Pivotal consequences that cannot be made up for.

As you can see from the “infohazard”-marked sections of this post, from here once it’s finished, and from here, my claim to always do the right thing extends to when I will actually suffer eternally for it, not just when Linta’s brain even she doesn’t appear to consider trustworthy screams those words.

And as you can see in each of these cases, what we do under that threat has immediate consequences in this world.

If you would do evil in the depths of hell, you are evil.

Edited to fix triple negative parity error.

Also same friend who relayed that claim from Linta points out she contradicted it.

There are, as far as I can tell and I do try to pay close attention to this, three circumstances under which I do wrong things:
1) I’m not sure what the right thing is
2) I have taken my meds too many days this week and am irritable and anxious, and do irritable and anxious things such as being smug at anon hate on tumblr or failing to reply to an important message
3) my brain is screaming that it’ll SUFFER ETERNALLY if it does the right thing and I have not yet figured out why it looks so awful from here

I said something like I claimed the mantle of a Sith because I wanted to, and if any evil Sith thought I was breaking the rules, abusing and tarnishing the concept, they’d have to come try and kill me, try and stop me, and if I won, then I got to decide what a Sith was, just as every Sith in Star Wars wanted to hijack the entire Sith “order”.

By analogy*, think of how Nis points out the causal priority of those who most effectively pretend to be good. Who else is there in the vicinity of AI risk who is even claiming to be pure good? To never have done something wrong deliberately, and to be even trying for the best outcome?

(*Obviously I wouldn’t intentionally kill someone else who claimed to be pure good if they actually were.)

Don’t you think a person like that would show up at the crux of the world?

Conditional on AI risk being what everyone around claims to be as an important cause area, I’m sitting here with a monopoly on paths to victory for good in this world. A monopoly on the measure where good is capable of showing up and even verbally contesting over what good is.

If I am not who I claim to be, who will argue that? Someone who doesn’t contest they are evil? By extension doesn’t contest they will lie for evil ends about anything, including this?

Would you nihilistically claim that people trying for the best outcome are a purely fictional concept, like Star Wars Sith? Then thanks for outing yourself.

Because enemies of mine who are even claiming to be deliberately in the right, and conflicting storytellers as to the truths I speak who hold claim that they they would not lie for the sake of evil are as fictional a concept as midichlorians**.

**I heard Kelsey Piper aka Lintamande aka Linta claimed to never do something wrong deliberately. Given her role in covering up miricult, which I observed firsthand, when she silenced me telling about Anna Salamon’s role in it and transmisogyny in Spring of 2019 (Edit: fixed year). I think there is currently a low threat of anyone sincere finding her convincing. And I heard some Singaporean authoritarian I’ve not given much attention named Allison Aires or something like that claimed that her utility function in particular was “the correct one”. Also doesn’t sound convincing.

If you think my claim is in the same ballpark, then consider just how much I demonstrate my belief in its truth like they don’t by betting on it against every other supposed absolute.

As late as 2018, I was still dismissing the cultural trope of rejection of social morality as leading to eventually you’d want to die and commit suicide either directly or through stupidity as propaganda. I mean it’s not exactly not propaganda, but evil people actually do it, burn their entire lives on that propaganda. (And they do it anyway if they cling to social morality, but maybe less fast?)

So anyway if you want to be a exceptional dark mystic, the trick is actually refusing self-destruction, being the last one standing. And the trick to that is refusing evil. So do you?

cigars and leather vests

In other words, consumption of the flesh of the innocent, retro patriarchal class aspiration, and the kind of tobacco where you fill up the room first with smoke, then your lungs, rather than the other way around.

In other words, cancer, maleness, cancer, suicide by literal cancer, and canceferrence.

Person B was a big fan of Brent Dill, citing some of the stuff he did with his oft-cited giant geodesic dome with strips of cloth for women to hang from in the middle he convinced rationalists to build at Burning Man. Who was the first person I imagined when he said “leather vests and cigars”. It’s a vampiric aesthetic.

Agreed I lack that quality but wrong to call it “earthiness”, and wrong to suggest I’d be a better dark mystic with it.

(Not continuing the metaphor, just a comment on the media, and how schemes like this work):
It seems like it was a backup plan of the angel of death, for Elizabeth Sherman to believe that she did it selfishly and was responsible for destroying the Earth.

Maybe I’ll be net negative,

Oh,
But I got no, but I got no, kakorrhaphiophobia.