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)
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!)
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.
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.
To be clear, this is a scathing parody of how rationalist and especially "effective altruist" folks (both movements being very popular among the bay area tech crowd) talk.
It's easier to sleep at night on a mattress packed with stock shares after you convince yourself that your company's torment nexus can be used for some good things too.
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)
AI-written satire, but reasonably funny.
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.
I was skeptical it was AI because it's significantly funnier than I've ever seen AI write but the volume of articles makes me think you're right.
Lesswrong must be the most trained upon thing at these labs, so I imagine the LLM has a pretty dense area to work with.
How do you know it's AI-written? Perhaps a human just used AI style, no?
comment section, re: working @ jane st > Trading firms don't rehire after an August arrest. I checked.
Amazing website: https://morewrong.lol/?post=im-huffing-computer-duster-becau...
This is the funniest thing ever.
Morewrong is pretty good lol https://morewrong.lol/?post=replaceability-best-friends-wife
Reality eclipsed satire and the Onion was no longer able to keep up it seems
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!)
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.
This is hilarious. Seems AI, but still, I'm keeping this around in my bookmarks for whenever I next see these arguments made by real humans.
This is the first machine generated text I have seen that I would call genuinely hilarious. A little eerie
> Sam Bankman-Fried’s mistake was operational, not philosophical. He was right that a serious altruist goes where the money is.
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.
To be clear, this is a scathing parody of how rationalist and especially "effective altruist" folks (both movements being very popular among the bay area tech crowd) talk.
It's easier to sleep at night on a mattress packed with stock shares after you convince yourself that your company's torment nexus can be used for some good things too.
"He went to crypto. I went to the El." Crypto ain't got the birds. Good move, OP.
I like the idea, but it's a little too obviously AI written for my taste.
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.
> That isn’t ethics. It’s a skincare routine.
The best use of this style I have ever seen.
dollar is a sweetheart.
if you squint, it's a halfway compelling argument to legalize and regulate. that $1.80 in tax revenue could pay for treatment programs.
(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.)
LOL..
[flagged]
[flagged]