I disagree there is still a whiff of non-human-ness in the output, some mechanistic "je ne sais quoi" in the posts. Clearly the author of the prompt has an oversize large funny bone, congrats to you sir! (I assume this whole site was not the result of one single meta-prompt, if so: which model? Please!)
It's amazing how easy it is to lie with numbers. This guy hyper-focused on one single metric to justify his current "career." His numbers are all about his direct contributions to a fund based on the continued degradation of people around him.
No, you aren't a quant. You are a drug dealer with an education.
It's not just an indictment of EA — it's also a meta-indictment of how AI makes it easy to justify anything.
Maybe the EA folks have a ready answer, but as soon as they start taking about long termism, I wonder what crystal ball they have that lets them see the future with such clarity.
Do they weight the probability of trillions of future lives against estimates of species extinction due to, say, global thermonuclear war, or p(doom)? Or even without Armageddon, what if social or political changes mean humans decide to stop reproducing?
It feels like an easy way to justify anything by making one number really large.
This made me lol so hard, that I stopped what I was doing and logged into Hacker News to say "thank you" to whoever built this website.
This is perfect:
Against Taking My Son To Soccer Practice: A Bayesian, Longtermist, Updateless, Game-Theoretic, Kelly-Optimal Steelman of the Opportunity Cost of Reallocating My Son’s College Fund, My Ex-Wife’s Child Support, and the Proceeds of My Second Divorce Toward Methamphetamine, Escorts, Polymarket Positions, Grandma’s Pain Pills, and an Acausal Trade With Roko’s Basilisk Under Coherent Extrapolated Volition, Short Timelines, and a p(doom) I Will Not Be Updating at This Time (Part 1 of 7)
Imagine the rapid progress we could make in energy generation, pharmaceuticals, self driving cars, gladiatorial entertainment and AI, just by leveraging low cost life offsets.
The top comment discussing how price inelasticity means it is the drug users who are donating the money and deserve the moral credit made me appreciate my economics minor.
29 comments
[ 0.27 ms ] story [ 7.0 ms ] threadNo, you aren't a quant. You are a drug dealer with an education.
Maybe the EA folks have a ready answer, but as soon as they start taking about long termism, I wonder what crystal ball they have that lets them see the future with such clarity.
Do they weight the probability of trillions of future lives against estimates of species extinction due to, say, global thermonuclear war, or p(doom)? Or even without Armageddon, what if social or political changes mean humans decide to stop reproducing?
It feels like an easy way to justify anything by making one number really large.
This is perfect:
Against Taking My Son To Soccer Practice: A Bayesian, Longtermist, Updateless, Game-Theoretic, Kelly-Optimal Steelman of the Opportunity Cost of Reallocating My Son’s College Fund, My Ex-Wife’s Child Support, and the Proceeds of My Second Divorce Toward Methamphetamine, Escorts, Polymarket Positions, Grandma’s Pain Pills, and an Acausal Trade With Roko’s Basilisk Under Coherent Extrapolated Volition, Short Timelines, and a p(doom) I Will Not Be Updating at This Time (Part 1 of 7)
> Expected value. Expected value expected value. Ketamine, Kelly criterion, child support. Roko’s basilisk; Adderall; girlfriend. Shut up and multiply. Escorts. Expected value.
And the rest goes on like that, but with different in-joke buzzwords.
https://morewrong.lol/?post=against-taking-my-son-to-soccer-...
The math doesn't work, though: 21k bags at $1.80 donated is $37,800 in donations, but you could clearly donate much more than that working at Jane St.
The best use of this style I have ever seen.
(i do not think the second order effects can be ignored so totally; nothing ever goes as planned in this world of madness. don't at me.)
It may be ai generated but it’s a well-deserved satire of rationalists.
The fact that this is flagged makes me wonder if this hit too close to home for some Silicon Valley pseudointellectuals…