Probably not, but I'll try to restate the message and motivation:
"I notice that wanting to do something is psychologically very different from aversion to not doing something. I have observed that attraction to saving far mode people and the like if taken very seriously is often the result of the latter. I observe and assert that the type of mind that does this is a disproportionately important mind to influence with "rationalist" or SingInst memes. This is the type of mind that truly groks Eliezer's aversion to lost purposes. I theorize that this type of mind is sometimes formed by being around an abundance of double binds, though I am unwilling to put forth evidence strongly favoring this hypothesis. I think it is important to make a good impression on that type of mind and to avoid negatively reinforcing the anti-anti-virtuous behaviors associated with that type of mind, especially as it is a type of mind that is generally oversensitive to negative reinforcement and could become completely paralyzed. I notice that we specifically do not know how to create the skill of avoiding lost purposes which also makes it important to avoid negatively influencing those who already happen to have the skill. I have created this post to further the agenda of setting up a culture that doesn't repel and perhaps even attracts this type of mind.
As a related side note, I notice that the skill of avoiding lost purposes is very important and wish to express some distress that no apparent effort has been put into addressing the problem. I assert that most "aspiring rationalists" do not seem to even aspire to attain this fundamental skill of rationality, and thus cannot actually be aspiring to rationality, even if they aspire to aspire to what they think is rationality. I thus implicitly claim that I would be able to tell if they were averse to lost purposes, but am unwilling to give evidence of this. I choose to be deliberately misleading about my confidence in this judgment to provoke interesting people to reply in indignation."
I observe and assert that the type of mind that does this is a disproportionately important mind to influence with "rationalist" or SingInst memes.
From a Singularity perspective, the importance of rationality evangelism is being way overrated. There is still a tendency to mix up rationality and intelligence, as if becoming more rational will produce radically superior problem-solving skills. But if we're talking about how to solve a problem like Friendly AI design, then what you need above all are people with high intelligence and relevant kn...
A short reply to the Book of Eliezer and a comment on the Book of Luke.
No one wants to save the world. You must thoroughly research this. Those who think they truly think they want to truly want to save the world, in reality they're actually just horribly afraid of the consequences of not saving the world. And that is a world of difference.
Eliezer, you know that ridiculously strong aversion to lost purposes and sphexishness that you have?1 Sometimes, very rarely, other people have that too. And most often it is a double-negative aversion. I am sure you know as much as very nearly anyone what it feels like to work from the inside of a triple-negative motivation system by default, for fear of being as evil and imperfect as every other human in history, among other less noble fears. You quickly learn to go meta to escape the apparently impossible double-binds—if going meta isn't itself choosing a side—but by constantly moving vertically you never practice pushing to the left or to the right, or choosing which responsibility to sacrifice in the first place. And even if you could, why would you want to be evil?
And for this rare kind of person, telling them to stop obsessing over prudence or to just try to make marginal contributions, immediately gets pattern-matched to that ages-old adage: "The solution is easy, just shut up and be evil.". Luckily it is this kind of person we can make the most use of, when it comes to the big crunch time—if we're not already in it.
1We do not yet know how to teach this skill, and no one can be a truly aspiring rationalist without it, even if they can still aspire to perfection. That does mean I believe there are like maybe 5 truly aspiring rationalists in this community, a larger set of falsely aspiring rationalists, a further much larger set of of truly aspiring aspiring "rationalists", and a further much much larger set of falsely aspiring aspiring "rationalists". (3, 30, 300, 3000, say.) I don't think anyone thinks about this nearly enough, because no one has any affordance—no affordance to not not-think about it—especially not when they're thinking fuzzy happy thoughts about creating aspiring rationalists or becoming a rationalist.