I was sent this today, obviously relevant. Not an endorsement whatsoever, haven’t followed up on anything: https://omnicide.exposed/
I’m not exactly sure if any of this is a crux re the OP but it’s interesting. There’s some ambiguously private info I’m leaving out but I’m gently updating in favor of this document, on net I’m still broadly critical though.
I care about the norm of people being able to share politically-sensitive and important information on the internet anonymously, and so I won’t be speculating on the authorship of this document publicly, and encourage others not to as well.
I might feel differently if it seemed to me like this document outright lied, or the personal attacks were substantially unprovoked, but I do not currently know either of those to be the case, and even if it lied then I might just point that out and move on. (I am looking into it some, I’ll report back if I get any clear updates on whether it has lied.)
As the author conducted the research for this document, a small number of prior attempts by MAPLE and OAK trainees to address the attacks in roughly the way that this document does were surfaced. Most of these were published under real names. The author of this document had the opportunity to speak with the authors of some of these prior works. These prior authors were in many cases attacked by the people attacking MAPLE and OAK, and in many cases suffered serious professional and personal repercussions, including being cut off from friendship groups, banned from communities, dis-invited from conferences, and threatened with legal action.
Uhm, name three?
I mean, if there are people who already used their real names in writing, and were already “canceled”, what reason is there to be shy about linking their documents?
.
I find it plausible that there are people who attack MAPLE for the wrong reasons. Any organization of this type that interacts with many people probably has someone like that.
That is irrelevant for the question of whether there are meaningful objections against MAPLE.
I was sent this today, obviously relevant. Not an endorsement whatsoever, haven’t followed up on anything: https://omnicide.exposed/
I’m not exactly sure if any of this is a crux re the OP but it’s interesting. There’s some ambiguously private info I’m leaving out but I’m gently updating in favor of this document, on net I’m still broadly critical though.
I care about the norm of people being able to share politically-sensitive and important information on the internet anonymously, and so I won’t be speculating on the authorship of this document publicly, and encourage others not to as well.
I might feel differently if it seemed to me like this document outright lied, or the personal attacks were substantially unprovoked, but I do not currently know either of those to be the case, and even if it lied then I might just point that out and move on. (I am looking into it some, I’ll report back if I get any clear updates on whether it has lied.)
(That document seems to have been largely AI-written, based on sampling paragraphs from ~3 spots to Pangram.)
To confirm: I copy-pasted the entire document into Pangram, and got 43% AI-generated text.
Uhm, name three?
I mean, if there are people who already used their real names in writing, and were already “canceled”, what reason is there to be shy about linking their documents?
.
I find it plausible that there are people who attack MAPLE for the wrong reasons. Any organization of this type that interacts with many people probably has someone like that.
That is irrelevant for the question of whether there are meaningful objections against MAPLE.