Okay, I have not downvoted any of your posts, but I see the three posts you probably mean, and I dislike them, and shall try to explain why. I'm going to take the existence of this question as an excuse to be blunt.

The Snuggle/Date/Slap Protocol: Frankly, wtf? You took the classic Fuck/Marry/Kill game, tweaked it slightly, and said adding this as a feature to GPT-4 "would have all sorts of nice effects for AI alignment." At the end, you also started preaching about your moral system, which I didn't care for. (People gossiping about the dating habits of minor AI celebrities is an amusing idea though.) If you actually built this, I confess I'd still be interested to see what this system does, and if you can then get the LLM to assume different personae.

My Mental Model of Infohazards: As a general rule, long chains of reasoning where you disagree strongly with some early step are unpleasant to follow (at each following step, you have to keep track of whether you agree with the point being made, whether it follows from the previous steps, and whether this new world being described is internally consistent), especially if the payoff isn't worth it, as in your post. You draw some colorful analogy to black holes and supernovae, but are exceedingly vague, and everything you did say is either false or vacuous. You specifically flagged one of your points as something you expected people to disagree with, but offered no support for, or rebuttal to arguments against.

Ethicophysics II: Politics is the Mind-Savior (see also: Ethicophysics I): You open "We present an ethicophysical treatment on the nature of truth and consensus reality, within the framework of a historical approach to ludic futurecasting modeled on the work of Hegel and Marx." This looks like pompous nonsense to me, and my immediate thought was that you were doing the Sokal hoax thing. And then I skimmed your first post, and you seem serious, so I concluded you're a crank. ("Gallifreyan" is a great name for a physics-y expression, btw. It fits in perfectly with Lagrangians and Hamiltonians.)

More generally, voting on posts doesn't disentangle dislike vs. disagree, so a lot of the downvotes might just be the latter.

I think you need to be more frugal with your weirdness points (and more generally your demanding-trust-and-effort-from-the-reader points), and more mindful of the inferential distance between yourself and your LW readers. 

Also remember that for every one surprisingly insightful post by an unfamiliar author, we all come across hundreds that are misguided, mediocre, or nonsensical. So if you don't yet have a strong reputation, many readers will be quick to give up on your posts and quick to dismiss you as a crank or dilettante. It's your job to prove that you're not, and to do so before you lose their attention!

If there's serious thought behind The Snuggle/Date/Slap Protocol then you need to share more of it, and work harder to convince the reader it's worth taking seriously. Conciseness is a virtue but when you're making a suggestion that is easy to dismiss as a half-baked thought bubble or weird joke, you've got to take your time and guide the reader along a path that begins at or near their actual starting point.

Ethicophysics II: Politics is the Mind-Savior opens with language that will trigger the average LWer's bullshit detector, and appears to demand a lot of effort from the reader before giving them reason to think it will be worthwhile. LW linkposts often contain the text of the linked article in the body of the LW post, and at first glance this looks like one of those. In any case, we're probably going to scan the body text before clicking the link. So before we've read the actual article we are hit with a long list of high-effort, unclear-reward, and frankly pretentious-looking exercises. When we do follow the link to Substack we face the trivial inconvenience of clicking two more links and then, if we're not logged in to academia.edu, are met with an annoying 'To Continue Reading, Register for Free' popup. Not a big deal if we're truly motivated to read the paper! But at this point we probably don't have much confidence that it will be worth the hassle.

I don't think you're being consistently downvoted: most of your comments are neutral-to-slightly positive?

I do see one recent post of yours that was downvoted noticeably, https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/48X4EFJdCQvHEvL2t/ethicophysics-ii-politics-is-the-mind-savior

I downvoted that post myself.  (Uh....sorry?) My engagement with it was as follows:

1. I opened the post.  It consisted of a few paragraphs that did not sound particularly encouraging ('ethicophysical treatment...modeled on the work of Hegel and Marx' does not fill me with joy to read), plus a link at the top 'This is a linkpost for [link]'.
2. I clicked the link.  It took me here, to a paywalled Substack post with another link at the top.
3. I clicked the next link.  It took me here, to a sketchy-looking site that wanted me to download a PDF.
4. I sighed, closed the tab, went back and downvoted the post.

I...guess this might be me being impatient or narrow-minded or some such.  But ideally I would like either to see what your post is about directly, or at least have a clearer and more comprehensible summary that makes me think putting the effort into digging in will likely be rewarded.

The Snuggle/Date/Slap Protocol seems to me to be just not how language models work, and I don't expect many to actually care in the relevant ways if any of your forecasted news paper articles get written about ChatGPT outputting those tokens at people.

I did not read your ethicophysics stuff, nor did I downvote. You can probably get me to read those by summarizing your main methods and conclusions, with some obvious facts about human morality which you can reconstruct to lend credence to your hypothesis, and nonobvious conclusions to show you're not just saying tautologies. I in fact expect that doc to be filled with a bunch of tautologies or to just be completely wrong.

5 posts in 5 hours is way too many. People will be much more generous if you space things out or put them on shortform. I've never discussed this with anyone else, but if I was going to make up a number it would be no more than two posts per month unless they're getting fantastic karma, and and avoid having two posts above the fold at the same time.  

I skimmed The Snuggle/Date/Slap Protocol and Ethicophysics II: Politics is the Mind-Savior which are two recent downvoted posts of yours. I think they get negative karma because they are difficult to understand and it's hard to tell what you're supposed to take away from it. They would probably be better received if the content were written such that it's easy to understand what your message is at an object-level as well as what the point of your post is. 

I read the Snuggle/Date/Slap Protocol and feel confused about what you're trying to accomplish (is it solving AI Alignment?) and how the method is supposed to accomplish that. 

In the ethicophysics posts, I understand the object level claims/material (like the homework/discussion questions) but fail to understand what the goal is. It seems like you are jumping to grounded mathematical theories for stuff like ethics/morality which immediately makes me feel dubious. It's a too much, too grand, too certain kind of reaction. Perhaps you're just spitballing/brainstorming some ideas, but that's not how it comes across and I infer you feel deeply assured that it's correct given statements like "It [your theory of ethics modeled on the laws of physics] therefore forms an ideal foundation for solving the AI safety problem."

I don't necessarily think you should change whatever you're doing BTW just pointing out some likely reactions/impressions driving negative karma.

Sampling one of your downvoted posts: the one here is nonsensical and probably a joke? 

It proposes adding a <SNUGGLE>/<DATE>/<SLAP> token in order to "control" GPT-4. But tokens are numbers that represent common sequences of characters in an NLP dataset. They are not buttons on an LLM remote control - if the </SNUGGLE> token doesn't have any representation in the dataset, the model won't know what it means. You could tell ChatGPT "when I type <SNUGGLE>, do X", but that'd be different than somehow "converting" Noam Chomsky works into a <SLAP> feature and building it into the base model.

As an additional referrence, this talk from the University of Chicago is very helpful for me and might be helpful for you too. 

The presenter, Larry McEnerney talks about why the most important thing is not what original work or feelings we have - he argues that its about changing peoples minds and we, writers must know that there are readers/community driven norms that are needed to be understood in this process.

One big issue is not that you are not respecting the format of LW -- add more context, either link to a document directly, or put the text inline. Resolving this would cover half of the most downvoted posts. You can ask people to review your posts for this before submitting. 

Another big issue is that you are a prolific writer, but not a good editor. Just edit more, your writing could be like 5x shorter without losing anything meaningful. You have this overly academic style for your scientific writing, it's not good on the internet, and not even good in scientific papers. A good take here: https://archive.is/29hNC 

From "The elements of Style": "Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell."

Also, you are trying to move too fast, pursuing too many fronts. Why don't you just focus on one thing for some time, clarify and polish it enough so that people can actually grasp clearly what you mean?

Shortly:

1. Post the actual text. Not a link to a link to a download site.
2. Make your idea clear. No joking, no... whatever. The inferential distance is too large, the chance to be understood is already too low. Don't make it worse.
3. Post one idea at a time. If your article contains dozen ideas and I disagree with all of them, I am just going to click the downvote button without an explanation. If your article contains one idea and I disagree with it, I may post a reason why I disagree.
4. Don't post many articles at the same time. Among other things, it sends a clear signal that you are not listening to feedback.
5. This actually should be point zero: Consider the possibility that you might actually be wrong. (From my perspective, this possibility is very high.)

(preface: writing and communicating is hard and that i'm glad you are trying to improve)

i sampled two:

this post was hard to follow, and didn't seem to be very serious. it also reads off as unfamiliar with the basics of the AI Alignment problem (the proposed changes to gpt-4 don't concretely address many/any of the core Alignment concerns for reasons addressed by other commentors)

this post makes multiple (self-proclaimed controversial) claims that seem wrong or are not obvious, but doesn't try to justify them in-depth.

overall, i'm getting the impression that your ideas are 1) wrong and you haven't thought about them enough and/or 2) you arent communicating them well enough. i think the former is more likely, but it could also be some combination of the both. i think this means that:

1. you should try to become more familiar with the alignment field, and common themes surrounding proposed alignment solutions and their pitfalls
2. you should consider spending more time fleshing out your writing and/or getting more feedback (whether it be by talking to someone about your ideas, or sending out a draft idea for feedback)

I haven't seen this mentioned explicitly, so I will. Your tone is off relative to this community, in particular ways that signal legitimate complaints.

You do a good job of sounding humble in some places, but your most-downvoted "ethicophysics I" sounds pretty hubristic. It seems to claim that you have a scientifically sound and complete explanation for religion and for history. Those are huge claims, and they're mentioned with no hint of epistemic modesty (recognizing that you're not sure you're right).

This community is really big on epistemic modesty, and I think there's a good reason. It's easier to have productive discussions when everyone doesn't just assume they're sure they're right, and assume the problem must be that others don't recognize their infallible logic and evidence.

The other big problem with the tone and content of that post is that it doesn't mention a single previous bit of work or thought, nor does it use terminology beyond "alignment" indicating that you have read others' theories before writing about your own. I think this is also a legitimate cultural expectation. Everyone has limited reading time, so rereading the same ideas stated in different terms is a bad idea. If you haven't read the previous literature, you're probably restating existing ideas, and you can't help the reader know where your ideas are new.

I actually upvoted that post because it's succinct and actually addresses the alignment problem. But I think tone is a big reason people downvote, even if they don't consciously recognize why they disliked something.

I strongly downvoted Homework Answer: Glicko Ratings for War. The reason is because it's appears to be a pure data dump that isn't intended to be actually read by a human. As it is a follow up to a previous post it might have been better as a comment or edit on the original post linking to your github with the data instead. 

Looking at your post history, I will propose that you could improve the quality of your posts by spending more time on them. There are only a few users who manage to post multiple times a week and consistently get many upvotes. 

It looks like bad luck.

1. It seems that you're averse to social status, or reject the premise in some way. That is a common cause of self-deprecation. The dynamics underlying social status, and the downstream effects, are in fact awful and shouldn't exist. It makes sense to look at the situation with social status and recoil in horror and disgust. I did something similar from 2014-2016, declined to participate, and it made my life hell. A proper fix is not currently within reach (accelerating AI might do a lot, building aligned AGI almost certainly will), and failing to jump through the hoops will make everything painful for you and the people around you (or at least unpleasant). Self-deprecation requires way more charisma than it appears, since they are merely pretending to throw away social status; we are social status-pursuing monkeys in a very deep way, and hemorrhaging one's own social status for real is the wrong move in our civilization's current form. This will be fixed eventually, unless we all die. Until then, "is this cringe" is a surprisingly easy subroutine to set up; I know, I've done it.
2. Read Ngo's AI safety from first principles summary in order to make sure you're not missing anything important, and the Superintelligence FAQ and the Unilateralists Curse if that's not enough and you still get the sense that you're not on the same page as everyone else.
3. If all of this seems a bit much, amplify daily motivation by reading the Execute by default, AI timelines dialog, Buck's freshman year, and What to do in response to an emergency.

In another of your most downvoted posts, you say 

I kind of expect this post to be wildly unpopular

I think you may be onto something here.