It also [0] defines a cult as great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (such as a film or book) or a small group of very devoted supporters or fans. And I put it to you that the article is clearly using the word more in that sense because it is quite difficult to fit the words coercive, insular, or dangerous to the AI safety people. The accusation in the article seems to be that they're too friendly and sexually inclusive. And if you want to communicate with them they appear to be active on Twitter and not shy.
> Well, technically military is run now by maga incel death cult, so yeah I give you that one. I forgot I was discussing on US forum.
Well, we're speaking in English. I was careful to phrase that in a way that applied to what I'm pretty sure is any English-speaking country. Anywhere that votes could put anyone they like in charge of the military for any reason, cult or no cult. It isn't technically relevant - or practically relevant in most cases. It is just a question of whether the cult has the numbers or not.
Yes word have meanings, often several of them. I chose the one we often use when we say ”death cult”, or ”sex cult” etc. You claim to say you know exactly what meaning the author meant, which either you have to derive from quite careful textual analysis - which you haven’t - or you have to be the author themselves. Personally think having sex is quite fine and dandy, even group sex if that’s your thing. Sex cult indeed sounds a bit ominous. I wonder why furries are never described as cult, although they are indeed very devoted. Britney Spears fan club has very strond devotees who I’m sure have sex with each other (since it is mostly gay men), but never heard of Britney Spears Sex Cult.
I wonder if it just that you try to weasel away from negative publicity by trying to flex the meaning of words to turn the meaning of this bluesky post upside down? In that case I might suggest you to tread carefully. When nothing is true, everything is possible and all that.
No, it doesn't define "a cult" as that. It defines the word "cult" to also mean that, in certain contexts. Specifically, when you say "the cult of Britney Spears" or "the cult of Kim Jong Un", the word "cult" in those contexts has the meaning you quoted.
But when used simply as "a cult", in a context outside of history or anthropology, it's meaning is virtually always meaning 1 from Merriam-Webster - "a group (such as an organization or religious sect) with tenets and practices regarded as coercive, insular, or dangerous". And there is no doubt that, rightly or wrongly, this is what the article author means to accuse Rationality/EA of being.
> And there is no doubt that, rightly or wrongly, this is what the article author means to accuse Rationality/EA of being.
There is substantial doubt, I don't think the article did accuse them of being any of those things. Obsessed, yes. Poorly reasoned, sure. Coercive and insular I am not seeing, and dangerous is a difficult reading to find. Whats the danger here, we accidentally maintain the status quo of the insufferable 2025? There is a totally unrelated firebombing invoked, I doubt the dude was in the sex cult and the US seems a bit CEOcidal right now. The most specific criticism I spotted is the article writer thinks they may, in a possible edge case where people take them seriously, hinder medical research. Which is not actually a rare policy position if you spend any time talking to people about what needs to happen to speed up medical research.
It also [0] defines a cult as great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (such as a film or book) or a small group of very devoted supporters or fans. And I put it to you that the article is clearly using the word more in that sense because it is quite difficult to fit the words coercive, insular, or dangerous to the AI safety people. The accusation in the article seems to be that they're too friendly and sexually inclusive. And if you want to communicate with them they appear to be active on Twitter and not shy.
> Well, technically military is run now by maga incel death cult, so yeah I give you that one. I forgot I was discussing on US forum.
Well, we're speaking in English. I was careful to phrase that in a way that applied to what I'm pretty sure is any English-speaking country. Anywhere that votes could put anyone they like in charge of the military for any reason, cult or no cult. It isn't technically relevant - or practically relevant in most cases. It is just a question of whether the cult has the numbers or not.
[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult
Yes word have meanings, often several of them. I chose the one we often use when we say ”death cult”, or ”sex cult” etc. You claim to say you know exactly what meaning the author meant, which either you have to derive from quite careful textual analysis - which you haven’t - or you have to be the author themselves. Personally think having sex is quite fine and dandy, even group sex if that’s your thing. Sex cult indeed sounds a bit ominous. I wonder why furries are never described as cult, although they are indeed very devoted. Britney Spears fan club has very strond devotees who I’m sure have sex with each other (since it is mostly gay men), but never heard of Britney Spears Sex Cult.
I wonder if it just that you try to weasel away from negative publicity by trying to flex the meaning of words to turn the meaning of this bluesky post upside down? In that case I might suggest you to tread carefully. When nothing is true, everything is possible and all that.
GP isn't claiming to read the author's mind, they're very clearly claiming that one definition matches the author's actual words.
1 reply →
No, it doesn't define "a cult" as that. It defines the word "cult" to also mean that, in certain contexts. Specifically, when you say "the cult of Britney Spears" or "the cult of Kim Jong Un", the word "cult" in those contexts has the meaning you quoted.
But when used simply as "a cult", in a context outside of history or anthropology, it's meaning is virtually always meaning 1 from Merriam-Webster - "a group (such as an organization or religious sect) with tenets and practices regarded as coercive, insular, or dangerous". And there is no doubt that, rightly or wrongly, this is what the article author means to accuse Rationality/EA of being.
Or the cult of Eliezer Yudkowsky aka Yud.
> And there is no doubt that, rightly or wrongly, this is what the article author means to accuse Rationality/EA of being.
There is substantial doubt, I don't think the article did accuse them of being any of those things. Obsessed, yes. Poorly reasoned, sure. Coercive and insular I am not seeing, and dangerous is a difficult reading to find. Whats the danger here, we accidentally maintain the status quo of the insufferable 2025? There is a totally unrelated firebombing invoked, I doubt the dude was in the sex cult and the US seems a bit CEOcidal right now. The most specific criticism I spotted is the article writer thinks they may, in a possible edge case where people take them seriously, hinder medical research. Which is not actually a rare policy position if you spend any time talking to people about what needs to happen to speed up medical research.
2 replies →