4 ms·
After they published that piece (which was misleading and deeply unethical, not just 'critical', by the way), he wrote this: > I have no particular call for ac
by wging 3y ago
After they published that piece (which was misleading and deeply unethical, not just 'critical', by the way), he wrote this:
> I have no particular call for action. Please don’t cause any trouble for the journalist involved, both because that would be wrong, and because I suspect he did not personally want to write this and was pressured into it as part of the Times’ retaliatory measures against me.
(https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/statement-on-new-york-times-article https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/statement-on-new-york-times...)
Before that, he did ask for public commentary on their plan to reveal his real name; maybe that's what you were thinking of.
(Before your post was edited, it was originally a comment that misrepresented the history of the NY Times piece by claiming he 'sent a flood of internet crazies' at them after they wrote it.)
- ShamelessC 3y agoHis name was already public. I'm not interested in hashing all this out again though. That's why I edited my comment. I would have deleted it but it was too late. I implore people to go read the original NY times article. It's a good critique of the SV hivemind and even discusses Sam Altman. > I suspect he did not personally want to write this and was pressured into it as part of the Times’ retaliatory measures against me. This line sets off so many of my BS detectors. The journalist wasn't pressured; there's no campaign against him there. His ego is getting in the way of his supposed rationalist thinking.