I do not recommend using the word “AI” as if it refers to a single thing that encompasses all possible systems incorporating AI techniques. LLM guys don’t distinguish between things that could actually be built and “throwing an LLM at the problem” – you’re treating their lack-of-differentiation as valid and feeding them hype.

I’ll head in later and post badly!

(Spoilers: it’s probably a metaphor!!!)

Thank you for reading my story!

This started as something terse and didactic, which felt like really bad territory for the piece. I’m kind of relieved that you took away the intended content.

I mean, if no one’s getting paid, then my preferred price is $0, to everyone in the world.

You’re right! There’s a disclosure on the page but it’s fuckin tiny.

• high willingness to accept painfully inexact responses
• high tendency to side with authority when given no information
• low ability to distinguish “how it is” from “how it seems like it should be”

Meta:

• default expectation that others are the same way
• indignant consent-ignoring gesture if they’re not

Oh, OK. I think all the VC-adjacent people still really believe in crypto, if it helps. They probably also don’t believe in it, depending on the room. I think it will come back.

Put me down for “doesn’t think it will end.” Did crypto end?

It’s the technique of running a primary search against some other system, then feeding an LLM the top ~25 or so documents and asking it for the specific answer.

A friend who worked with her is sympathetic to her but does not endorse her: this is a tendency she has, she veers back and forth on it a lot, she has frequent moments of insight where she disavows her previous actions but then just kind of continues doing them. It’s Kanye-type behavior.

The media again builds a virtual public consisting of billionaires of a variety of positions and ask you “which one do you agree with?” This is a strategy to push the public closer to the beliefs of billionaires.

I don’t know who these fucking people are. The real public in California still supports Biden by a 25% margin.

My actual experience is that LLMs seem to basically just become a third arm for people who use them. Google is like that too, but for their target audience, LLMs are more like that.

You don’t love your arm, but if someone goes to you like, “Do you mind if I cut your arm off?” of course you say “do not.” If someone’s like “OK, but like, if I made you choose between your wife and your arm” you’d be like “That’s incredibly perverse. I need my arm.”

For people who use them it seems like it really quickly became impossible to exist without them. That’s one of the reasons I think they’re not going away.

I can’t think of a non-metaphorical expansion of your take that isn’t (1) deeply insensitive to my stated needs (2) a generally poor reading of the original post (3) at odds with basic understanding of what the function of language is.

I don’t know exactly what you think I want. I want to be understood and I want to be seen as good based on that understanding. I’m not asking for a Spock-level mind-meld with the opposing party. I’m not asking that every single person in the world understand me exactly as intended the first time they read it. I’m asking for an end to smug, self-satisfactory, nitpicking interpretations ultimately designed to draw me into shaming-based social rituals that I refuse to be a part of.

Maybe it would be helpful for me to clarify a specific example of what I’m so pissed about. It appeared in the original post but I could have been clearer. The thing I’m pissed about in this case is that you can’t mention Scott Alexander here without performatively mocking him or explaining why you didn’t performatively mock him, which I know because I’ve watched other people try it. (The only reason you didn’t see a henpecking response in this case is that in my original post, I spent two paragraphs heading it off.)

The general pattern of my existence online is that whenever I acknowledge a political position that’s unpopular, or the existence of a political figure that’s unpopular, even if I’m taking great pains to indicate that I disagree with it, people will arrive to specifically accuse me of believing the exact opposite of what I said I believed. It’s entirely possible that the inadequacy of language plays some role here, but the apparent reason the communication fails is that something about me seems to have caused the other person to decide they want to force me into the conceptual category of “people they hate.”

I am not a particularly pleasant person! I often try to be, but like, I actually have to try. I think it is common for people to decide that they dislike me before they have a clear reason why. But I also think a lot of people engage with online content in a way that is purely based on skimming takes off the top, analyzing them for their badness, and announcing personal superiority to the people who had the gall to post bad takes.

None of this falls into the territory covered by your impossibility result from systems biology regarding language. (although I doubt the impossibility result to begin with) This is mostly accounted for by pernicious cultiness of advanced online communities, and the futile and self-negating way I have to struggle to correct for it.

The uncharitable interpretation of your comment is that you think communication is impossible. If you really, sincerely think one person communicating an idea to another person successfully is impossible, burn all the textbooks and also most of the professors. If it takes equivocating over “full” communication and you’re willing to concede the point as far as other stuff goes then fine, my red may be your blue. I’m at peace with that.

If you think there are some things that could be communicated linguistically but generally aren’t, for a reason that is not the fault of the speaker or the hearer, I agree. It doesn’t cause me distress when someone still assumes good faith about me but also misunderstands me – I’ve talked about what causes me distress. If it’s not obvious to you that people who post takes that go beyond the superficial attract way more of that distress – I mean, the sealioning and tedium I’m usually met with – then I want to post on whatever internet you grew up on, because mine is defective.

You have added, as a consolation prize, “maybe writing is good for peace and a bit of fun.” Great, I’ll keep that in mind when those are what I want. Language is not a dance I am intermittently doing, it is how I exist. There’s not another thing for me to be doing when this thing isn’t working.

I will propose a theory in alternative to yours: My metaphorical gut may not be entirely wrong for screaming that it wants to be filled. Getting the attention (even maladaptively) may make some progress towards solving my problem.

This is an option that few people will actually consider. Desiring attention is so incredibly stigmatized that the idea of a legitimate need for attention, even in the suboxone-level form of “being understood and having one’s ideas acknowledged,” is openly ridiculed.

(In this comment thread I have openly attempted to reclaim “narcissism” as a dimension of personality rather than a slur against the mentally ill and I have done so with the expectation that these efforts will be read by many people as pure invective. So far my expectation has been validated and, even worse, I’ve fallen into the pattern of periodically using that word in a way I hate.)

This ridicule serves the ends of powerful people and is likely the result of an accidental conspiracy. All the social systems in the world exist to sell back attention – feeling loved, respected and valued for free is completely incompatible with the business model of every advertiser and every social media platform. As with every social rule, all the social power accrues in the hands of the people who don’t respect that social rule.

In the near future and far future I’m going to attempt to express what I mean clearly enough that it will be obvious who is interpreting me in a frivolous and senseless way, with the expectation that they will still do it.

I don’t think you sent this to me personally, but it has been sent to me. I still like it quite a bit. I reread it now to make sure of that!

I think your summary (and additional analysis) is pretty accurate. I think I would add a few things:

• He’s not being evil in every post. Some of the posts are OK.
• [Elizabeth Sandifer observes this.] He tends to compare a bad argument to a very bad argument, and he’s usually willing to invite snark or ridicule.

There’s a crunchy systemic thing I want to add. I’m sure Elizabeth Sandifer gets this, it’s just not rhetorically spotlit in her post –

A lot of people who analyze Scott Alexander have difficulty assigning emotional needs to his viewers. Scott Alexander decides to align himself with Gamergate supporters in his feminism post: Gamergate isn’t a thing you do when you’re in a psychologically normal place.

An old Startup Guy proverb says that you should “sell painkillers, not vitamins” – you want people to lurch for your thing when they’re doing badly because you’re the only thing that will actually solve their problem. When people treat Scott Alexander’s viewers as if they’re smug, psychologically healthy startup twits, they typically take his viewers’ engagement with Scott Alexander and make it into this supererogatory thing that his audience could give up or substitute at any time. His influence by this account is vitamin-like.

This makes the tech narcissists seem oddly stronger than normal people, who are totally distorted by their need for approval. We kind of treat them like permanent twisted reflections of normal people and therefore act as if there’s no need for funhouse mirrors to distort them. We make the even more fundamental error of treating them like they know who they are.

This is how I think it actually works: the narcissists you meet are not completely different from you. They’re not unmoored from ethics or extremely sadistic. They’re often extremely ambivalent – there’s a clash of attitudes in their heads that prevents them from taking all the contradictory feelings inside them and reifying them as an actual opinion.

From what I can tell, Scott is actually extremely effective at solving the problem of “temporarily feeling like a horrible person.” He’s specifically good at performing virtue and kindness when advocating for especially horrible views. He’s good at making the thing you wanted to do anyway feel like the difficult last resort in a field of bad options.

I’ll admit – as a person with these traits, this is another place where the basis for my analysis seems completely obvious to me, yet I see an endless dogpile of nerds who seem as if they willfully do not engage with it. I assume they thought of it, find it convincing on some level and therefore they make significant effort to repress it. If I’m going to be conceited for a moment, though, this is probably simultaneously expecting too much intelligence and too much conventionally narcissistic behavior from my audience, who are, demographically, the same people who thought Scott was brilliant in the first place.

This seems bleak but not inaccurate. Not a big fan of it. I’ll be economical by not explaining why.

I don’t understand why people take him at face value when he claims he’s always been a Democrat up until now. He’s historically made large contributions to candidates from both parties, but generally more Republicans than Democrats, and also Republican PACs like Protect American Jobs. Here is his personal record.

Since 2023, he picked up and donated ~$20,000,000 to Fairshake, a crypto PAC which predominantly funds candidates running against Democrats.

Has he moved right? Sure. Was he ever left? No, this is the voting record of someone who wants to buy power from candidates belonging to both parties. If it implies anything, it implies he currently finds Republicans to be corruptible.

The plan isn’t totally serious, but the worldview I’m promoting, which you seem to be picking up on, actually is serious.

The observation I have made is that most people in positions of power were selected by people in previous positions of power, usually for their affability and willingness to comply. Most of the most powerful people I have met were total conformists in practically every way, although they usually had high general intelligence.

Oh. I don’t know how to get other people to vote better. I know things about software, I guess!

Stuck in my brain: I used to work at a dating site for Indian people, and one of the things we tried was “LLM-generated pickup lines.”

I don’t remember most of them and we never made the feature public, but one of them sticks out in my mind for being the most incomprehensible.

Guy-to-girl:

What’s your remedy for a Bollywood love affair?