelerationists’ like CEO of Y-combinator Garry Tan, venture capitalist Marc Andreessen and “Beff Jezos” are socialists. I was worried that those evil goals they wanted to achieve by simply trying to advance capitalism might reflect badly on it, but luckily they aren’t fellow capitalists after all, they turned out to be my enemies the socialists all along! Phew!

Well of course, everything is determined by genetics, including, as the EA forum taught me today, things like whether someone is vegetarian so to solve that problem (as well as any other problem) we need (and I quote) “human gene editing”. _/s

When the second castle (bought by ESPR with FTX-money) was brought up on the forum, Jan Kulveit (one of the main organizers of ESPR) commented:

Multiple claims in this post are misleading, incomplete or false.

Then never bothered to actually explain what the misleading and false claims actually were (and instead implied the poster had doxxed them). Then under the post this thread discusses he has the gall to comment:

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.

I guess Jan doesn’t think falsely implying the person who is critical of your chateau purchase is both a liar and a doxxer counts as ‘epistemic decline’.

From the top comment:

Yeah, I really wouldn’t trust how that book [by Richard Lynn] picks its data. As stated in “A systematic literature review of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans”:

For instance, Lynn and Vanhanen (2006) accorded a national IQ of 69 to Nigeria on the basis of three samples (Fahrmeier, 1975; Ferron, 1965; Wober, 1969), but they did not consider other relevant published studies that indicated that average IQ in Nigeria is considerably higher than 70 (Maqsud, 1980a, b; Nenty & Dinero, 1981; Okunrotifa, 1976). As Lynn rightly remarked during the 2006 conference of the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR), performing a literature review involves making a lot of choices. Nonetheless, an important drawback of Lynn (and Vanhanen)'s reviews of the literature is that they are unsystematic.

They’re not the only one who find Lynn’s choice of data selection suspect. Wikipedia describes him as:

Richard Lynn (20 February 1930 – July 2023) was a controversial English psychologist and self-described “scientific racist” […] He was the editor-in-chief of Mankind Quarterly, which is commonly described as a white supremacist journal.

[From earlier in the comment] I can view an astonishing amount of publications for free through my university, but they haven’t opted to include this one, weird… So should I pay money to see this “Mankind Quarterly” publication?

When I googled it I found that Mankind Quarterly includes among its founders Henry Garrett an American psychologist who testified in favor of segregated schools during Brown versus Board of Education, Corrado Gini who was president of the Italian genetics and eugenics Society in fascist Italy and Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer who was director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of anthropology human heredity and eugenics in Nazi Germany. He was a member of the Nazi Party and the mentor of Josef Mengele, the physician at the Auschwitz concentration camp infamous for performing human experimentation on the prisoners during World War 2. Mengele provided for Verschuer with human remains from Auschwitz to use in his research into eugenics. […] Something tells me it wouldn’t be very EA to give money to these people.

I wonder what the deleted Roko comment was about

Are you talking about his -18 karma comment? It says:

Long post on eugenics, -1 points right now and lots of comments disagreeing. Looks like this is a political battle; I’ll skip actually reading it and note that these kinds of issues are not decided rationally but politically, EA is a left-wing movement so eugenics is axiomatically bad. From a right-wing point of view one can even see it as a good thing that the left is irrational about this kind of thing, it means that they will be late adopters of the technology and fall behind.

It’s also a way for the rich to subvert the democratic will of the people:

Let’s say the people of Examplestan have a large underclass who live paycheck to paycheck and a small upperclass who gets their money from land ownership. The government is thinking of introducing a bill that would make their tax revenue come less from paychecks and more from taxing land value. Democracy advocates want to put it to a vote, but a group of futarchy lobbyists convince the government to run a conditional prediction market instead. The market question is “If we replace the paycheck tax with a land value tax, will welfare increase?”. The large underclass has almost no money to bet that it will, while the small upperclass bets a large chunk of their money that it won’t. Predictably, more money is betted on it not increasing welfare and when the market closes, everyone gets their money back and the government decides not to implement it.

Since refusing a bet is seen as an admission of dishonesty, it’s also a way to disadvantage an interlocutor with less money:

The marginal value of money decreases as you get more of it. A hundred dollars might be a vitally important amount of money for a poor person, and not even noticeable for a rich person. So if you bet against a person with less money you are wagering less of your happiness than they are. If they have health problems (and live in a country with bad healthcare) this bet increases their risk of death, which it doesn’t for you. It seems to me that betting against someone who is poorer than you is morally dubious.

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.

They are now starting to get favorably cited on the EA Forum too:

Lynn and Vanhanen collected IQ scores from various studies and made corrections, such as adjusting for the FLynn Effect, , to produce their national estimates.

When a commenter cites a wikipedia page which shows that Lynn is 1) a self-described scientific racist who systematically picked datasets which gave black people lower IQ, and 2) It’s called the Flynn effect, not the FLynn effect, since Lynn didn’t discover it, he responds

A side point, but Wikipedia is politically biased. I intentionally capitalized the L to give credit as Richard Lynn’s discovery preceeded Flynn’s first publication. Although, his discovery was preceeded by Runquist.

The incel apologetics posts at least tend to present themselves as one degree removed by being ‘backlash to the backlash’ (recent example), it’s the comments that tend to get truly unhinged:

Nearly all of my sexual and relationship success involved an unmistakable element of RPing Neutral Evil.

But incels are defined by their failure to perform well in these games, and they usually have innate (genetic, personality defects) that make them easy targets for abuse (see what feminists like the ones quoted in this piece have to say about them).