I'm happy to chip in $500 for a replication. $250 if it seems post-facto to be a good-faith attempt, and $250 if it indeed does not replicate (as determined by some third party, perhaps Greenblatt or kave rennedy). Feel free to his the plus react if you also would chip in this money, or comment with a different amount.

I don't think this makes much sense. Here's a series of assorted heckles, followed by me simply stating my stance here.

1. You're constantly in situations where you need to provide political forces. Consider: your family is getting together and deciding when/where/how-long. There are many tradeoffs here. It helps for you to make pushes and pulls on this, and be for / against options. This is often much better than saying "y'all decide and I'll just show up".
2. Even in the extreme, there are many things worth destroying. The FDA. AI extinction companies. Mob justice. Death. Sam Bankman-Fried's company FTX.

3. In this quote

   > White collar corporate America prizes the ability to work with anyone... Consider your political opinions... Expressing those opinions is discouraged. Why? Imagine a coworker said they were Against Your Team. Do you feel any reluctance to work with them? If you say you're against Their Team, will they still want to work with you?

   You say that expressing your opinions necessarily leads to animosity. While this is sometimes true, sometimes it leads to respect! I understand that sometimes it is worth not discussing these things beceause you don't respect the other person's ability to set it aside; but also I think you're forgetting that there are ways to connect to someone's human side while expressing very disagreed-with opinions.

   I admit that it probably makes sense in a number of contexts to have a no-politics-discussion norm, but it is mostly a sign of dysfunction and low-skill amongst the people.

4. "You should oppose about one thing. Everywhere else, talk less, smile more." <- I hope you did not take away from Hamilton that Burr is the guy to be emulated!
5. "It would not occur to me to write "____ is the ethics of evil" for basically any ____. I'd regard that as an unforced tactical error, and instead I aspire to try things like "I'm curious why people believe ____?"" <- I put this slightly more in the 'temperament' category than the 'tactics' category.

My overall position: I think it's a good heuristic to be able to work with anyone. But also I think it's generally healthier to be able to take more political stands, and I think if you are in a position to then this is a good sign about your environment. I also think there's a skill issue in being able to take political stands while still working with people who disagree with you on those.

Reminder that spoiler tags exist, like this:

You make spoiler tags by adding >! at the front of the para.

Huh, I quite like the crystalized/fluid split in describing what the LLMs are good and bad at. I'm not sure if it's an analogy or just a literal description.

Aside: This is why subtweeting is bad. It makes people paranoid that people are subtweeting them when they aren't.

It is mistaken to hold the 'reasonable' middle position that everything is neither 'great' nor 'inadequate' but 'middling'. In fact, some things are at one extreme, and some things are at the other!

Just checking, did you first record your conversation with him due to my recommending that course of action to you?

Normal mode: 500+ word post each day

Hard mode: Above, and 200+ word comment each day

Nightmare mode: Above, and 3,500+ word post each week (replacing one of the 500+ word posts)

I don't know. Some frames:

• Scope sensitivity: Some amount of it should be able to outweigh a certain amount of meaning.
• Virtue ethics: I am willing to push through a lot of suffering if it means something; the simple ratio of the two does not determine whether the overall thing is worthwhile.
• Deontology: it does kind of differ on whether you're responsible for the suffering happening or not.

It's also plausible to me that I am more coming at this from a deontological feeling of "One should not kill everyone if one has a good reason" rather than "The world is net positive".

I talked with Zvi Mowshowitz who is quite skilled at seeing all the things being communicated at once, about the last section of dialogue above, where Evrart Claire talks about being transparent with Joyce Messier. This befuddled me for a while.

He said that what is being communicated is:

1. I know that you're talking with my primary political opponent.
2. That's okay with me, I'm still happy to work with you.
3. Also you haven't got anything on me; nothing I've ever said is actually incriminating (as per the plausible deniability point).
   1. (By implication: And of course, if we're going to talk about shady stuff, don't forget that I've got stuff on you.)

I didn't quite notice that 1 and 2 were intended to be communicated. I don't think of myself as someone to hide, so number 1 was not something I noticed.

Anyway, I am personally kind of annoyed that both (a) many things are being communicated at once, and (b) not all of them can be said explicitly (and in fact the explicit content of the words is kind of the opposite of true and of what's being discussed). I wish either everyone stopped doing this, or I were better at tracking it all. (Zvi roughly said "That's what your brain is built for, tracking this all.")