4 ms·

I don't read HN or LW all that often, but FWIW I actually learned about SlimeMoldTimeMold's "A Chemical Hunger" series from HN and then read its most famous tak

I don't read HN or LW all that often, but FWIW I actually learned about SlimeMoldTimeMold's "A Chemical Hunger" series from HN and then read its most famous takedown from LessWrong: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7iAABhWpcGeP5e6SB/it-s-probably-not-lithium https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7iAABhWpcGeP5e6SB/it-s-proba... (I don't remember any detailed takedowns of SlimeMoldTimeMold coming before that article, but maybe there are). I think that SlimeMoldTimeMold's rise and fall was actually a pretty big point in favor of the "rationalist community".

Aurornis 1y ago
> I think that SlimeMoldTimeMold's rise and fall was actually a pretty big point in favor of the "rationalist community". That feels like revisionist history to me. It rose to fame in LessWrong and SlateStarCodex, was promoted by Yudkowski, and proliferated for about a year and half before the takedowns finally got traction. While it was the topic du jour in the rationalist spaces it was very difficult to argue against. I vividly remember how hard it was to convince anyone that SMTM wasn't a good source at the time, because so many people saw Yudkowski endorse it, saw Scott Alexander give it a shout out, and so on. Now Yudkowski has gone back and edited his old endorsement, it has disappeared from the discourse, and many want to pretend the whole episode never happened. > (I don't remember any detailed takedowns of SlimeMoldTimeMold coming before that article, but maybe there are). Exactly my point. It was criticized widely outside of the rationalist community, but the takedowns were all dismissed because they weren't properly rationalist-coded. It finally took someone writing it up in the form of rationalist rhetoric and seeding it into LessWrong to break the spell. This is the trend with rationalist-centric contrarianism: You have to code your articles with the correct prose, structure, and signs to get uptake in the rationalist community. Once you see it, it's hard to miss.
- dwohnitmok 1y ago
  > It was criticized widely outside of the rationalist community, but the takedowns were all dismissed because they weren't properly rationalist-coded. Do you have any examples of this that predate that LW article? Ideally both the critique and its dismissal but just the critique would be great. The original HN submission had a few comments critiquing it but I didn't see anything in depth (or for that matter as strident).
- EnPissant 1y ago
  Where is the evidence that Yudkowsky edited an old post?
  - Viliam1234 1y ago
    Is this "evidence" one of those silly things that rationalists so much love to talk about? Don't worry, HN commenters can figure out the truth about Yudkowsky's articles from the first principles. They have already figured out that EAs no longer care about curing malaria, despite https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities only being a Google search away. At the end, they will give you a lecture about how everyone hates people who are smug and talk about things they have no clue about. The lecture will then get a lot of upvotes.
    - EnPissant 1y ago
      FWIW, I detest rationalist ideology. I was just curious if it was true, which post, and what was the edit.
      - Viliam1234 1y ago
        Careful, curiosity about evidence is a gateway drug to rationality. ;) I wish more people who detest rationalist ideology were curious about actual evidence.
        EnPissant 1y ago
        What a ridiculous statement. As if captial-r Rationalists are the only people who care about evidence.
        educasean 1y ago
        Did you end up presenting the evidence? I'm following the discussion a few days too late, so my apologies if you've already linked to the evidence and ended up deleting it after.
- optimalsolver 1y ago
  *Yudkowsky.

Aurornis 1y ago

> I think that SlimeMoldTimeMold's rise and fall was actually a pretty big point in favor of the "rationalist community". That feels like revisionist history to me. It rose to fame in LessWrong and SlateStarCodex, was promoted by Yudkowski, and proliferated for about a year and half before the takedowns finally got traction. While it was the topic du jour in the rationalist spaces it was very difficult to argue against. I vividly remember how hard it was to convince anyone that SMTM wasn't a good source at the time, because so many people saw Yudkowski endorse it, saw Scott Alexander give it a shout out, and so on. Now Yudkowski has gone back and edited his old endorsement, it has disappeared from the discourse, and many want to pretend the whole episode never happened. > (I don't remember any detailed takedowns of SlimeMoldTimeMold coming before that article, but maybe there are). Exactly my point. It was criticized widely outside of the rationalist community, but the takedowns were all dismissed because they weren't properly rationalist-coded. It finally took someone writing it up in the form of rationalist rhetoric and seeding it into LessWrong to break the spell. This is the trend with rationalist-centric contrarianism: You have to code your articles with the correct prose, structure, and signs to get uptake in the rationalist community. Once you see it, it's hard to miss.

dwohnitmok 1y ago
> It was criticized widely outside of the rationalist community, but the takedowns were all dismissed because they weren't properly rationalist-coded. Do you have any examples of this that predate that LW article? Ideally both the critique and its dismissal but just the critique would be great. The original HN submission had a few comments critiquing it but I didn't see anything in depth (or for that matter as strident).
EnPissant 1y ago
Where is the evidence that Yudkowsky edited an old post?
- Viliam1234 1y ago
  Is this "evidence" one of those silly things that rationalists so much love to talk about? Don't worry, HN commenters can figure out the truth about Yudkowsky's articles from the first principles. They have already figured out that EAs no longer care about curing malaria, despite https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities only being a Google search away. At the end, they will give you a lecture about how everyone hates people who are smug and talk about things they have no clue about. The lecture will then get a lot of upvotes.
  - EnPissant 1y ago
    FWIW, I detest rationalist ideology. I was just curious if it was true, which post, and what was the edit.
    - Viliam1234 1y ago
      Careful, curiosity about evidence is a gateway drug to rationality. ;) I wish more people who detest rationalist ideology were curious about actual evidence.
      - EnPissant 1y ago
        What a ridiculous statement. As if captial-r Rationalists are the only people who care about evidence.
      - educasean 1y ago
        Did you end up presenting the evidence? I'm following the discussion a few days too late, so my apologies if you've already linked to the evidence and ended up deleting it after.
optimalsolver 1y ago
*Yudkowsky.