I don't know if I would trust an AI's opinion when it comes to taxing their corporate overlords. I also see it as a bit self-defeating on two different fronts. The more competitive a race, the...
I don't know if I would trust an AI's opinion when it comes to taxing their corporate overlords.
I also see it as a bit self-defeating on two different fronts. The more competitive a race, the more information there is out there and the less time it takes to research. As an example: there's so much buzz about the California Govenor primary that using an AI doesn't feel like it'll do much more for you than a few search queries.
The other end is that what takes the most time to research tends to be smaller local races with almost no online presence. To use this exercise, I decided to try this for my California represenative. It gave super basic profiles that I could have found on Balletopedia (or the election packet I received). I asked it further who is projected to win and I get this as an opener:
There's no public polling for this race, but prediction markets offer some insight.
I will give Claude some credit that it immediately says
That said, this is a bit of a misleading stat
So it's at least somewhat careful of its more sketchy sources. But doing this for a federal representative makes me a bit uneasy and I can only imagine what it digs up to answer when it comes to smaller positions on my ballot, like county sheriff State Board.
I suppose if it comes down to "use AI or literally don't vote at all", it's still a benefit, and turnout means a lot more than anything else this cycle. I asked in a more pragmatic matter of who's winning or has a chance, because I had a similar viewpoint to Scott on voting:
I have a policy of making my vote count on important races, vs. making fun/utopian/conscience-guided choices on races that don’t matter.
and it seemed fine at pointing out campaign funding and incumbent advantage (while giving me sources as well). But I don't think it will setup good habits for the ideal educated electorate to start doing this as a crutch if you aren't making this more subtle considerations.
I do use AI, but in a more mundane way. I asked ChatGPT to find newspaper endorsements. I might use it to find in-depth articles about candidates. Basically I'd use it as a search engine.
I do use AI, but in a more mundane way. I asked ChatGPT to find newspaper endorsements. I might use it to find in-depth articles about candidates. Basically I'd use it as a search engine.
I'm interested in where it got its information, rather than just a summary. If, hypothetically, someone asked who I support, I'd want it to be based on something factual. (Admittedly, newspaper...
I'm interested in where it got its information, rather than just a summary. If, hypothetically, someone asked who I support, I'd want it to be based on something factual.
(Admittedly, newspaper endorsements are opinions, but I read them because they often have interesting context for their choices.)
I’m not saying AI is superintelligent or can decide better than you can. I’m saying that if you - like me - spend an hour or so doing research before voting on local seats, AI can aid that research very effectively. And if you don’t do that research - because you weren’t willing to waste an hour on it before - AI makes it so much faster that you might want to start.
[...]
This was a good enough experience that if I didn’t have an hour or two to do this properly, I would trust Claude’s endorsement over competing cheap-and-fast ways to determine my vote (party-line, newspaper endorsements, NGO endorsements, who has the funniest name). And given that I did spend two hours doing this properly, I think I’m about 50% happier with my choices than I would have been without AI.
I was very impressed by Claude's answers to his questions! I did the same thing for some recent local elections. It worked pretty spectacularly. I imagine if you wanted a very conservative...
I was very impressed by Claude's answers to his questions!
I did the same thing for some recent local elections. It worked pretty spectacularly. I imagine if you wanted a very conservative candidate the models would probably struggle with that (other than grok, I suppose), but for comparing and contrasting niche people you've never heard of, AI can save you massive amounts of time.
I am disappointed to see Scott Alexander continue to be posted here. Repeatedly. Edit to add: from another comment in this thread, additional even more recent evidence of his engagement with race...
Thanks for the heads up. I’ve managed to not see those in the past apparently so I appreciate the heads up. This probably is the best way of giving just a casual “hey take what this guy says with...
Thanks for the heads up. I’ve managed to not see those in the past apparently so I appreciate the heads up.
This probably is the best way of giving just a casual “hey take what this guy says with a grain (or pound) of salt” without immediately throwing the thread into chaos and “off topic” discussion. (Off topic in quotes because talking about the author is certainly on topic, but probably not the intended topic)
Whichever way I do it usually gets complaints. I figured regardless this would be "down labeled" so to speak and thus ignored by some, and a number of the threads I've posted more detailed...
Whichever way I do it usually gets complaints. I figured regardless this would be "down labeled" so to speak and thus ignored by some, and a number of the threads I've posted more detailed responses in are nuked so I just keep links where I can. But it's worth it.
All of which to say, glad it was helpful for you! And I'm not dead yet!
For additional context, Scott Alexander is a eugenicist in the sense of suggesting that genetic testing before implanting an embryo is a good thing (so-called positive eugenics). He has explicitly...
For additional context, Scott Alexander is a eugenicist in the sense of suggesting that genetic testing before implanting an embryo is a good thing (so-called positive eugenics). He has explicitly criticized so-called negative eugenics like sterilization, limiting who can have children or how many, etc.
Obviously it's not crazy to believe that even so-called positive eugenics beliefs are wrong. I would disagree, but it's not an absurd position. I highlight this to ensure that your eyes are open about what Alexander actually believes.
I disagree that this is the extent of his beliefs. For example The direct quote: He cites Charles Murray as recently as last year when talking about IQ in Africa - and does so without a single...
I disagree that this is the extent of his beliefs.
Alexander wrote that “human biodiversity” — the view that groups of people differ in traits like “intelligence” for genetic reasons, once described as “an ideological successor to eugenics” — is “probably partially correct,” to which he added: “I will appreciate if you NEVER TELL ANYONE I SAID THIS, not even in confidence. And by ‘appreciate,’ I mean that if you ever do, I will probably either leave the Internet forever or seek some sort of horrible revenge.” Elsewhere, Alexander has publicly aligned himself with Murray, who happens to be a member of the far-right “Human Biodiversity Institute,” and made the case on his blog Astral Codex Ten that “dysgenics is real,” though happening slowly
The direct quote:
In general, educated people reproduce less than uneducated people … The claim isn’t that fewer people will have PhDs in the future: colleges will certainly solve that by increasing access to education and/or dumbing down requirements. It’s a dysgenic argument where we assume at any given time the people with higher degrees have on average higher genetic intelligence levels. If they’re reproducing less, the genetic intelligence level of the population will decrease.
Alexander goes on to say that there’s “some debate in the scientific community about whether this is happening, but as far as I can tell the people who claim it isn’t have no good refutation for the common sense argument it has to be. The people who claim that it is make more sense.” He concludes that while this isn’t good news, the fact that it’s slow suggests this dysgenic trend probably won’t be “apocalyptic.”
He cites Charles Murray as recently as last year when talking about IQ in Africa - and does so without a single mention of that mans white nationalism and promotion of biological determinism, just as an offhand reference.
He hides it better behind "rationalism" and "logic" that are mostly him writing in a particular style and outright dismissing disagreement. So he doesn't say the thing outright and he knew how saying it as such would be taken. As the push for eugenics has grown today he hasn't clarified himself and he does keep talking about it. I find new posts from him on the topic all the time
ETA: I do recall seeing him explicitly support paying poor people to get sterilized but I don't recall if it was when I was trawling his reddit history to see what he thought or what.
The Scott Alexander quote comes from this article. I encourage people to read the article for yourself and then go back and see if you think Torres is being fair. My conclusion is that that Torres...
The Scott Alexander quote comes from this article. I encourage people to read the article for yourself and then go back and see if you think Torres is being fair. My conclusion is that that Torres is too biased to take seriously, but at least they’re willing to link directly to what they’re criticizing.
This is common in psychiatry. If mental illness has a genetic component and intelligence is at least partially heritable, you can logically end up in a very uncomfortable place. The rational...
This is common in psychiatry. If mental illness has a genetic component and intelligence is at least partially heritable, you can logically end up in a very uncomfortable place.
The rational critiques are questioning IQ metrics (psychometric surveys aren't infallible) and debating exactly how much of intelligence is genetic (twin studies are always interesting). There's also a whole discussion to be had about EQ, but many in the rationalist community are emotionally blunt to say the least.
I don't think citing Murray without qualifications nor defending Lynn's IQ maps are common in psychiatry. ( They're not in other mental health fields.) If they are, that's probably a larger...
I don't think citing Murray without qualifications nor defending Lynn's IQ maps are common in psychiatry. ( They're not in other mental health fields.) If they are, that's probably a larger problem.
There are certainly ways to discuss the ethically complex topic without saying "man I think I kind of agree with this framework explicitly created to remarket race science" and I've said before I'd happily read his response to such criticisms but every time I go look him back up I find more posts that run along the same lines as those described above and in my previous posts.
I don't have evidence from every psychiatry residency, but I can confidently say The Bell Curve used to be regularly taught and widely discussed. Some people take differences in IQ scores to...
I don't have evidence from every psychiatry residency, but I can confidently say The Bell Curve used to be regularly taught and widely discussed. Some people take differences in IQ scores to racist extremes. There's a much more nuanced discussion to be had.
On some topics, he is an expert and genuinely insightful. On others, you're completely justified in ignoring him.
Overall I think Lynn’s IQ data is, in some sense, reason for optimism. The large difference between sub-Saharan Africans in developed countries (eg the US) and in sub-Saharan Africa demonstrates that the latter aren’t performing at their genetic peak, and that developmental interventions - again, nutrition, health care, and education - are likely to work.
I was in fact referencing that article you linked and have read it and "engaged with it" though I'm not sure precisely what you mean by that. In that article he links to Aporia Magazine early...
I was in fact referencing that article you linked and have read it and "engaged with it" though I'm not sure precisely what you mean by that. In that article he links to Aporia Magazine early on...
How well this worked remains hotly debated; the latest volley is Aporia’s Are Richard Lynn’s National IQ Estimates Flawed? (they say no).
HDF operates the online magazine Aporia.[2] Matthew Frost founded Aporia in 2021 and sold it to Emil Kirkegaard.[2] Frost has stated that the magazine should be read "by the elite, people aspiring to the elite".[2]
Diana Fleischman is its podcast host.[7] She attended the 2023 Natal Conference with members of the New Right.[8] Bo Winegard, Aporia's executive editor, stated that he believed racial stereotypes were "reasonably accurate" and requested that his readers embrace "white identity politics".[2] Winegard was dismissed from his position at Marietta College.[2] In 2020, Winegard published a retracted paper which drew on Richard Lynn's flawed IQ data.[2] Winegard's race and intelligence research was criticized for resembling pseudoscience.[9][10]
Noah Carl, editor of Aporia, was sacked from the University of Cambridge over allegations that he had collaborated with far-right extremists.[2][9][11]
White nationalist Jared Taylor appeared on the Aporia podcast in 2024 to complain about multiracial societies.[2] He commented that "there is no possibility of blacks and whites living peacefully together".[2]
That magazine is published by the Human Diversity Foundation.
That was founded to promote race science. And all he does is cite it and its participation in the debate (and outcome) as if it's legitimately a solid source to be taken seriously.
I wrote a bunch more but honestly clicking that link and doing five seconds of research tied him even closer to race science than he was for me ten minutes ago, so...
I have read him, to my regret, and he's not beating the allegations in my mind. And I'm even more concerned that no one does the slightest bit of digging on anything he says. Because the alternative is that they believe the shit he's soft peddling.
But the whole crux of the article is this outro... While it's secondary to everything else, I also think he's an incredibly generous person in some ways for donating a kidney:...
But the whole crux of the article is this outro...
Overall I think Lynn’s IQ data is, in some sense, reason for optimism. The large difference between sub-Saharan Africans in developed countries (eg the US) and in sub-Saharan Africa demonstrates that the latter aren’t performing at their genetic peak, and that developmental interventions - again, nutrition, health care, and education - are likely to work.
There’s probably a bidirectional relationship between national IQ and development; development improves nutrition/health/education and boosts IQ, but IQ allows more advanced industries and boosts development. It’s unclear how strong each direction is, but probably the IQ → development direction is greater than zero. Even if you’re generally skeptical of charity because all good things come from development, Lynn’s IQ estimates suggest there’s lots of room for charitable nutrition/health/education interventions to work.
Thanks for bringing to our attention that this person isn't to be taken seriously in all areas. I had no idea! I'm personally not against posting something that a questionable person said in case...
Thanks for bringing to our attention that this person isn't to be taken seriously in all areas. I had no idea!
I'm personally not against posting something that a questionable person said in case that particular thing is worth sharing, but it would be better for the readers if there was some sort of heads up in the opening post. Without it, the implication is that the source/author is generally respected by the person who posted the link.
It would be a mistake to assume that just because someone posts a link to something, they must agree with or respect the content or author of that link. Sometimes people post links to things they...
It would be a mistake to assume that just because someone posts a link to something, they must agree with or respect the content or author of that link.
Sometimes people post links to things they disagree, but don't include any critical context, because they just did not have enough time or desire to write such context.
I like it when people include quotes and information about whatever they're posting here as a link. It's obviously not obligatory but it indicates a caring attitude towards the reader and I...
I like it when people include quotes and information about whatever they're posting here as a link. It's obviously not obligatory but it indicates a caring attitude towards the reader and I appreciate that @skybrian does it regularly.
In this case, given that there was time to post the excerpts, there probably would have been time to also say something like "This dude has some controversial opinions but I think this perspective of his is worth sharing anyway", or whatever. It would be similarly kind and caring.
We obviously shouldn't and won't deliberately assume anything, but at the same time, the implication I mentioned is there and can't be escaped. You'll realise what I mean if you put your mind to it. You can probably even come up with examples that would feel brow-raising to yourself if someone posted an article without specifying they don't subscribe to everything that author stands for.
There's a huge difference, though, between posting an article about something controversial and posting a completely anodyne article by an author that other people on this website happen not to...
In this case, given that there was time to post the excerpts, there probably would have been time to also say something like "This dude has some controversial opinions but I think this perspective of his is worth sharing anyway"... You can probably even come up with examples that would feel brow-raising to yourself if someone posted an article without specifying they don't subscribe to everything that author stands for.
There's a huge difference, though, between posting an article about something controversial and posting a completely anodyne article by an author that other people on this website happen not to like.
As much as I wish this weren't the case - I'd prefer for us to all to just assume good faith, particularly when it's coming from an established member of the community and not some random guy - I agree with you that it's generally prudent to put some sort of disclaimer when sharing a controversial article. So that things don't get completely derailed, if nothing else.
But this isn't a controversial article, and it's not about a controversial topic.
I would like once again to be clear that this is not about any assumptions of faith or lack there of in the Tildes community, unless the author of this is here. Several people are now implying...
I would like once again to be clear that this is not about any assumptions of faith or lack there of in the Tildes community, unless the author of this is here. Several people are now implying otherwise and I wish to make it explicit.
My post is about Scott Alexander and his words and actions which I think cross beyond "happening not to like" but to each their own.
AI use is fairly controversial on its own, however.
Is there anything I've said that made you think I'm not assuming good faith? Are you being serious here? Telling people to use AI, especially in an election, especially in a very high stakes one,...
I'd prefer for us to all to just assume good faith
Is there anything I've said that made you think I'm not assuming good faith?
But this isn't a controversial article, and it's not about a controversial topic.
Are you being serious here? Telling people to use AI, especially in an election, especially in a very high stakes one, especially in a country that is actively propping up ethically dubious AI companies, is not controversial in your opinion?
I have not read the article so I may have misunderstood what it's about from the title, but like I said, it would be better for the readers to clarify intent when choosing to post something like this form an author who is generally regarded controversial.
DefinitelyNotAFae has repeatedly criticized Scott Alexander on Tildes and you should not take her word on this. For example, he is not a white supremicist. Perhaps I should go around warning about...
DefinitelyNotAFae has repeatedly criticized Scott Alexander on Tildes and you should not take her word on this. For example, he is not a white supremicist. Perhaps I should go around warning about her, but we’ve had this argument before and it’s tedious.
For what it's worth, I've grown to appreciate these occasional "rationalists postings". I don't have a good opinion of Scott Alexander or the wider rationalist web space, but it's interesting to...
For what it's worth, I've grown to appreciate these occasional "rationalists postings". I don't have a good opinion of Scott Alexander or the wider rationalist web space, but it's interesting to encounter the occasional link to such things. It gives me a chance to dip my toes back into the water and see if it's still too cold.
The rest of us deserve to be able to discuss the content of the actual link, and not have the comment section be thrown off the rails by endless purity testing and sneer culture.
You can discuss those contents, it's your choice to engage down here. All I can find about "sneer culture" references cyberbullying and personal mockery, I'm not doing that. In this very post...
You can discuss those contents, it's your choice to engage down here.
All I can find about "sneer culture" references cyberbullying and personal mockery, I'm not doing that. In this very post someone suggested I engage with another one of his articles where he links to a race science promoting magazine as part of defending him. This isn't performative mockery. This is genuine criticism of someone for the things they say.
This also isn't purity testing, it's "it would be nice not to see the race science proponent posted here" and "heads up folks who dont know him, take him with a grain of salt."
But even if you think I'm sneering you can ignore the "off topic" marked comment.
"It's your choice to look at the train wreck" is not a compelling argument to be okay with you causing more train wrecks. You're not performing a public service by dragging up old arguments and...
"It's your choice to look at the train wreck" is not a compelling argument to be okay with you causing more train wrecks.
You're not performing a public service by dragging up old arguments and discontent whenever a new topic is posted on something, or by someone, that you have a low opinion of.
I'm not going to argue definitions with you. Posting a comment that contains nothing but your airing of your own disappointment, and links to old arguments about your opinion about Scott Alexander's opinions about genetics or whatever, on a topic about using AI to gather information for local elections, something completely unrelated to whatever your beefs are with the OP or the author, is off-topic and ridiculous.
You're not fighting the good fight. You're not making this site better. You're just injecting stupid bullshit where it doesn't belong.
Tildes has always encouraged flagging the comment you don't like and moving on, so that was why I suggested you do so. Off topic and ridiculous? Label it "off topic" and "joke" or "noise" as you...
Tildes has always encouraged flagging the comment you don't like and moving on, so that was why I suggested you do so. Off topic and ridiculous? Label it "off topic" and "joke" or "noise" as you prefer.
I disagree with your opinion of my input and I understand that you and others may dislike it and me for it and that others thank me for it.
And that's fine. I believe I have been respectful, clear about my opinion, and attempted to minimize the amount of text in the post rather than reposting a long comment with all the details every time. I don't believe I'm violating the site rules, nor do I agree that I am "injecting stupid bullshit" by pointing out that anyone's fave is dancing with race science on the regular.
But you can, and that's cool. Report me if I cross a line. I'd like to be clear however from your statement that this is not about the Tildes user who posts the links, it's about the author of the linked article.
As has been pointed out to you in the past, though you deleted that comment, it would be libel, not slander. It's not either because truth and this being my genuinely formed, protected, opinion is...
As has been pointed out to you in the past, though you deleted that comment, it would be libel, not slander. It's not either because truth and this being my genuinely formed, protected, opinion is the defense to it. I've sharing links to his work and analysis from others alongside that opinion.
As mentioned I'm happy to consider his response to the myriad of claims but I haven't seen him make one, just more posts along the same lines.
Your opinion of me is noted and feel free to do whatever that doesn't violate the rules of the site.
Edit for your edit: yes, I agree i criticize him for what he says.
I think you can take this article at face value as being his honest opinion, though you might disagree. I don't think it needs a content warning. I suppose a warning that he's controversial might...
I think you can take this article at face value as being his honest opinion, though you might disagree. I don't think it needs a content warning. I suppose a warning that he's controversial might be in order, but it has nothing to do with the article.
I don't know if I would trust an AI's opinion when it comes to taxing their corporate overlords.
I also see it as a bit self-defeating on two different fronts. The more competitive a race, the more information there is out there and the less time it takes to research. As an example: there's so much buzz about the California Govenor primary that using an AI doesn't feel like it'll do much more for you than a few search queries.
The other end is that what takes the most time to research tends to be smaller local races with almost no online presence. To use this exercise, I decided to try this for my California represenative. It gave super basic profiles that I could have found on Balletopedia (or the election packet I received). I asked it further who is projected to win and I get this as an opener:
I will give Claude some credit that it immediately says
So it's at least somewhat careful of its more sketchy sources. But doing this for a federal representative makes me a bit uneasy and I can only imagine what it digs up to answer when it comes to smaller positions on my ballot, like county sheriff State Board.
I suppose if it comes down to "use AI or literally don't vote at all", it's still a benefit, and turnout means a lot more than anything else this cycle. I asked in a more pragmatic matter of who's winning or has a chance, because I had a similar viewpoint to Scott on voting:
and it seemed fine at pointing out campaign funding and incumbent advantage (while giving me sources as well). But I don't think it will setup good habits for the ideal educated electorate to start doing this as a crutch if you aren't making this more subtle considerations.
I do use AI, but in a more mundane way. I asked ChatGPT to find newspaper endorsements. I might use it to find in-depth articles about candidates. Basically I'd use it as a search engine.
Any reason you don't have it help you reason?
I'm interested in where it got its information, rather than just a summary. If, hypothetically, someone asked who I support, I'd want it to be based on something factual.
(Admittedly, newspaper endorsements are opinions, but I read them because they often have interesting context for their choices.)
Fair enough, I can certainly respect that.
From the article:
[...]
I was very impressed by Claude's answers to his questions!
I did the same thing for some recent local elections. It worked pretty spectacularly. I imagine if you wanted a very conservative candidate the models would probably struggle with that (other than grok, I suppose), but for comparing and contrasting niche people you've never heard of, AI can save you massive amounts of time.
I am disappointed to see Scott Alexander continue to be posted here.
Repeatedly.
Edit to add: from another comment in this thread, additional even more recent evidence of his engagement with race science.
Thanks for the heads up. I’ve managed to not see those in the past apparently so I appreciate the heads up.
This probably is the best way of giving just a casual “hey take what this guy says with a grain (or pound) of salt” without immediately throwing the thread into chaos and “off topic” discussion. (Off topic in quotes because talking about the author is certainly on topic, but probably not the intended topic)
This
got a solid chuckle.
Whichever way I do it usually gets complaints. I figured regardless this would be "down labeled" so to speak and thus ignored by some, and a number of the threads I've posted more detailed responses in are nuked so I just keep links where I can. But it's worth it.
All of which to say, glad it was helpful for you! And I'm not dead yet!
For additional context, Scott Alexander is a eugenicist in the sense of suggesting that genetic testing before implanting an embryo is a good thing (so-called positive eugenics). He has explicitly criticized so-called negative eugenics like sterilization, limiting who can have children or how many, etc.
Obviously it's not crazy to believe that even so-called positive eugenics beliefs are wrong. I would disagree, but it's not an absurd position. I highlight this to ensure that your eyes are open about what Alexander actually believes.
I disagree that this is the extent of his beliefs.
For example
The direct quote:
He cites Charles Murray as recently as last year when talking about IQ in Africa - and does so without a single mention of that mans white nationalism and promotion of biological determinism, just as an offhand reference.
He hides it better behind "rationalism" and "logic" that are mostly him writing in a particular style and outright dismissing disagreement. So he doesn't say the thing outright and he knew how saying it as such would be taken. As the push for eugenics has grown today he hasn't clarified himself and he does keep talking about it. I find new posts from him on the topic all the time
ETA: I do recall seeing him explicitly support paying poor people to get sterilized but I don't recall if it was when I was trawling his reddit history to see what he thought or what.
The Scott Alexander quote comes from this article. I encourage people to read the article for yourself and then go back and see if you think Torres is being fair. My conclusion is that that Torres is too biased to take seriously, but at least they’re willing to link directly to what they’re criticizing.
This is common in psychiatry. If mental illness has a genetic component and intelligence is at least partially heritable, you can logically end up in a very uncomfortable place.
The rational critiques are questioning IQ metrics (psychometric surveys aren't infallible) and debating exactly how much of intelligence is genetic (twin studies are always interesting). There's also a whole discussion to be had about EQ, but many in the rationalist community are emotionally blunt to say the least.
I don't think citing Murray without qualifications nor defending Lynn's IQ maps are common in psychiatry. ( They're not in other mental health fields.) If they are, that's probably a larger problem.
There are certainly ways to discuss the ethically complex topic without saying "man I think I kind of agree with this framework explicitly created to remarket race science" and I've said before I'd happily read his response to such criticisms but every time I go look him back up I find more posts that run along the same lines as those described above and in my previous posts.
I don't have evidence from every psychiatry residency, but I can confidently say The Bell Curve used to be regularly taught and widely discussed. Some people take differences in IQ scores to racist extremes. There's a much more nuanced discussion to be had.
On some topics, he is an expert and genuinely insightful. On others, you're completely justified in ignoring him.
Edit: I don't expect to change your mind, but I think you should genuinely read and engage with this piece: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-to-stop-worrying-and-learn-to
As a choice quote:
I think he's over-hated. Here's another controversial pundit's take if you prefer second-hand analysis: https://www.slowboring.com/p/slate-star-codex
I was in fact referencing that article you linked and have read it and "engaged with it" though I'm not sure precisely what you mean by that. In that article he links to Aporia Magazine early on...
Wiki
That magazine is published by the Human Diversity Foundation.
That was founded to promote race science. And all he does is cite it and its participation in the debate (and outcome) as if it's legitimately a solid source to be taken seriously.
I wrote a bunch more but honestly clicking that link and doing five seconds of research tied him even closer to race science than he was for me ten minutes ago, so...
I have read him, to my regret, and he's not beating the allegations in my mind. And I'm even more concerned that no one does the slightest bit of digging on anything he says. Because the alternative is that they believe the shit he's soft peddling.
But the whole crux of the article is this outro...
While it's secondary to everything else, I also think he's an incredibly generous person in some ways for donating a kidney: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/my-left-kidney
Donating a kidney is irrelevant to the fact that he's a eugenicist.
Thanks for bringing to our attention that this person isn't to be taken seriously in all areas. I had no idea!
I'm personally not against posting something that a questionable person said in case that particular thing is worth sharing, but it would be better for the readers if there was some sort of heads up in the opening post. Without it, the implication is that the source/author is generally respected by the person who posted the link.
@skybrian
I do believe that the person who is posted does in fact respect him. This is a point of contention between the OP and I.
It would be a mistake to assume that just because someone posts a link to something, they must agree with or respect the content or author of that link.
Sometimes people post links to things they disagree, but don't include any critical context, because they just did not have enough time or desire to write such context.
I like it when people include quotes and information about whatever they're posting here as a link. It's obviously not obligatory but it indicates a caring attitude towards the reader and I appreciate that @skybrian does it regularly.
In this case, given that there was time to post the excerpts, there probably would have been time to also say something like "This dude has some controversial opinions but I think this perspective of his is worth sharing anyway", or whatever. It would be similarly kind and caring.
We obviously shouldn't and won't deliberately assume anything, but at the same time, the implication I mentioned is there and can't be escaped. You'll realise what I mean if you put your mind to it. You can probably even come up with examples that would feel brow-raising to yourself if someone posted an article without specifying they don't subscribe to everything that author stands for.
There's a huge difference, though, between posting an article about something controversial and posting a completely anodyne article by an author that other people on this website happen not to like.
As much as I wish this weren't the case - I'd prefer for us to all to just assume good faith, particularly when it's coming from an established member of the community and not some random guy - I agree with you that it's generally prudent to put some sort of disclaimer when sharing a controversial article. So that things don't get completely derailed, if nothing else.
But this isn't a controversial article, and it's not about a controversial topic.
I would like once again to be clear that this is not about any assumptions of faith or lack there of in the Tildes community, unless the author of this is here. Several people are now implying otherwise and I wish to make it explicit.
My post is about Scott Alexander and his words and actions which I think cross beyond "happening not to like" but to each their own.
AI use is fairly controversial on its own, however.
Is there anything I've said that made you think I'm not assuming good faith?
Are you being serious here? Telling people to use AI, especially in an election, especially in a very high stakes one, especially in a country that is actively propping up ethically dubious AI companies, is not controversial in your opinion?
I have not read the article so I may have misunderstood what it's about from the title, but like I said, it would be better for the readers to clarify intent when choosing to post something like this form an author who is generally regarded controversial.
DefinitelyNotAFae has repeatedly criticized Scott Alexander on Tildes and you should not take her word on this. For example, he is not a white supremicist. Perhaps I should go around warning about her, but we’ve had this argument before and it’s tedious.
Edit: slandered -> criticized
For what it's worth, I've grown to appreciate these occasional "rationalists postings". I don't have a good opinion of Scott Alexander or the wider rationalist web space, but it's interesting to encounter the occasional link to such things. It gives me a chance to dip my toes back into the water and see if it's still too cold.
Posting the occasional link to Astral Codex Ten is not a big deal. You don't deserve to be pestered over this.
The rest of us deserve to be able to discuss the content of the actual link, and not have the comment section be thrown off the rails by endless purity testing and sneer culture.
You can discuss those contents, it's your choice to engage down here.
All I can find about "sneer culture" references cyberbullying and personal mockery, I'm not doing that. In this very post someone suggested I engage with another one of his articles where he links to a race science promoting magazine as part of defending him. This isn't performative mockery. This is genuine criticism of someone for the things they say.
This also isn't purity testing, it's "it would be nice not to see the race science proponent posted here" and "heads up folks who dont know him, take him with a grain of salt."
But even if you think I'm sneering you can ignore the "off topic" marked comment.
"It's your choice to look at the train wreck" is not a compelling argument to be okay with you causing more train wrecks.
You're not performing a public service by dragging up old arguments and discontent whenever a new topic is posted on something, or by someone, that you have a low opinion of.
I'm not going to argue definitions with you. Posting a comment that contains nothing but your airing of your own disappointment, and links to old arguments about your opinion about Scott Alexander's opinions about genetics or whatever, on a topic about using AI to gather information for local elections, something completely unrelated to whatever your beefs are with the OP or the author, is off-topic and ridiculous.
You're not fighting the good fight. You're not making this site better. You're just injecting stupid bullshit where it doesn't belong.
Tildes has always encouraged flagging the comment you don't like and moving on, so that was why I suggested you do so. Off topic and ridiculous? Label it "off topic" and "joke" or "noise" as you prefer.
I disagree with your opinion of my input and I understand that you and others may dislike it and me for it and that others thank me for it.
And that's fine. I believe I have been respectful, clear about my opinion, and attempted to minimize the amount of text in the post rather than reposting a long comment with all the details every time. I don't believe I'm violating the site rules, nor do I agree that I am "injecting stupid bullshit" by pointing out that anyone's fave is dancing with race science on the regular.
But you can, and that's cool. Report me if I cross a line. I'd like to be clear however from your statement that this is not about the Tildes user who posts the links, it's about the author of the linked article.
How are you improving the site with this comment?
I was wondering when you were going to show up
I think eugenics marks a line in the sand for some. Like me. It's not purity testing to oppose eugenics, and those that believe in it.
Lines in the sand are dumb they just get washed away by the waves
As has been pointed out to you in the past, though you deleted that comment, it would be libel, not slander. It's not either because truth and this being my genuinely formed, protected, opinion is the defense to it. I've sharing links to his work and analysis from others alongside that opinion.
As mentioned I'm happy to consider his response to the myriad of claims but I haven't seen him make one, just more posts along the same lines.
Your opinion of me is noted and feel free to do whatever that doesn't violate the rules of the site.
Edit for your edit: yes, I agree i criticize him for what he says.
In your opinion, is Mr. Alexander someone whose word should be taken without extra precaution, in most cases?
I think you can take this article at face value as being his honest opinion, though you might disagree. I don't think it needs a content warning. I suppose a warning that he's controversial might be in order, but it has nothing to do with the article.
"Use AI this election"?
No.