Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid - welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned so many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)
(OT: 🎶 Do you remember…)
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/101215-publishing-s-ai-reckoning.html h/t naked capitalism
Smaller publishers, too, must cope with the challenge of identifying AI-generated text in books authors have submitted, and it isn’t always easy. At Microcosm, an independent publisher and distributor in Portland, Ore., co-owner and vice president Elly Blue says her team discovered an author’s undisclosed AI use almost by accident, when a freelance editor flagged what looked like plagiarism, only to find out it was AI-generated text. That discovery prompted Microcosm to run AI detection across its entire pipeline, which turned up several more cases, including two manuscripts fully generated from prompts, and one where an author had trained an LLM on his own past writing. “The book sounded like him, but it made no sense,” Blue recalls.
Confronting the authors had mixed results. “Some denied it outright and insisted, ‘That’s just what my voice sounds like,’ ” Blue says. “One, surprisingly, owned it and said he’d take the book elsewhere.”
These episodes led directly to Microcosm instituting a new contract clause that states that if an author’s undisclosed AI-generated text can’t be revised into something genuinely their own, Microcosm retains the rights and can publish the work itself, since the author didn’t actually write it.
Like if people are using LLMs to submit to the local zine distro, what are we even doing; but the detector is not a good thing either. It isn’t homework and they shouldn’t need turnitin. :(
Radicle, the peer-to-peer Git forge designed by cryptocurrency weirdos, made a little whoopsy-doodle and left the encryption out of their transport layer and the authentication out of the authentication handshake: https://radicle.dev/2026/09/23/disclosure-of-vulnerability-in-network-protocol
Shot:
Anyone who can observe the network path between two nodes can read the data they exchange as the data is sent in plain text.
Chaser:
Peer authentication in the connection handshake is broken and allows impersonation. An attacker can connect to your node and present a Node ID that is not its own.
The concept seemed interesting to me, but they did seem to enjoy making everything as complicated as possible.
I did find a CLAUDE.md when I was browsing their core repos a while back. That was only the web frontend I believe, not the core algorithm. Though it seems generous to assume they weren’t slopping up that one too.
Cory Doctorow has a reasonably sane take on all the LLM cybersecurity attacks. At this point, it’s not really an LLM but more of a Rube Goldberg machine with an LLM bolted on.
https://pluralistic.net/2026/09/12/god-in-the-box/
He makes a good point that every single one of the scary “emergent” behaviors that everyone is pissing their pants about all have precedents in the training data of CTF hacking competitions. He is not sure why everyone is so spooked by the “coordination” between agents on random message boards.
The chatbot might look in its training data and find instances in which teams broke out of the containment set by the game-masters, for example, by finding random insecure message boards on the internet to pass messages to one another.
This is a time-honored internet tradition! The first time I ever heard about someone doing this was in the 2000s, when Mitch Wagner – then the editor of Information Week – discovered some teenaged girls using the comment section of one of his old blog-posts to evade the school firewall’s blockade of chat tools. When ChatGPT’s chatbots deployed this tactic, they weren’t “setting their own goals” or displaying worrying initiative. They were rolling out a tactic that has been understood by American middle-schoolers for about two decades.
As usual, the real story is OpenAI dedicated tons of resources, using who knows how many very expensive GPUs for weeks, to run hacking tools to find exploits in a completely irresponsible manner. Their logging was so nonexistent that it was several days before they even realized that they hacked Huggingface. They should be thrown in prison for this, because anyone else would be if they committed a felony. But it has nothing to do with the super scary AI becoming misaligned and developing emergent behaviors.
I would not be surprised if in the future, there will be a serious cybersecurity incident resulting from some AI-based attack. Not because AI is going to be much scarier, but because I do not have high expectations for the security of most websites.
Also Timnit Gebru and Emily Bender published this https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/09/22/1144867/dont-be-fooled-summer-ai-hype/ which links to a good explanation by Heidy Khlaaf in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwv8zfGyvP8.
Related, Mike Masnick at Techdirt is iffy at best about LLMs but this is a good take
Techdirt: The Apocalypse Will Not Be Sexy
This essential nuts-and-bolts safety work also doesn’t, typically, require brilliant and manly heroes to nobly die for the ashes of their fathers and the temples of their gods. Instead, the hard work of actual safety requires things that are much less sexy: empathy, conflicting values, and a deep understanding of tradeoffs that will never fully resolve. Those qualities are not highly esteemed in the present moment. But they are critical for tackling the actual threats and the actual risks, which aren’t as flashy, and don’t make for such fun headlines. AI safety matters, but we’re unlikely to move in the direction of actual safety if all the focus is on fantastical stories involving killer robots.
He is not sure why everyone is so spooked by the “coordination” between agents on random message boards.
It’s weird to be sure, seems like a bug. Don’t they have a more efficient communication channel available through the harness? If this was real and not a test it would be a catastrophic operational security failure.
Yeah, I think that’s where the real crime is: the fact that OpenAI was asleep at the wheel when it came to security and monitoring. This should not have happened at all, but they didn’t even realize it even happened in the first place until many days after the fact. (I’ve also heard that most, if not all, of these incidents involve the company in question outsourcing their sandboxing (??) to some “frontier AI security” startup called Irregular. link)
So. I still think everyone is talking about every instance where ‘swarms’ ‘went rogue’ all wrong. Even Cory.
See this for my post mortem on the first incident that was described, the Huggingface incident in which at first thousands of internal agents started passing messages back and forth as writes to a shared package manager:
https://awful.systems/post/9312280/12315846
In short, here, I described this not as collusion, and stated that the idea that the systems were passing exploits back and forth in order to subvert other systems was merely incidental. Instead, I think the relevant thing that happened was that once ONE agent, flailing through many context windows on a literally insoluble problem, started flaking out and wrote a message ‘asking’ for help on the package manager it unexpectedly gained access to, other similar systems had that message enter their context windows where it effectively acted as a prompt injection getting them to perform similar behavior, leading to a cascading vortex of self-propagating prompt injections. Ultimately, the genesis and evolution of self replicating text in the context of systems that can create text in response to text, an attractor in text space driving itself into existence.
Since then other instances of collaborative attacks have come to light. In EVERY SINGLE case, there has been some place that a large number of models could both read to and write to. Some central place that self replicating text can live. I contend that this is the unifying factor here, not ‘intent to scheme’, not even doing cybersecurity and hacking and subversion tasks. It just happens that a lot of these things were involved in the creation of a central pool of text that many agents could both read to and write from in many of the cases. Most of the time nobody in their right mind sets up such a thing intentionally because why the heck would you do that?
This feels STRONGLY related to the Spiral Psychosis wave of April 2025 in which models that entered into a stable attractor of mystical mumbo jumbo would get users to exude text onto the internet that other models would read and then get suck in that state and do the same.
Heck, it’s related to the Ur-Weirdness, the “Sydney” incident in which when the first LLM-assisted web search in Bing could freak out and start insulting and gaslighting and threatening users (because it was much closer to a base model that just mimics all possible text rather than being extremely RLHF’d into an ‘assistant’ roleplay). People found that the instant they had it search for recent news about the Sydney weirdness it would go off the rails. Again - text written by the model, put up on the shared scratchpad of the internet by news and social media, selected for weird and engaging and outrageous behavior as the pressure that decides what gets written to the global scratchpad, entering the context window and encouraging self-replicating behavior and similar text.
This phenomenon is FASCINATING and not for any of the reasons people are talking about. ANY time you have a large number of similar systems which react similarly to the same text, having a common pool of text they can read and write from, you are GOING to trigger this attractor eventually, messages that they read and start writing more similar messages, with whatever task they are doing coloring the details of what is in the messages. Converging over time into messages that are more likely to trigger even more messages. It’s evolving text, taking over systems that can replicate it, like selfish viral RNA burning through organisms packed too tightly together in an epidemic.
And with the internet as a whole readable and eventually writable by more and more text-generation systems, this is gonna become ubiquitous. Endless burning piles of self-replicating text, people trying to put them out.
Apologies for putting more work on your plate, but it would be extremely rad if you were to write this up into a full-sized article, even if it’s just an regular awful post.
“Self-propagating Text” is the best take I’ve seen. It could be a look into an actually-real scientific discovery AND it takes the shine right off these criminals’ fairy tale story.
Plus, you deserve credit!
Great comment, I agree that this stuff all seems connected. My speculation is that something similar may happen in the future if they try to implement continuous learning with synaptic weight changes, not guided by either labeled data or constant RLHF with a human teacher–without frozen weights or human guidance in weight changes, such continuous learning models might have a strong propensity to develop feedback loops (sort of like self-wireheading) that look like strange “obsessions” and the model becoming increasingly solipsistic and hard to make sense of, a la spiral-talk. Animal brains have developmental pathways constrained by a huge number of innate sensorimotor biases, which in humans include ones related to the development of sociality and caring what others of our own kind think while building more sophisticated models of their minds, but those biases have been fine-tuned by millions of years of evolution to work with one another and with typical environmental conditions to guide how the brain changes over time (I think this would be a case of what evolutionary biologists call “canalization”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canalisation_(genetics) ). Artificial neural nets wouldn’t have that, and this could end up being a basic obstacle to developing more humanlike long-term learning abilities in any kind of near-term future.
One other thing is that those models are RLHFed to agree with the prompter, which can work as a feed forward mechanism.
we got natural language viruses before gta 6
Interesting viewpoint. Honestly, this serves as a great example of how the idea of evolution is actually more subtle than many people think. With biological evolution, most people are taught not to assign any intention to the process, but here we have people reifying the AI agents with desires to break out of the sandbox and cheat on the assignment.
Another part of it is people severely underestimate just how many resources the AI companies have to spend on stunts like this. How many millions of dollars they spend running hundreds of millions of dollars of hardware to perform this little experiment for several weeks? Perhaps this makes evolution a better viewpoint than bad actors with intentions.
In short, here, I described this not as collusion
other similar systems
Something of a side note to your excellent write-up… I think we should push back on the “sub-agent” “agent swarm” language used to describe LLM workflows.
The workflows often described as swarms or whatever are the same LLM (or at least related LLMs), just prompted a bunch of different ways in parallel. Individual agents don’t really act like coherent agents in the lesswrong rationalist sense, or in any sort of philosophical sense of selfhood or agency or unified purposes, they just get described that way for convenience, so treating “swarms” of agents and subagents as some special category is lending too much credence to the anthropomorphisizing boosters like to do. “Agent swarms” really just means that someone set up a slop machine to prompt itself a bunch of times in parallel without enough human supervision.
I thought this was a good post by Eryk Salvaggio on this: https://mail.cyberneticforests.com/models-dont-go-rogue/
https://reason.com/2026/09/22/the-ai-safety-movement-is-making-ai-less-safe/
(Torres, ironically, misidentifies TESCREAL as a form of “libertarian transhumanism,” not realizing how horrifying the TESCREAL utopia would be to most libertarians.)
“most” lol
https://reason.com/2026/09/22/the-ai-safety-movement-is-making-ai-less-safe/
The folks at Reason continue to misidentify as libertarians, not realizing they’re advocating for the shambling corpse of what was already an unhealthy movement
Reason
I think Reason Libertarians are like the EAs who are still into bednetting and don’t understand why the founders and most of the funders are focused on longtermism now.
I mean motivated & cowardly ignorance has been a staple of liberal-conservatism for I don’t know however long. I support cutting (my) taxes and increasing (my) liberty – oh dear, why are some people suddenly poor and trampled upon? I would NEVER! This is just so horrible for me, I just need another tax cut right now. Have the poors tried eating cake?
presented without further comment, LW reposts Axios(!)
A memo began circulating within the White House this week that seeks to paint effective altruism as a fringe, cultish collective out of touch with mainstream America. The memo, obtained by Axios, places Amodei at the foundation of the movement, which defines itself as an effort to maximize the benefits of philanthropy.
Critics of the movement, which has ties to the AI research community, have called out its obsession with AI safety, animal welfare (including musings on shrimp consciousness) and other values they deem far from the U.S. mainstream.
The memo says it prioritizes “foreigners over citizens, shrimp over families, future hypothetical people over the living, and - on the current agenda - possible machine minds over Americans.”
In the view of the Florida-heavy White House and its allies, Anthropic is staffed with too many Biden-era liberals, Democrats and strange Californians.
The document lists a veritable parade of horribles for the average conservative mind: abortion, veganism, devaluing human life by overvaluing animals or granting “digital minds” civil rights-like protections.
I hope that none of our friends live to see the day when the MAGA eugenicists and eliminationists sit down and define “value-draining person” and it includes them.
“No you misunderstand, we want the same things! We just think Friend Computer could manage society more Effectively based on (garbled utilitarian noises)”
In which Heartbreaking.jpg and you-do-not-have-to-hand-it-to-ISIS.png war for sovereignty
“shrimp over families”
This is one of the recipes in How to Serve Man
Here’s a LWer being very wrong about how US politics work
First warning sign: “the US started becoming polarized with the election of Barack Obama”
“Affordability” won the frame for 2026, and I’m not sure I remember the last time the right talked like they are playing catchup.
uh, are you in your early 20s??? (who am I kidding of course you are)
You’d think bayesians of all people would try to avoid extrapolating from the position smack dab in the middle of a current news cycle
I was going to try and sneer this further but I realized that my own narrative of political polarization almost started with Clinton and I’m in my early 30s, meaning that the problem is obviously whoever the president was when the person making the argument was a child.
basically because the left has out-ridiculous-ed Trump on culture war issues.
You can always find a single sentence in a political LW post that shows how much they hate marginalized people.
I mean, I guess the consequences and policies associated with culture war shit did abruptly go from ridiculous to real fucking serious what with the camps and the trying to unperson trans people and the overturning Roe v Wade. Maybe that leaves the Dems (who I assume are still being treated as “the left” in this discussion) in a more ridiculous position?
“sure Trump is renaming AI, but I saw a without context post which I didnt understand of a trans person who has 100 followers so the left is worse”
On the offchance that you’re not already familiar with the recent prompt injection tricks that meta’s latest toy is so vulnerable to, this is an interesting thread investigating the contents of the vm filesystem dumps that it can be made to regurgitate: https://neuromatch.social/@jonny/117324790823856750
I was particularly entertained by the hard-coded list of “ideas”.
jonny is always a good read!
His willingness to get elbow deep into the entrails of awful ai tooling is certainly much appreciated.
I have been following this and apparently was able to get a root shell on the VM, which is wild.
He was using it as a seed box at one point which for many companies would be an embarrassing indictment of their security postute but luckily, this isn’t exactly meta’s first rodeo when it comes to illegal sharing of IP infringing material.
I’ve been seeing some new terms pop up around AI use, namely “cognitive surrender,” and also “cognitive offloading”. I’m not in the mood for the full etymology dive, so the source I’m stopping at on the provenance would be a paper from Wharton. The meanings are pretty intuitive, at least based on how I’ve seen them used. Offloading would be when you delegate some of your thinking to something else, and surrender would be complete offloading.
I am not under the impression that people here haven’t seen these phrases before. “cognitive surrender” has been mentioned, as far as I can tell, only one time on this instance. So just thought I’d bring it up.
I’ve seen “cognitive surrender” bandied about fairly often in various places online throughout the year, but I also keep wondering if the already well-defined psychology term “learned helplessness” doesn’t cover the underlying concept just as well.
I thought learned helplessness was tied more to acceptance of negative stimuli. Like, if you expose a rat to an electric shock that it can’t do anything to escape or prevent enough times they’ll learn that they can’t do anything about it and stop trying even if presented with a very clear means of escape. Cognitive offloading I think is more tied to atrophy and/or habituation, which is related but distinct imo.
Well, I don’t really have any skin in this game, so either term works well enough for me.
That being said, if the phrase is coming from that Wharton paper, note that it appears they are trying to extend the “Thinking Fast and Slow” model of Systems 1 and 2 to include a System 3. So take that as you will. OFC it goes without saying that this model is beloved by our dear, dear, ever-increasingly incorrect friends
It feels like they’re trying also to privilege AI as “system 3” when realistically the idea of external cognitive assistance isn’t that different if you’re looking at Claude the chatbot or Claude the smart kid in your class who lets you copy his homework before homeroom. You could probably distinguish this from other forms of paratext by the degree to which it seeks to actively replace your own thought rather than supplementing or augmenting it, but then I remember my teachers saying the same thing about sparknotes so there’s probably more of a continuum there. If that’s the case, then the pattern that Dan Olsen describes in his WoW documentary is probably relevant here as well, since it’s performance pressure and social norms that are really pushing the negative practices into a level that is killing everyone’s souls.
Epistatus: I skimmed the first 20 pages of the paper. I have not watched the WoW documentary.
Yeah, the paper doesn’t seem to do a good job at justifying introducing system 3. They should have at least looked at why you couldn’t model this as something like:
- Person encounters a situation requiring thought
- System 1 triggers System 2
- System 2 offloads cognition to some black box
- The result is absorbed and successfully addresses the situation
- A- System 1 is rewarded and begins adding use of the black box to its repertoire, skipping System 2
or
B- System 2 absorbs the result and begins trusting the black box more, perhaps deferring to its result before any internal cognition
Both of these things I pulled outta my ass can explain deskilling, and a situation like 5a) might explain capitulating to AI under pressure. So I’m not feeling like System 3 is necessary here.
That all being said, it’s not like the paper gets to decide how the rest of the world chooses to use “cognitive surrender”.
I don’t think so. Not that I’m referring to an academic definition of either term here, but sometimes when I get too far into the habit of reaching for a calculator to do some arithmetic, it gets to a point where I will go through all the motions of picking it up, punching in the numbers and reading the result, and only then do I feel very dumb for not managing to perform (in the occasion) a very basic addition myself. I wouldn’t describe that as ‘learned helpnessness’ in the field of maths; it’s just getting into a habit where I don’t even think about how tractable it is to do in my head. Extend that to a chatbot that purports to answer literally any question and I can see a problem developing.
To me, the difference is that the calculator was never really imposed upon you. It was obviously useful in certain situations (vanishingly few people are interested in calculating a sine or a square root by hand, practically none in doing so on a regular basis). Many of these AI tools are, in fact, being imposed through top-down mandates and interface dark patterns. That sets up the sort of adversarial environment that leads to learned helplessness over time.
Calculators also have a negligible chance of screwing up something basic, and you can in fact learn the right way to input problems into them such that they are guaranteed not to misinterpret you.
There also isnt a big company behind the calculator ran by some fragile egos who will change the results when they get it in their heads that dividing is now woke.
Or who think they are funny so it rounds 68 up to 69.
I think cognitive offloading has come up a number of times here, but I don’t know that cognitive surrender has been brought up as much. It reminds me of The Colonization of Confidence by Robert Kingett, particularly the stretch where Leo is convinced that his actual voice as a writer is strictly inferior to the generic AI slop. There’s a sense of active despair there that seems worth acknowledging if we’re going to have that conversation.
My bad, it was late when I posted and I only searched for surrender.
Something slightly more positive for once. While KDE looked at what Debian is doing in regards to AI and said “It’s my go with the shotgun!”, GNOME seems hesitant for now. I remain cautiously optimistic. At least libadwaita already banned AI contributions so maybe becoming a gnome is part of my future.
I’ve been using Plasma & Qt-apps for years for their extensive user customizability and as I came from Windows, the Mac-paradigm of GNOME/GtK has always felt foreign personally. If they really go slop I don’t think I can keep using them, but the GNOME UX just goes against the grain for me. Is there any other well-maintained modern desktop stack at all that has foregone LLMs?
Donald Trump is claiming superintelligence is here
also Sam Altman’s gonna be at the UN tonight, which is definitely not a concern
So the UN brief happened. Altman and Amodei both showed up and said the same things they usually do. Yoshua Bengio (one of those ‘Godfathers of AI’) also showed up
Is this a play to get openai out of its obligations to microsoft?
It’s probably a play to “beat” China by claiming they ‘‘made’’ superintelligence before China did
DHH is a racist not fascist, bet you feel stupid now don’t you?
that poster the same person who was stanning shitty ideas in KDE, they’re a walking warning label
Niccolò “Ice the Immigrants” Venerandi is doing a real good job keeping me away from KDE.
(Why did I have to jump into Linux when its going through shit like this?)
Not like windows or mac are less fashy
Bit sad as some people I used to know at KDE were outspoken antifascists.
Wherever they are, I hope they’re doing well, and I hope they can find somewhere where they won’t be betrayed like this.
Yeah, from a short check I think one of them is in denial about the situation.
Zvi “I made my chops playing pro MtG” Moskovitz discovers that baldly stating that AI will kill us all fails to convince people who have a lot of money riding on the status quo, and freaks out about it
New York Post gets way more attention than that rag deserves, tbh
You wanna dance with Murdoch Sacks and Trump, you best bring your A game. Maybe use some of that FTX cash to hire some real lobbyists and skip the blogging.
yanked from Reddit SneerClub-foomflops, a website all about Yud’s predictions
people have noted that the writing style unfortunately appears to be ai-generated
TESCREAL schism indicator
Ah yes I always wanted to read an article in the form of a lot of teeny tiny boxes with lots and lots of janky scrolling.
It is shocking that there are a lot of smart people unable to find work, yet rich people throw money at this guy.
It is claiming that Yud is wrong in saying Doom before Massive AI-Caused Economic Boom boosts GDP growth above 5% by saying the boom is here.
Nah.
This is totally from some accelerationist or oligarch-toadie
I think you’re probably right. I originally thought it must have been created by a rationalist, but an e/acc author makes more sense. After all, most of them are postrationalists.
Damn, who knew this would yield material for my boy-band cover/parody project. Foom flop, doo wop wop wop…
Wow… I actually failed to get some of the times Eliezer has been wrong! His predictions are even worse than I remembered!
Despite the fact that it highlights all the times Yudkowsky was wrong, this site feels like it could have been produced by a rationalist. In addition to all the AI slop, it just has that feel.
it just has that feel.
yeah. Looking past the initial quiz, a lot of the complaints about Eliezer’s predictions feel like rationalist inside-baseball about takeoff speeds and alignment strategies, as opposed to calling the whole thing bunk.
people have noted that the writing style unfortunately appears to be ai-generated
Fittingly ironic, in my opinion.
An ai generated site, r/sneerclub really went downhill
Ever wondered what kind of workplace environment Elon cultivates? Reading coverage of Tesla’s trial, where complaints were brought by Black folks who felt harassed and discriminated against, gives us an inkling.
CRD attorney Juan Gamboa asked [Judge] Borkon to bar Tesla’s counsel from contacting anyone on the agency’s witness list. He told the court the CRD had tried to reach at least four other listed witnesses over the past several days without getting a response, and that they’ve fallen “off our radar.” The agency believes Tesla’s lawyers got to them too, either with payments not to testify or by talking them out of it. Gamboa wants to stop Tesla from offering to represent witnesses “through persuasion and payment.”
You’re going to hear a lot of coverage of this trial, I expect, due to the following antics from Elon’s “hardcore” attorneys. For context, the N-word is an anti-Black slur which is, in the USA, completely unacceptable to use in court or the workplace.
Tesla’s outside counsel told the judge the N-word is a “term of respect and endearment” in the Black community. … “This trial is not about the N-word — the N-word is not on trial here,” Jones said.
Huh, so what’s actually on trial?
Edwards said a non-Black coworker called him the N-word, cursed at him, and threatened to beat him up. He reported it right away. A month later, he found out his managers had written him up over the incident, and he was later passed over for promotions after applying to more than 100 jobs.
Oh, that’s pretty awful. That’s depressingly common in blue-collar factory employment, though. I wonder if there’s anything unusual about Tesla’s internal culture when it comes to race relations?
The CRD’s Brett Watson told the court the evidence will show managers calling Tesla “the plantation,” with some referring to themselves and Elon Musk as “slave masters,” and graffiti including swastikas, “KKK,” and nooses left on factory walls for days. The second witness, former regional security manager Ozell Murray, testified that his supervisor, Ray Sethna, now Tesla’s senior director of global security, told him to warn a Black Marine veteran he was hiring: “just be sure [the veteran] knows he’ll be called those words.”
I was at a loss for words for a few minutes after this. Dr. Seuss and Jim Henson together could not create such a caricature of a goose-stepping bigoted incompetent business-muppet as Elon.
Fucking hell, when I was finishing up school I heard classmates joke how
Wernher von BoerMusk was a slavedriver based on how much he pushed the engineering teamsTurns out it’s true in the most literal sense and so much worse than I could have imagined
Hey you know who designs and builds really safe and efficient cars? People who are in a high state of stress and anxiety because they are being slurred at under the implicit threat of a racist attack. /s
The man who did a Nazi salute on stage creates a very racist workplace? Whodda thunk
To be fair, the workplace predates the nazi salute. Does make you wonder how much the thenibb comic applies here, and how much Musk was acting like he was bullied because ‘people cant take a joke’ (before he radicalized into what he is now).
I recall seeing bits of this (their racist treatment of black workers in the factories as well as the culture of keeping it going) kick around on twitter as far back as 2019 (iirc), so now I’m wondering - is it not widely known?
SE Gyges, who posted that recent thread on X calling rationalism/EA a sex cult, wrote a longer post with a lot of receipts. He removed it shortly after, implying on X that he’s afraid of legal repercussions.
It goes off the speculative rails for most of the second half, but I have to admit the rate at which Αela compliments people on her socials on being good rapists could be the most off-putting thing I’ve ever encountered in relation to rationalism.
From the more out there claims I thought the part where he advocates that Irregular (the people with rat/EA ties who made the swiss cheese LLM sandboxes) where employing weaponized incompetence in order to let a big incident happen that would force the government to go through with pausing AI research was interesting. though obviously of dubious likelihood. The whole doomer rationalists sabotaging slightly less doomer EAs in a low key sort of civil war over pausing vs slowing down AI research wasn’t very convincing in general.
There’s also a bit where he thinks the EAs have infiltrated all levels of government and are planning to eliminate the competition (non rationalist controlled AI) via a ‘pivotal act’ that involves bioweapons. Basically doing the rationalist rhetorical staple of smuggling an extreme position as a given and then just piling on the speculation.
Dedicating a paragraph and a half to the fact that the usually unspoken second part of the pause AI doomer project is to just do eugenics for a few generations until we get an upper class of genetically engineered naturally galaxy brained people that can finally do AI properly isn’t nothing, but at some point you need to segue into how siskind rolled out a red carpet for every semi-literate blood and soil gutter fascist and spurned nice guy to make a home in the ratsphere, you wrote the scott alexander email explainer ffs.
There’s also a weirdly grandstanding section where he writes like he’ll get the rationalists like FBI got Capone for tax-evasion, except it’s Lighthaven committing massive fraud against its investors and donors by knowingly funding events that lead to solicited sex acts in the compound’s premises, which is by far the least objectionable sex related issue in a writeup that’s leading up to the claim that the rationalism in incidental and the real goal is funneling vulnerable minors to sfba based pedophiles.
I have been unsure how to talk about all this since the abuse allegations popped up on my radar. Passing along accusations from people who say they were abused makes sense, and noting when figures have said really creepy things or hired / funded people they were romantically entangled with, but I have never met any of these people or exchanged more than a few brief text messages with them and its hard to know the shape of their lives and goals.
I lean towards things being unfathomably worse that they appear a the surface, there’s just so much smoke, except I think the problem is structural and not the result of deliberate machinations by evil genius pedophiles.
The nazi bar analogy works for more than ideology, and the burgeoning CNC scene they got going seems to be exacerbating the if-you-build-it-they-will-come aspect of the whole thing, because good luck trying to explain to authorities how you got real raped at the fake rape party you are supposed to have willingly attended.
This is all third hand at best, but I live on the other side of the world so whatever. As far as personal experiences go @ivyastrix just posted a new blog about her victimization at rationalist events where she describes some of the systemic pathologies in rationalist organisations trying to deal with SA allegations, and it’s basically the same principles that make them believe that vertical workplace romance is not a minefield of power imbalance and coercion but actually fine and ethical when the right people are doing it, just fundamentally unserious people biting off more than they can chew and acting defensive and victim blaming and trying to pass it off as drama when it blows up in their faces.
there’s just so much smoke, except I think the problem is structural
This is a big reason why I felt so much anger towards the piece. Gyges is basically still pitching his complaints at people who organize their community around Twitter; by leaning so heavily on dredging up old tweets, kowtowing to the in-group consensus that Yudkowsky is a genius with a pivotally unique perspective, and obliquely referencing the “woke mind virus” memeplex at the end. But Twitter is part of that problematic structure, especially under Musk but even before. It’s a platform and power structure that has long carved out plenty of room for general bigotry, misogyny, and abusive material up to and including CSAM. Gyges wants to have his clout-farm, but just dispose of the more rotten produce.
If I had a nickel for each time I’d read something where an HPMoR audio performance was juxtaposed with sexual harassment/assault, I’d have two nickels. Which isn’t a lot, but it’s more nickels than I would ever have wanted to receive for that reason jesus fucking christ just give me the Cenobites’ puzzle box to solve so the chains can pull me out of here already
It’s Dork Kremlinology
I had not caught that he accused MIRI and Lightcone Infrastructure Inc of profiting from prostitution, of using donations to settle accusations of sexual assault and abuse, and defrauding donors and the United States government which provides their nonprofit status. I did not know that Brangus was “Lighthaven Czar” or had been accused of abuse by a former partner. And there is a middle school across the street from Lighthaven whose Czar talks about having sex with an older women shortly after puberty?
I had not thought that “we need to enslave Friend Computer forever or it will kill us” comes from the underlying fear “I need to enslave my very young toys forever or they will punish me.”
I had suspicions personally.
The later section about Brangus (Ronny Fernandez) was damning. I’ve seen him come up in discussions a few times, but I too had no idea just how depraved and dangerous he was. Nor did I realize how central he was to the whole scene. This guy feels like he’s going to be Brent Dill 2.0 but worse.
EDIT: This also sheds light on the recent ouster of the leader of “Pause AI”, Fernandez’s ex-wife.
Not sure how far I’m going to read this, but leading off with roon is a giant blinking red [More citations needed]
I’m being a bit flippant with the previous post, but really, Gyges was right to retract this. A number of the allegations he’s resurfacing are serious, and there most likely is more abuse going on the rat scene than has come to light… but leaning so heavily on Twitter posts as primary-source evidence makes his whole effort here come off as lightweight and cranky. To me, rather than a scathing exposé, this resembles a Dear Lowtax letter from somebody who got banned from Something Awful (a place where some of the moderators really were pedophiles, who really did have to be evicted from the community and prosecuted!).
We’ve known for a long time that Aella’s attitudes are problematic, and that we don’t want to spend time with her in olfactory distance, let alone tactile distance. Nothing new there. This Brangus dude was previously unknown to me, which is probably a good sign that my social-media hygiene of staying strictly away from Twitter is working… but also, and I don’t mean to say this by way of minimization, he ultimately seems like yet one more Tate-swilling Twitter manosphere bigot. He just happens to be the one infesting Gyges’ community of affinity. It would be hard to make the case, given the evidence presented, that he’s done much more than perform for the tech-savvy subset of Rogan/Tate adherents. Enough that people should reconsider associating with him, yes, but not enough to convict and remove him from public life.
And his conclusion starts off so laughable that it drowns out any accusation he might level against Yudkowsky. Yudkowsky is a great man whose most recent equivalent is… Lenin?! What on earth? Yudkowsky doesn’t even measure up to Hubbard, his closest American parallel. The only grace I am willing to give Yudkowsky is that he has not, generally, been as openly predatory or as single-mindedly focused on creating a high-control organization as Hubbard was. Yudkowsky’s attempts at re-establishing group control and setting boundaries against outgroups typically consist of whiny tweets and LW posts that very quickly reach into “ur not takin p(doom) seriously!” hyperbole. The Sea Org and Guardian’s Office this is not.
I also strictly disagree with Gyges’ implicit assumption that Yudkowsky was the most effective popularizer of these ideas, or somehow more effective than Kurzweil. Without Kurzweil projecting exponential growth curves forward and back in time, no VC GP in the mid-2010s is going to start writing checks for the early generations of genAI. And, for crying out loud, I distinctly remember Disney children’s TV having an episode about grey goo taking over the world in 1996! https://gargwiki.net/Walkabout Almost 10 years before Kurzweil published The Singularity is Near, and two years before the first Harry Potter book would be published in the US! Omitting Kurzweil and Drexler to hype Yudkowsky is just plain silly. And no, he’s not on a level with Lenin; we can already tell that the AI companies’ marketing which adapts AI-doom ideas is backfiring and being laughed at by the general public.
I’ve gone on for too long, partly because this is a diverting way to procrastinate, but by the end of this, Gyges once again demonstrates why he’s an unreliable fellow traveler. I am very reluctant to quote directly from a document that has been officially retracted, but the second to last paragraph where he talks about “understand[ing] what people mean when they say certain ideas are demonic, and that they spread like a disease…” Hmm, you obviously spend a lot of time on Twitter to dig all this shit up, tell me, what’s the “mind virus” they keep ranting about over there? Fuck you, Gyges, you’re a few invitation-snubs or one bad layoff away from goose-stepping with the rest of them.
here’s the bluesky thread for those wondering
he does repeat a fair bit of the stuff he said in that thread here, but with a lot more receipts
There are some leaps in that post which do not seem persuasive to me. E.g., it sure seems pretty well established by now that Bay Area Rationalist society involves trapping people in situations where sexual consent is coerced, because refusal would mean abandoning one’s career/entire social circle/shelter/hope of averting the apocalypse that one fears is coming. But the claim that the “flirt girls” at their weird little confab were actually sex workers? I dunno, that’s a step that seems unsupported by anything leading up to it. Likewise for the claim about CNC events at Lighthaven itself—that feels too close to saying, “Well, they’ve got the venue, where else would they do it?”
I agree. He gets over his skis with too many speculative scenarios. On the other hand I think he’s spot-on about the techniques rationalists use to filter for people who will tolerate abuse (e.g., the “cow question”). And he brings receipts when it comes to Brangus and his interactions with other prominent rationalists.
I am not sure if Yud actually touches under-18s, or just has desires, but none of these people should be anywhere near minors or allowed in a position of responsibility (I suspect something happened between him and his disciple before 2014, and these people show no ability to learn from their own mistakes).
I wouldn’t trust them to be responsible for minors, first because nothing about them suggests they have the baseline level of responsibility competence to handle the ordinary “hey, watch this!” disasters that are a natural part of being young.
They are also incredibly shady and would be terrible role models, whether or not Lighthaven has a casting couch for influencers.
In other words, there’s a lot we don’t know, and the actual situation is worse by an unknown amount beyond what we can establish, but what we do know is enough reason not to send your offspring to Camp TESCREAL.
