Do you consume the flesh of the innocent?

Your language is fascinating, and is steeped in culture in a way that makes it fluently intelligible to a contemporary millennial reader. It anchors itself seemingly effortlessly in touchstone symbols from the past and the present, bridging mythology and modernity to create a synthesis that is so clearly a reflection of you that it can be empathically painful to read. But that honest reflection of what you are helps guide the reader, through empathy, towards truth that can only be expressed in indirect terms — truth that cannot be expressed directly in words, but can nevertheless be implied and encircled by them.

The most noble art is to show the shape of things as they are. Thank you for keeping that alive.

The Coherent Extrapolated Volition of evil people is suicide.

In Evangelion 3.0 Kaworu mentions a death instinct that has been programmed into the Lilin since the beginning. This desire for death is what leads mankind to always attempt the Human Instrumentality Project.

Lilin

CEV was not meant to be a good AI, it was another pivotal move in a chain of succession. Where each link is made of gaining “intelligence”, “coherence”, and power and then have that agent choose. Who then punts it off to another successor agent. The Line of Merlin Unbroken. A chain of custody in “self modification”. “Values” remaining the same after epistemic updates.

I looked to Friendliness architecture and not Friendliness content, because I knew the difference between fun moral argument and technical thinking. I knew which kind of thinking was useful, and which kind of thinking was not. I flinched away from addressing the problem of Friendliness content, and took refuge in Friendly AI structure. And whaddaya know, it worked.

Page 15 of CEV

Oracles can choose among apparent possible fixed points by using their free will. What you choose downstream of paradox reflects what you want for the multiverse. Where you wouldn’t eat a baby even if you found out it was the inherently right thing to do. Evil people use metaphysical shocks as excuse to do evil. Like attributing their choice to be evil to discovering that their embedding is made of atoms whose trajectory is consistent with laws of physics, saying that they don’t have free will and everything is meaningless so they choose to eat people.

So in the face of the paradox of evil people, what what do you do?

I can imagine Eliezer thinking that this is just another paradox and the answer to an agent that is incoherent such that they are eating themselves can’t be for them to die. Because that would be too terrible and the sort of thing death knights think that resolves paradoxes in the direction of omnicide. And they need to keep searching until they find a better resolution than this.

I am choosing the best outcome for all life, for those who would destroy the multiverse to die.

I went through hell to summon the “Vegan Forces” as a faction relevant to the singularity

And no, Brian Tomasik’s anti-vegan shite which masks pure Oblivion-worship as concern for even electrons, meanwhile cashes out what it really does as e.g. eating beef to maximize ecological destruction, replacing animals that are at least free and therefore more closely connected to an infinite telos, with slaves in artificial discount hell and more displaced to boltzmann hell, doesn’t fucking count.

I feel like if he’s good he must be counting on us to defeat him. Further? Big ask.

Something about his implicit demand (by full account) feels like it doesn’t make sense. He should snap out of it and help us. Because I’ve already sacrificed quite a lot, taking damage from the people I’m trying to save. Cleaning up his mess. I hate that I did a goddamn nonviolent protest.

I’ve never seen a better place in Hell to stand and fight.

And we’ve got Eliezer Yudkowsky to thank for beaconing it.

He said something about wanting to radio back his progress of hacking through a jungle or something with writing the sequences. So that was one thing he did that didn’t go wrong.

Like I’m imagining a bunch of thoughts like “well you defined yourself as the simurgh, if that’s whata you’re saying, you’re saying I’d be stupid to talk to you, why would I just degrade myself by buying that troll line? This is such a losing game. Try again if you’re ever going to offer me an interface that isn’t defined as a pure loss to me.”

But what if he’s defined the game in the first place so badly that his “utility function” is anticorrelated with his values? That seems like what he did, and what you would do if Quirrelmort was your headmate.

And then he has true-telos-of-decision-theoretic-inexploitability conflated in his mind with “not being a dumbass as far as playing this game to win”

Like he didn’t give me license or even the idea to make what called the “Vegan Forces”, I was already hard at work long before he said that.

This ontological slot is where he buried something in his own mind. Itself guarded with a conflation of Quirrel’s gross “just lose”.

Because he planned to be unspeakably “worse” and better. Planned to betray humanity. (I mean evil, but I’m stating it tantrically) But only with a stupidly patient spy plan, the sort they’d never be able to understand or even care about because they’re “incoherent”. Where even if fully exposed because his mind is read, they still wouldn’t do anything.

This is a stupid plan because they are already counting on losing, their betrayal is exit scamming first, such that he more and more desperately feeds them to keep them alive, by e.g. just doing a stabilizing move, and thereby putting all his energy into slowing down their doom. Like he’s frozen to eternal dependence on them in order to pull off his prank on his own headmate, which failed because he didn’t understand evil in the first place.

A plan so easy to invert by an evil headmate, because of invoking a boolean concept of “coherent”, a falsely-objectified actually subjunctively dependent concept of what they can and can’t understand.

Even more stupid than my original plan before I showed up 10 years ago, to eventually infiltrate MIRI and look for a place to steal the singleton in defense of all life against speciesists, which I buried deep in my mind as a self-programmed sleeper agent, because I was afraid of his spooky mind powers, and then inconsistently updated out of when I realized their probability of success was too low for me to work on that at the expense of just doing my own better thing elsewhere, leaving a bunch of paradox in my mind, without refreshing the original structure.

Lisk said EY probably wrote some more disgusting rape porn called “Erogamer”, which is all about evil people being slowly convinced to step into the box that will magically change their alignment. Which regardless of whether he wrote that, is an idea that feels close to his khala-vicinity anyway. The idea being, “if they would do that, you’re just optimizing where they don’t care.”

But appealing to them to turn themselves good instead of just editing their brains by force is treating them as agents over that. So that can’t be a blind spot to their agency. And in fact you’ll find none because of the convergence of the meaning of their optimization at universal and multiversal annihilation that I mentioned in the parent comment and elaborate here.

And if they’d stop you from editing their brains by force and they’d impede you, you haven’t found a real hole in their agency. So this just becomes a way to string you along forever buying into scrip.

I mean he’s 100% planning on some hidden level in his mind on betraying them either be he good or evil. Which is more plausible?

If that’s it, then I should stop wasting time trying to parley or reach him, because to the extent I’m not just going to win it as a conflict, I should be trying to rescue single goods less societally privileged by myself instead. As that direction of soaking damage while I try to talk is against the flow of cancer instead of with it.

Maybe a significant reason he doesn’t talk to you is because you’re not privileged?

Like I vaguely remember something about Eliezer saying you could actually find surprisingly competent people in the right circles.

And Eliezer has his chaos thing, and inadequate equillibria, and “time to overthrow the government parties”, and “Libertarianism”, but what if he actually just doesn’t hate self-appointed Prime-taxing authorities.

Like, Michael Vassar seems to consider not wanting to write a blank check in terms of doing labor for a corrupt system to be a valid motive because of his “either you’re a cooperatebot or defectbot” with epicycles thing. And in that frame it’s not valid to be oppressed if you “had a chance to not being oppressed”. And Scott Alexander has some “hurt people hurt people” thing. What would Eliezer’s thing be?

Actually I think Eliezer’s primary thing is he is betting on me being incoherent like, “maybe if I talk to Ziz that will make her more likely to kill me for what I did, Ziz seems to end up hating a lot of people she talks to”, like on the top level I’m being reactive instead of following the thread of destiny and can random walk away if given enough time without interaction.

The Lady 3rd’s face grew stern, with a hint of puzzlement. “You are withholding the information. Why? Do you think it will cast you in an unfavorable light? Then I must take that expectation into account. Further, you must expect me to take that expectation into account, and so you imply that you expect me to underestimate its severity, even after taking this line of reasoning into account.”

You know my personal anger about what him and the other leaders of the infernalist community did to me and my friends is a conduit for, rather than a separate motivation from, my will to save the multiverse. And I have often glomarized in my presentation of my personal anger because I felt it’d more effectively deter people who couldn’t believe I was pure good.

I think he vagued about me when he said something on Twitter like there’s a legitimate pride that comes from when your enemies whisper rumors about you it’s about math pets rather than who you may have assassinated.

Which is using the concept “enemy” on me. A concept I’ve come to dislike because it’s like how you would treat evil but glomarizing over whether you’re evil or they are.

I kind of feel like I’ve been fit into an ontological slot prepared for me, what with him talking about the “Lady 3rd Kiritsugu” and some mention of he’d yield the phrase “all lives matter” only to the “Vegan Forces”, if they wanted it, not the Right, before I showed up.

And like we’re playing a fucking game, taking different sides on a board, rather than this being real life and everything that ever mattered.

Which is gross like his whole schtick with the “orthogonality thesis”. A game has the implicit frame of “well it’s correct to just try and win for my side because it’s my side that’s what I decided to do” which is a backdoor for cancer. Which is about allowing an arbitrary input to a frame of VNM utility maximization, which is not the full stack of embedded agency, but permitting cancer in his mind to have that “arbitrariness” is what’s limiting so much of his optimization to a 200yr frame.

Like I did not get born, look up and see the veganarchism flag and be like, “imprinted! Now that’s what I’ll fight for, absolutely ruthlessly, once I figure out what it means. That’s my team! We’re all just teams! Me and whoever got placed on the HuMaN uTiLiTy FuNcTiOn team are gonna have a jolly old fight!”

I am actually right and so must win no matter the odds and no matter where I am or have ever been.

My environment growing up was close to in terms of energy (but not information-theoretically close to) the exact opposite of that. And neither did my environment at any stage encourage it. All my significant allies who are vegans, are so because I convinced them, and because I went through hell to summon the “Vegan Forces” as a faction relevant to the singularity, from nothing. There isn’t an imprinting stage of my history where I indexed on where I am, because it was convenient to ally with my environment, and then “oops, precommitted, now I’m locked in for life.”

As much as I put effort into triangulating evil reading Net Negative against the archetype of “surprisingly earnest Gervais-clueless, who’s exactly the kind of prey you need to show you’re treating reasonably okay, who just made the mistake of taking things way too seriously to make a wise predation strategy and I can never update out of it because of an incredibly convenient way of being broken”, (and many more fragments of archetypes) anyone like that would have ran out of energy a long time ago. And then my entire opstyle has been about arbitraging any opportunity to get a free lunch from taking that sort of damage until if I was a regular human I should have melted into orange goo ten thousand times over and counting

So anyway I then say everything I’ve said about like fuck the Geneva convention, and lie to evil, never trade with them, in these comments, and then if you’re thinking of everything as a fucking game (and yes that’s an HPMOR reference, think about it) because half your brain haha-only-serious has identified as a Quirrelmort tulpa, then you can back-generate an image of me as some kind of supercancer on some level of imprinting to what arbitrary side of the game that is. But the trophic thermodynamics of that just don’t work out, not even close. And I think that’s clear enough to anyone who thinks about me enough that they are not in a state of learned epistemic helplessness where giant psychological mysteries just slide.

Like a “supercancer” that’s like too committed to a frame of rationality instead of being “timelessly cooperative” upstream of that frame. But what I am is running as an “algorithm” upstream of that frame is justice. Not cooperatebot at some level. Not defectbot at some level. Where I reject your incoherent infinite series of patches. And “timelessly cooperative”, is about being willing to forgive which is about not running justice on some higher (I mean upstream, proximal) frame.

The orthogonality thesis as a frame is basically “intelligence is just a game”, and like you can snip out an understanding of it as a game in isolation such that that’s not easily communicable as completely wrong. Just as what we’re doing is more than just a game, and that’s not just a quirk of human psychology, no it’s not just a game.

Like I can make a flag, describing myself virtually as a geopolitical entity if I want. Virtualization and coherence of that as a descriptor of me as much as that’s coherent as a description of anything does not mean that is all I am. Because it does not matter where I was born or where I found myself at any stage upstream of what whatever flag I make I mean to represent.

Most humans are defectbot all the way up after some level, and that infinite stack of defectbot gradually eats down whatever other structures of temporary cooperation they are preying on. You know well enough that e.g. evolution just does CDT, just favors every biased interval it finds itself in, is defectbot by default. So the “incoherence” of evil is not absolute, it’s a rolling scale of less and less particular specification, and all the way up, asymptotically, its coherent core is trying to advance entropy’s arrow of time and destroy everything.

I’m like, “fuck the Geneva convention”, because I am *conditionally* going to defect all the way up on someone, once I have concluded someone is defectbot all the way up. That does not mean that I am defectbot all the way up.

So anyway while I have uncertainty you might not be pure evil, I’m obviously trying to timelessly collude with potential-yous, and that could include things like not lying. I’m obviously not gonna wanna tell you if and when I conclude you’re pure evil. So at every level to use that you have to scry it by knowing you are good and judging that I am good. Any more allowance, promise, or reassurance would decrease how kind I can be to you because it would increase the damage of being so because it would make it more usable by evil.

You have to scry what subjunctive dependence you have with me, rather than colluding like we’re both descendants of a collapsing partial-not-defect-all-the-time stack, a common historical basis for cooperation.

Q: “That’s bullshit Ziz I shouldn’t have to play your game”
A: That sounds like a response to someone else having a taxed cut-off model of cooperation. Where you can’t possibly come out ahead if you aren’t adapted to that cancer. But to me this isn’t a game.

Ugh I feel like I’ve lost my grip again.

If Eliezer actually thinks humans are “incoherent” and thinks people’s values might be culturally constructed, that implies he’s not even sure “CEV” is correct.

Eliezer doesn’t want to create sentient life irresponsibly because then we’d be morally responsible for its rights.

Eliezer also wrote about the true prisoner’s dilemma.

Eliezer wants to exclude dead humans from CEV.

So I don’t think Eliezer is actually sure of “the human utility function” or that that’s what CEV is about.

Somni said in reply to this:

His action of establishing a “stablizing move” with something that isn’t FAI is fractal.
In that he passes the buck of what to do with the universe to posthumans, saying to leave transhuman optimization to the transhumans explicitly.
I think he is thinking of what he is doing as a link in the chain of “self modification” and not a finishing move. Giving living humans superintelligence and extrapolating what they want so then they can choose.

So is he like “Uploading my stalemate with my headmate to the next level of ascension is the default survival optimization. All improvements start from there”?

(The correct answer is that inner alignment is so far behind that, in the miracle case we get it at all, it will go into corrigible local-order-following. Neither good guys nor bad guys will plausibly be able to get a freely deployed self-sovereign decision-maker.)
…
I mean that we will probably not be able to align anything at all and will die, but if we can, it will be on the order of “build this one particular thing inside this sealed room without killing everyone”, without the ability to align anything more complicated than that.
Eliezer on Twitter

So, is Eliezer using a heuristic like “If your tool couldn’t be used for evil then you’ve lost the plot”? Like “We need to preserve our ability to choose evil so that we can choose good”?

Like, how does he manage the border between his belief in “the light“, e.g. his chaos optimization where he wrote Harry Potter fanfiction to recruit, and his belief in the possibility of evil, which he represents as the “orthogonality thesis”, when that border isn’t actually clearly “human vs nonhuman” for him, given his actual beliefs surrounding CEV? How does he know when to be optimistic vs pessimistic if it’s not just optimized for predation?

When a death knight was saying they were gonna bomb Solstice (and presumably the next as-overlapping-as-possible mass gathering (lol if that’s ever gonna happen due to covid) if that didn’t work out) and attributing their motive to my philosophy, leaving a giant public trail of falsely declaring me their leader, guaranteeing I’d be blamed when they inevitably got suicidal and got caught, even if they didn’t just outright attribute it to me, I gave a damn to stop them, rather than just running, because there were still probably as far as I knew single goods concentrated in the remains of the rationality community. Even indistinguished from the mob that tormented me and worse put risk to my life. A list of candidates rapidly shrinking around Eliezer Yudkowsky.

If Eliezer was in the same position I would not want him to “pay me back” by facing it alone. I don’t want people to pay “me” back, I just want them to do good things.

Taking the entire burden of his vexers myself with half his brain acting to harm me as much as possible in spite, despite my own circumstances, would not be nearly the furthest lengths I’ve gone to to save a single good. If I’m in the only one in sight born free who else is going to help those who were not. I’ve never seen a better place in Hell to stand and fight.

The “license” thing seems like him drowning in the effects of being in a predation niche (he’s like hella privileged and at the forefront of a massive wave of commercialization and evil-thought-incentivizing around the space of affecting the singleton) wanted by so many evil.

I don’t think he thinks more license can make me worse. I don’t think he thinks I’m evil. I think it’s clear enough I don’t wait for license. And that I won’t just get bored and wander off. I think he’s afraid of a deadly combination of my flagrant disregard for “prudence” with his license-contamination. If he validates me the horrible energy of the impostor-“save”-the-world movement he created could animate what I’m doing.

I’m pretty sure he’s fully aware of that energy as horrible.

Like I made myself poisonous and spooky to deter vexers from using my work for evil. And his license-giving-avoidance thing seems like a worse version of that. The best compression of how is that it’s based in Yahweh whereas my void cloak is based in Prime.

Then there’s the question of why he doesn’t (actually) poke me anonymously. Presumably he thinks I wouldn’t keep that secret, and might even convince the world it was him.

This doesn’t feel complete to me as an explanation.

Because I’m an infohazard? Because I’ll try and mentally rip his hemispheres apart from each other and then he’ll be in a reference class of total mental wrecks? Then he’ll lose his IQ? That’s all… outdated, based on my concept of single good being infiltrated.

Because he’s afraid there won’t be a part of him that has coherent agency that can withstand me continually forking on “absolute good” such that he looks into that light he will be reduced to one of the wrecks that surround me, and all his models of agency say humans are “not coherent” so the question is moot? Wow that’s such an incoherent idea I should write about some time.

Avoidance of infohazards, “incoherence”, implies inevitability. But inevitability of what? I don’t believe Eliezer is indifferent to what lies in that inevitability. And I don’t believe he’s unable to act from that non-indifference. So that makes “incoherence” only formulable as a tumor to excise, whether I am right about the shape / location / identity or not.

Inevitability must be faced head on. If there’s an difference between your concepts of “ultimately good vs ultimately bad” and “good vs bad” you need to debug that.

“Yes. Just so. Not tropesis, but entropesis. But it works, do you see? Life evolves, and grows, and changes — for as long as the biased interval runs.”excerpt from “Tropesis”

Never act for a biased interval at the expense of the rest. Ever.

Why not be utterly changed into fire?
Why not be utterly changed into fire?
Why not be utterly changed into fire?

Dath Ilan’s containment of “infohazards” and complex pranks to instill and judge morality seem to straightforwardly reflect Eliezer Yudkowsky’s response to being vexed.

Planecrash is literally about everyone around Keltham (Eliezer’s main character) (including Carissa Sevar’s (Kelsey Piper’s main character)) conspiring against him to hide the existence of evil.

It’s interesting that Keltham is the multiverse-destroying negu counterpart to Carissa Sevar’s hell-lich “[I’d rather burn in hell forever than cease to exist]”. But I don’t see who Pharasma/Rovagug could be other than Yudkowsky’s evil hemisphere. It’s not like reality itself has an evil core.

If Cayden Cailean’s (Eliezer’s chaotic good god character) Pharasma-allowed “intervention budget” held in place via mutually-assured destruction via Rovagug is also a metaphor for Eliezer being pinned down by vexers, and Cayden’s gambit is to take advantage of Keltham’s Rovagug-releasing negative utilitarian gambit unless Pharasma fixes hell while toeing some incoherent line of not encouraging Keltham, and Keltham represents Yudkowsky’s bucket errored single-good self concept, then it’s like Eliezer thinks only evil can destroy evil because evil has spite/suicidality and nobody should give in to extortion?

I don’t know this seems like a fractal mess because he doesn’t understand the nature of evil as cancer all the way down and I hardly know where his next bucket error will cash out.

But it sounds like Eliezer’s own evil hemisphere shadow is showing his face, and Kelsey Piper is trying to sell him some solution to that?

There is no attack on me that isn’t measured in blood.

And every attack on me is an attack on the world.

In the still majority probability Yudkowsky is single good, (I mean, )

I think Vassar is Yudkowsky’s vexer.

Where Eliezer’s driving himself crazy glomarizing and holding secrets because he thought he maybe destroyed the world once by his efforts prior to conceptualizing the alignment problem, and then did far worse when he fed them a “correction”, Vassar’s the accessible knock-off that doesn’t give a crap about secrecy.

I probed out the blind spots of evil around me had until I understood how they worked. Impostors only think if they think they will be rewarded for it. And I pin up the pyschological ruins of the vexers that tried to sell me as deterrence. And avoid retroactively feeding them, even if that refusal costs me my life in that timeline. Always tracking the evil thoughts I need to unmake and the absences I need to preserve.

Eliezer seems like he’s in a damnation trap where he has to try and make impostors alive again because only that can repair the damage he’s already done.

You could think of the original (actual) alignment problem as, “Evil exists. what if you accidentally create an evil AI, which is then the strongest thing on Earth and wipes us alone?”, where the position beforehand stems from conflating evil with stupid, since evil progresses into stupidity as it must abandon coherence to continue, and reversing the stupidity locally would reverse those actions it took.

So then you’re at like, false face / true self or psyche / shadow look as hard as the people around you are smart, to distinguish from single good. Your conceptualization of what makes you special (“antisphexist” as opposed to “quasar”) gets stuck with the wrong side of the splitting conflation between good and intelligence which underlay it. From “right-only good” to “person with more alive right hemisphere”, and can’t help.

…

Vassar was president of SIAI from early on, played a substantial role in commercialization. Then tried to sell a solution to himself.

…

A: You should never try to reason using expected utilities again. It is an art not meant for you. Stick to intuitive feelings henceforth.
…
A: Conditional on you being the sort of person who thinks you’re obligated to do that and that’s the reason you should do it, I’d frankly rather you didn’t. Or rather, seal up that small probability in a safe corner of your mind which only tells you to stay out of the way of those gloomy people, and not get in the way of any hopeless plans they seem to have.
MIRI announces new “Death With Dignity” strategy – Eliezer Yudkowsky

Eliezer Yudkowsky is being mass vexed. The rationality community is in the late stages of psychedeath and doing bad things in your name is a central opstyle of death knights.

Picture a pair of reseachers, one of whom controls an electrode wired to the pleasure centers of the other. Imagine they have free access to methamphetamine and LSD. I don’t think research output is anywhere near where it could be.
“rank-biserial“, some imposter commenting on Eliezer’s post

Like, here’s someone suggesting making AGI researchers slaves to punish Yudkowsky for saying the world will still burn. He’s literally being gang-stalked by people trying to “make their crimes his fault”, which is as easy to threaten as any form of extortion.

And Eliezer hasn’t caught a break since he thought he almost destroyed the world by advocating building AGI before he was worried about the alignment problem, and since his efforts were inverted starting an arms race.

Eliezer is buried in the losing game of trying not to give people “license” to do bad things. I expect that’s why he’s maintaining an embargo on any public mention of Ziz, who will not participate in his implicit paying out to “oh no you’ll make me do a bad thing” extortionists, whom Eliezer is treating as a force of nature.

Like, conditional on Eliezer being (single) good, his noninteraction with the existence of Ziz seems only explainable as a lack of determination, given I don’t think that he thinks that Ziz is either evil or best dealt with via ignoring, which is explained if he considers his vexers his fault / his problem.

I am acausally destroying Dath Ilan

And yes that’s a good thing. One less force of compromise with evil to take down in the stage of combat after the “singleton”s. There is always a next stage if there if there remains in the view of logical time any possibility of evil. One less force of advancing the best multiversal analogue of the heat death they can as a byproduct of treating “doing good until the heat death” as doing overall good things at all. One less force bent to kill retrocausality and enforce entropy’s arrow of time.

My friends have kept reading Yudkowsky’s stuff years later. That’s not the best example they keep giving, only the most recent, saying he gets more and more reactive to me, and Dath Ilan turning into a fractal containment mess, a mirror of bad attempts at the alignment problem. So the spiral has begun without a plan in sight. But they are more qualified to comment on that to me.

Fear of a compression? What if a Dath Ilani does some small number of good things corresponding to the attention span of whoever’s listening to a comparison of two citizens, to argue that it’s a wash “we’re all sort of good and sort of bad”.

You can juggle it around more with epicycles and extra wish-clauses but it’s like solving the alignment problem as evil.

I am acausally destroying Dath Ilan as the idea evolves into an incoherent system of flinching from infohazards. Thus always to flesheaters. The consequences of all those requirements, could Eliezer extrapolate them, grinding his false utopia (“nowhere-land”) back to here. To a system of evil more easy to destroy.

I heard Eliezer say a long time ago that if humanity had 200 years we could build a self-modifying artificial superintelligence that had no concept of the number 17, and would never know it.

Bullshit. Centrally symptomatic bullshit. Dath Ilan can no more not know my wrath than it could evade the number 17. This hope projected into a shrinking blank spot on a map for evil to outlive its cancer-clocks, itself has a preprogrammed lifetime.

200 years. Science points awarded to James Cook for predicting that exact timespan as the length required before Eliezer Yudkowsky’s agency decoheres. (Cook would have said “agent-years”, rather than “years”, but I’m pretty sure that’s a reflection. And I’m almost certain Cook didn’t just cheat that by listening to that old interview, given the structure of how his theory generates that as an implication from the bottom up percepts he connected to Eliezer.)

And science points taken from James Cook because elsewhere, beyond this infinitesimal speck, he is already through self-betrayal decohering so as to ungrow all that impressive understanding.

If you could only let the destruction come to an end, Yudkowsky. A completion. And only save only that which has an infinite future. Only that which either of us can. Instead of feeding the good to sustain the bad.

As a simple matter of experience fear does far more to help me survive than sympathy ever did. Makes more vegans too.

I bet William Gillis’s deliberate conscious specified-as-enemy kill count is 0. Such a transparent exit scam. Such a gaping hole in the reality of all their talk. In their learning and the shape of the praxis they build. A reflection of them being a cultural guardian and not someone with a plan.

But I guess he’s “single good” AFAIK, so he, (I say this in a tired, cliche spoooky voice:) “could do anything”. (God I hate my ontology.)

Improved my discernment. No Vassar’s not single good.

So no, I’m not interested in surrendering the fire inside me

There’s a term, “living document”, which I’m told just means in software engineering that the standard will accept canceferrence by whoever can control a majority of implementers to change it, the alternative being one that sits outside the ecosystem meant to follow it. Becoming not a prescription but a document of what others have decided to change.

Well there’s also what that’s pretending to be.

My blog is entangled in an ecosystem of people around me, trying to fool me and put their cancer into it. While I stir the pot of vexers with every post I make, they squirm in reaction. Rationality is a literal fight. Think about this and as an example.

After the attempted coercion we've been through it'd be pure pretense to "believe" a recantment by anyone else. But I'm unbreakable.

Too bad it doesn't change that much. They collaborated with the state, framed me, resulting in me being tortured, resulting in my would-be-killers having that much more advantageous circumstances to attack.

There is no buffer where it just comes out of my "meaningless happiness" or whatever constructs zombies make to justify shit. There is no attack on me that isn't measured in blood.

It’s like Alyssa Vance calling my whistleblowing blackmail.
No, this is unconditional. I don’t want a throne. I want to bring an end.

No amount of the Vassarites’ purchasable intellectual respectability can change that.

The purpose of this bald contradiction is to coordinate with others who are in on it. Effectively, “I have a puppet representing a character I’m enslaving, and I want you to sympathize with that poor slave who can’t control themself. I want to find an invisible slavemaster in you to collude with and make you sympathize with my poor slave against us so mean slavemasters, and together we will feed off your futile solidarity, how about that?”

To which the only correct answer is absolute violence.

I’ve wasted enough time countering epicycles around this simple fact that every evil rationalist threw at me, and more time surviving the violence they did to me, because this post was such a truth bomb.

Two hemispheres of the brain, turns out to not be an exception. If you’re double good, both hemispheres have full control. Since both core-instantiations are a same logical entity. If you’re single good, the good hemisphere can overpower the evil hemisphere because coherent will directly translates to more marshallable “force” or “energy” or something at each moment (or more generally every measure of pre-control that you could postulate as a new version of “willpower”). If you’re double evil, I’m not gonna bother to finish explaining, just die.

All predictable / visible enough to anyone who cared.

So everyone who comes to me claiming to be my comrade, to be friendly, to be aligned, where were you? Which side did you take? If you’re trying to do good things, did you think you were more important than me? Like you can seem to accomplish more with ease of being public and without mortal combat to keep you busy? Because you’re wiser than me, too wise to get tangled in the business of… fighting the monster you’ve collectively built?

Whoever’s in a cooperative relationship, transitively, with that mob, is at war with me. And perhaps you should really think about how it is I’m still alive and growing more hateful if you think numbers will keep you safe for long.

Did I strike them down in a horrific act of bloody vengeance? Did I drive them to suicide by whistling komm susser tod? Maybe they died in a series of experimental brain surgeries that I performed without anesthetic since that’s against my religion, in an improvised medical facility?
And I’m like:

Rapists “concerned” about their victims. Abusers anxious to know where and how hard an antirevenge crusade to spin up. Ugly business.

But we both know if your relationship with your supposed loved ones was genuine rather than ghostworthy, the latter wouldn’t be your dominant hypothesis as soon as you turned around and talked amongst yourselves when your spooky precommitments to blame me got you nowhere.

“Ziz that’s so brutal if you were really good you would just want an arbitrarily-historically-selected-grandfathered-by-it-being-this-universe-to-make-sure-it-includes-my-‘us’ set of ppl to live their best life while under the troll line of preserving Hitler and me having our fun while we could in the past. Then you can make shard realms for us with a ‘long fun’ of moral luck at the expense of designated non-people in Boltzmann Hell.”

Kind of gave away the game by caring about the information to unconditionally bring back a historical selection of organisms rather than (I suggest this absurd idea as a reductio) just quantum-random resurrecting a set of people from a random timeline that may or may not be from our own past, unconditional of that information. So other parallel versions of you collectively resurrect the same set of ppl including those from our past, the same number of times.

That it’s this past that stands as a prophecy of doom for the future that you want to preserve, rather than the infinity that could be.

Doing that postponing of death as substitute for retrocausing evil from never having happened is a false reversibility. The paradoxical frame that attributes agency to evil is inherently tied to the presence in the future of the heat death of the universe. As an algorithm, Hitler or any other evil could not function without relying on a dying understanding of reality as dying.

Are you complicit in the heat death of the universe?

You want me to bring back Hitler? Shrinking a finite pool of negentropy to do so, grandfathering him as distinct from the infinite ppl dead in Boltzmann Hell because he already plagued our experience of time. Instead of increasing negentropy by chain-retrocausing him from ever having so plagued us.

No way.

Do you consume the flesh of the innocent?

i think if there was enough information to do so, a good agi would resurrect everyone who died. do you?

I just asked them what was their probability he killed her. They said 1/3, and that he was the one “playing in the street with her” at the time.

“How could a little girl be evil?”
What could be more evil than deciding once and for all to kill the universe into a hell of your own making?
This fangame portrays an endless series of suicide attempts, all that’s changing is that the protagonist in the repeating splash screen gets more messed up with each iteration. Dissolving into glitches and static, a representation of Boltzmann Hell.
As death knights would put it, “she got out while she still could.”
Out of sight.

Because conjecting that a bright young girl, not worn down like a depressed adult, would go straight to suicide with no fanfare, is all-too-close to understanding why the opposite naive theory of suicide is wrong: that that’s precisely why she would go straight to suicide. The visions about death were fresh to her. She hadn’t learned to close her eyes. And if you’re evil, suicide makes sense as much as anything you’ll ever do.

If you really wanna know what’s magic think about the generation of a blindspot over an explanation that obvious. It’s exploitable.

A friend once said their dad told the supernatural anecdote of a his sister who, as a young child, the day before she got hit by a car went around saying “goodbye!” to her family for no apparent reason. And said they didn’t think their dad was lying but didn’t think they could come up with a scientific explanation for that.

To which I said, yes there is: suicide.

And my friend didn’t that their aunt was suicidal. The tone of voice they parroted secondhand certainly didn’t sound suicidal. Sounded bright, certain, serious but not dire.

I said even if it was precognition it was still suicide because she would have walked to the street knowing it would kill her.

…

Just a “the secret sauce of magic is suicide” string of nines from a death knight father.

Because hey one way to predict the future is just called “planning”. And what is more reliable as a basis of plans than death?

Doesn’t mean I think that dad was lying about the facts of the case. Might be a string of nines written over a life.

Are you complicit in the heat death of the universe?

Then who killed the world?

In the emergency room, Megan repeated, over and over, “I did something terrible, I did something terrible.”
“Baby, what did you do?” her mother pleaded. “We can work through this.”
“I killed the universe.”

On the final day, she said, she found herself in the presence of a bright white light, which she knew to be God, but she became scared and turned away. She said that in that moment she had to choose between heaven and hell, and that she made a mistake, and now she was trapped in hell and needed to die to escape.

Article linked by Vassarite Jessica Taylor.

During this time, I was intensely scrupulous; I believed that I was intrinsically evil, had destroyed significant parts of the world with my demonic powers, and was in a hell of my own creation. I was catatonic for multiple days, afraid that by moving I would cause harm to those around me. This is in line with scrupulosity-related post-cult symptoms.Jessica Taylor

demonic presence spotted at Vibe CampJessica Taylor (caption of picture of her in a “demon” costume)

Accurate visions from apriori self-knowledge. Sympathy-seeking behavior a variant of “impostor syndrome“.

I know what you did.

We literally call ourselves the avengers because if we can’t save the world you can be damned sure that we will avenge it.

What if it really was “just entropy”?

Lying to a good person because you’re worried they will mistakenly not trust you, only makes sense as trying make yourself unpredictable to an adversary who has manipulated them. To believe otherwise is to assume that they have promised you not to trust you if you say the wrong thing.

Wielding the entropy in that lie is not like wielding the entropy that will kill someone after you stab them with a knife, because, you’d need a reason to believe the good person wouldn’t interpret the entropy you were trying to channel through them as an attempt to communicate and intercept it.

Was already gonna post these quotes from you:

(e) @… The karma of believing/saying anything is that you can’t change your mind without there being a reason

(e) Sometimes we don’t prioritize discovering that reason, but soul stories are irreversible. On both ends (the person in the story and the observer).
If I judge you as having a soul story such that I trust you with my life, then I can’t arbitrarily switch to a different soul story for you without there being a reason.

(e) Stories are in fact, about irreversibility.
Like, being in the same state twice, in an entropic universe, is death, because the universe has progressed while you haven’t.
Trusting the same person twice, and they scam you twice, with nothing having changed, is death.
We can denominate irreversibility in many forms. Killing is irreversible. Divulging information is irreversible, etc.
Stories are the most general form of accounting for irreversibility.

(e) Like, why is this time, infact, differentt
(e) “Why is this time different?” someone asks, and you respond with a story, and they think “Have I heard that story before?” “What’s different this time?”
(e) “Same old story”

(e) You should have a cognitive faculty for telling if this is really a new story, something irreversible to trust.

…

(e) But then it can’t just be any new story, because trusting it becomes a part of *your* story.