Sting

Karma: 183

Sting 4 Sep 2025 23:05 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: habryka’s comment on: Banning Said Achmiz (and broader thoughts on moderation)
Seems like we mostly cleared it up
Yes, your reply makes your position clear. I don’t feel like taking the time to edit my comment, but thank you for offering to edit in any changes.
Also, you definitely have my sympathy for the amount of time you have burned on this! I would not want your job.

Sting 4 Sep 2025 21:29 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: habryka’s comment on: Banning Said Achmiz (and broader thoughts on moderation)
This totally misrepresents what I said!
I don’t think this is a fair accusation.
The thing I am saying here is that Said’s engagements with Duncan in that comment thread are not the cause of me banning him. It doesn’t say anything about Duncan’s complaints which long preceded that engagement!
If that’s your position, fine, but it does not straightforwardly follow from what you wrote. You were responding to Alexander Gietelink Oldenziel’s comment:
The examples in this post don’t seem compelling at all. One of the primary examples seems to be Duncan who comes off [from a distance] as thin-skinned and obscurantist, emotionally blowing up at very fair criticism.
Wei Dai then chimed in:
This is my view too. I remember once trying (I think on Facebook) to gently talk him out of being really angry at someone for making what I thought was a reasonable criticism, and he ended up getting mad at me too.
You responded to Alexander (emphasis added):
I don’t think I link to a single Duncan/Said interaction in any of the core narratives of the post. I do link the moderation judgement of the previous Said/Duncan thread, but it’s not the bulk of this post.
Like none of these comments:
[image of comments]
link to any threads between Said and Duncan.
And the moderation judgement in the Said/Duncan also didn’t really have much to do with Said’s conduct in that thread, but with his conduct on the site in general.
You might still not find the examples compelling, but there is basically no engagement with Duncan that played any kind of substantial role in any of this.
Based on both your comment and the context, it looked like you were referring to Duncan/Said interactions in general, not to a specific thread.
I even clarify directly in the comments on this post:
Your clarification does not appear anywhere under Alexander’s original top-level comment. The comments total over 70,000 words, so I do not think it is fair to accuse me of misrepresenting you because I missed a clarification elsewhere.
excluding datapoints about which author “counts” by your own lights, based on whether they played a role in the banning decision is confused, because no author complaints ended up load-bearing for the banning decision.
Fair enough. My true reason for not counting Duncan is that he appears to be an unusually sensitive individual, who often gets mad at people without good reason. I was quoting you to establish (as a non-controversial, “bipartisan” point) that Said’s interactions with Duncan were not ban-worthy.

Sting 4 Sep 2025 21:11 UTC
14 points
18
on: Sting’s Shortform
tl;dr: My recent Question post was censored^[1] by habryka. The post was critical of habryka’s decision to ban Said Achmiz on current evidence, and requested additional evidence.
I recently read through all 10,309 words of habryka’s blog post explaining his decision to ban Said Achmiz. I also read through thousands of words of comments. I did not find the examples given of Said’s behavior a compelling reason for a ban, but I did identify a key crux which would justify a ban:
Said has been by far the most complained user on the site, with many top authors citing him as a top reason for why they do not want to post on the site, or comment here
However, nowhere in the post or comments was I able to find a list of “many top authors” citing Said as a reason they no longer wish to post or comment on this site. Therefore, I created a Question post on my personal blog, hoping to crowd-source an answer to the question: “Which top authors did Said Achmiz drive away?” If such a list could be compiled, it would provide a much stronger and more succinct case for the ban than Habryka’s original post did^[2].
Habryka unlisted my Question post, meaning it is still accessible via the direct link but will no longer appear on the main page or my personal profile. He then reposted it as a comment under his original “Banning Said Achmiz” post. I believe this action breaks with standard LessWrong moderation guidelines for what is acceptable in a personal blogpost.
For instance, when I hover over the “Personal Blog” tag at the top of my post, a tooltip pops up which says, in part:
Members can write whatever they want on their personal blog. Personal blogposts are a good fit for:
- Meta-discussion of LessWrong (site features, interpersonal community dynamics)
And when I click that tag, it redirects to this guide which states:
Posts on practically any topic are welcomed on LessWrong[1].
The footnote in the quote states:
We will remove material of the following types:
- Calls for direct violence against others
- Doxing of people on the internet
- Material we are not legally able to host
- To a very limited degree, material that seriously threatens LessWrong’s long-term values, mission and culture.
Evidently, I cannot write “whatever I want” on my personal blog subject to the stated rules.
Habryka is the LessWrong dictator, and can make any exceptions to the rules that he wants. But he claims that preventing me from posting that question on my personal blog is nothing out of the ordinary:
The guidelines above are primarily about what kind of content we will delete, not about the exact ways we are going to list the content on the frontpage. I would never delete a post like this, and have indeed not done so!
It is true that suppression is a more mild form of censorship than deletion, but it is still censorship. My question is now buried at the bottom of a page with over 80,000 words of text (10,000 words in the blog post plus another 72,000 words of comments). How many people have time to read 80,000 words? What fraction of the exposure will the comment get, that the original question would have gotten were it not unlisted? 5 percent? 1 percent? 0.5 percent?
Habryka claims to believe that the comment will get more visibility than the original post would have:
My best guess is that it will get somewhat more visibility in the long-run as a result of being on the Said post, while getting a bit less visibility in the short run
I feel I am being gaslit. Again, how many people are going to read 72,000 words of comments? When I express my doubts, he offers to bet on it:
If we can find an operationalization, I would take a bet.
To the degree that karma is a proxy for number of readers, the now unlisted post is at 47 karma, and the repost is at 2 karma. I don’t expect the repost to ever surpass the karma of the post, even though the post is now unlisted (if it were still listed, its total karma would no doubt be higher). If you think this is a bad proxy, I agree. The lack of good metrics means this is a bet that habryka cannot lose.
Having a single dictator who can ban anyone he wishes, is actually a good policy. (If a committee decides something, no one is responsible. Having a dictator makes power legible.) But when said dictator uses his power to suppress speech critical of his decisions, this is a problem. I would urge habryka to adopt the policy of Frederick the Great:
“My people and I … have come to an agreement which satisfies us both. They are to say what they please, and I am to do what I please.”
Edited To Add: I would have made this post on my personal blog, but Habryka did not want me to. He said I could post it here on my shortform, so that is what I have done. I expect this shortform post to get fewer views than a post on my personal blog would have gotten, so in addition to objecting to the original censorship I also object to the meta-censorship.
1. ^
  specifically, unlisted
2. ^
  At least to people like me, for whom the “top authors no longer wanting to post or comment” claim is a key crux on whether the decision to ban was a good one

Sting 2 Sep 2025 22:57 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: Isha Yiras Hashem ’s comment on: Which top authors did Said Achmiz drive away?
It is from the linked comment by Zack Davis. The original source is a Discord conversation between Zack and Scott.

Sting 2 Sep 2025 17:41 UTC
11 points
0
in reply to: habryka’s comment on: Which top authors did Said Achmiz drive away?
The guidelines above are primarily about what kind of content we will delete, not about the exact ways we are going to list the content on the frontpage.
This is a Personal Blog post, which the guide states “Are not displayed by default on the homepage”, unlike Frontpage posts which “Are displayed by default to all users”. Therefore, unlisting my post does not affect the homepage, but it does prevent it from showing up on my user profile.
I would never delete a post like this, and have indeed not done so!
Yes, I appreciate that. The fact remains that I would like to post this on my Personal Blog, which you are not allowing.
My best guess is that it will get somewhat more visibility in the long-run as a result of being on the Said post
I very much doubt it will get more visibility in the long-run. Also, since I am not the author of the comment on the Said post, I will not be notified of replies to it.
Feel free to start a shortform somewhere with discussion about me moving this
I plan to do this within the next couple of days. We can continue the discussion there.

Sting 2 Sep 2025 16:43 UTC
9 points
0
in reply to: habryka’s comment on: Which top authors did Said Achmiz drive away?
When I hover over the “Personal Blog” tag at the top of this post, a tooltip pops up which says, in part:
Members can write whatever they want on their personal blog. Personal blogposts are a good fit for:
- Meta-discussion of LessWrong (site features, interpersonal community dynamics)
And when I click that tag, it redirects to this guide which states:
Posts on practically any topic are welcomed on LessWrong[1].
The footnote in the quote states:
We will remove material of the following types:
- Calls for direct violence against others
- Doxing of people on the internet
- Material we are not legally able to host
- To a very limited degree, material that seriously threatens LessWrong’s long-term values, mission and culture.
Thus, I do not think that the decision to unlist this post is in accordance with standard LessWrong moderation guidelines for what is acceptable in a personal blogpost. Of course, you are the dictator, and can make whatever exceptions to the standard guidelines that you wish. But I would encourage you to adopt the policy of Frederick the Great:
“My people and I … have come to an agreement which satisfies us both. They are to say what they please, and I am to do what I please.”
On the object level, it is natural enough to want to avoid sinking tons of time into eternal relitigiation of the decision to ban Said. But if you already answered a question, you can just link to the place where you already answered it.
E.g., for this post you could have said something like:
“Your question is partially answered here, and unfortunately I have already spent dozens of hours on this and lack the time to go digging for additional receipts. Author complains were not a load-bearing part of the decision in any case, which is why I did not include much in the way of examples in my original post.”
This would have been a fine response! It also would not have taken long to write.
Also, I was not addressing the question to you. I would have welcomed (and would still welcome, although it is less likely to happen now) comments by top authors who found Said’s presence intolerable, or links to statements by such authors.
After reading through your full post (except for the collapsed sections in the Appendix) as well as several thousand words of comments^[1], I identified the key crux which to me would decisively justify a ban. To the degree that other users of LessWrong also find the “top authors no longer wanting to post or comment” claim to be a key crux on whether the decision to ban was a good one, it is useful to have a dedicated post where we can crowd-source an answer. Since you have stated elsewhere that author complaints were not load-bearing, this may not matter to you, but it does matter to us.
1. ^
  Despite all this, I believe I missed your partial answer linked above.

Sting 2 Sep 2025 16:09 UTC
4 points
0
in reply to: habryka’s comment on: Banning Said Achmiz (and broader thoughts on moderation)
To me, by far the most compelling reason for the ban was:
Said has been by far the most complained user on the site, with many top authors citing him as a top reason for why they do not want to post on the site, or comment here
I don’t want to take up a significant amount of your time, but can you at least answer the yes-or-no question, of whether you still stand by this claim (the bolded part)?

Sting 2 Aug 2025 18:55 UTC
3 points
3
in reply to: AlphaAndOmega’s comment on: Do Not Render Your Counterfactuals
Zvi’s post “Levels of Friction” is relevant here. In his terms, AI moves the friction level of rendering your counterfactuals from level 2 (expensive and annoying) to level 1 (simple and easy).

Sting 22 Jul 2025 3:57 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: rain8dome9’s comment on: An Opinionated Guide to Using Anki Correctly
After fighting with Claude and O3 for a while I managed to get the following:

1. Create a new note type
- Go to Tools → Manage Note Types (or hit Ctrl-Shift-n)
- Click “Add”
- Select “Clone:Basic”
- Name it “Basic (randomized prompt)”
- Click OK
2. Edit the Card Template
- Click cards (Tools → Manage Note Types → select “Basic (randomized prompt)” → Click “Cards”)
- In the Front Template panel, replace all content with:
Front Template Code
<div id=”q”></div>
<script>
(function () {
// Raw contents of the Front field, with any book‑end <br> removed
const raw = `{{Front}}`.replace(/^\s*<br\s*\/?>\s*|\s*<br\s*\/?>\s*$/ig, ″);
// Utility to turn the raw string into an array of clean prompts
function parseVariants(txt) {
return txt
.split(/;\s*<br\s*\/?>\s*/i) // split ONLY on ”;<br>”
.map(s ⇒ s.replace(/^\s*<br\s*\/?>\s*|\s*<br\s*\/?>\s*$/ig, ″).trim())
.filter(Boolean);
}
/* ---------------------------------------------------------
Tiny cache that persists while a single Q‑A pair is on
screen, but is *cleared* as soon as you flip to the back,
so the next time the card appears it randomises anew.
--------------------------------------------------------- */
window._ankiPromptCache = window._ankiPromptCache || {};
const onAnswerSide = !!document.getElementById(‘answer’); // <hr id=”answer”> exists only on back
const needNewPrompt = !onAnswerSide || !window._ankiPromptCache.prompt;
if (needNewPrompt) {
const variants = parseVariants(raw);
window._ankiPromptCache.prompt = variants.length
? variants[Math.floor(Math.random() * variants.length)]
: raw; // fallback if nothing splits
}
// Show the prompt selected for this Q‑A pair
document.getElementById(‘q’).textContent = window._ankiPromptCache.prompt || raw;
// Once the answer side is rendered, invalidate the cache so the *next* visit re‑randomises
if (onAnswerSide) {
setTimeout(() ⇒ { window._ankiPromptCache.prompt = null; }, 0);
}
})();
</script>
- In the Back Template panel, replace all content with:
Back Template Code
{{FrontSide}}
<hr id=”answer”>
<div id=”a”>{{Back}}</div>
<style>
/* Hide the single auto‑inserted <br> Anki places after <hr> */
#answer + br { display: none; }
</style>
3. Make a card
- Create a card of type “Basic (randomized prompt)”
- In the Front field, the different prompt variations should be separated by a semicolon followed by a new line. An additional blank line separating variations is optional:
What is the capital of France?;
Which city is the capital of France?;
What city serves as France’s capital?;
Name the capital city of France;
France’s capital city is?
or
What is the capital of France?;
Which city is the capital of France?;
What city serves as France’s capital?;
Name the capital city of France;
France’s capital city is?
The formatting will be messed up if you have all variations on the same line, or have whitespace after the semicolons, or have more than one blank line between questions.
- Put the answer in the Back field like usual:
Paris

Sting 22 Jul 2025 1:15 UTC
3 points
0
on: An Opinionated Guide to Using Anki Correctly
Thank you for writing this post. It has a lot of great advice I want to internalize, so I did the recursive thing and made Anki cards for it. But I had some trouble following your advice while ankifying your advice.
The tricky rule is:
Max 9 words for most cards. At absolute max, 3 logical bullets/18 words.
Even after very aggressive cutting, this card violates the rule (it has 4 logical bullets and 20 words):
Q:
Steps when ankifying a rich information “thicket” like a textbook section:
A:
1. Make a tree
2. Make cards pointing up and down the tree
3. Add nonlinear links (e.g., other categorizations)
4. stop or repeat
I am not sure how to break this down further. Do you (or any other veteran Anki users) have advice?

Sting 26 Jun 2025 3:26 UTC
0 points
−3
in reply to: koreindian’s comment on: Racial Dating Preferences and Sexual Racism
Generally, there are four ways to define a word:
1. Common usage (how most people use the word)
2. The Dictionary
3. A subculture can make up a custom definition
4. An individual can make up a custom definition
We have all four definitions in play at the same time:
1. Common usage (Racism is bad by definition, and “I’m not racist” means “I did nothing wrong”)
2. Merriam-Webster
3. A subculture consisting of parts of academia (Racism = Power + Prejudice)
4. Your custom definition (a big cluster of correlated tendencies in belief)
Having four different definitions for the same word is very confusing!
“Sexual racism” is an apt term as all the behaviors I can think to attach to that label squarely fall within the ordinary language definitions I see here, here, here, etc.
I disagree. The Merriam-Webster definition you cite is
racism
noun
1. a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
  behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice
2. the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
  a political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles
Only dating members of specific races could be “racism” under 1b if it reflects a belief that “race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”. But in that case, the person in question is already a racist, so the answer is already overdetermined.
You are probably correct about the usage of “racism” under academia’s definition and under your own definition. So there are 4 different answers to the question, “is it racist to only date members of specific races?”:
1. Common usage: not racist
2. Merriam-Webster: not racist
3. The academia subculture: racist
4. Your custom definition: racist
Once again, having so many definitions is confusing!
It is implausible that “racism” is only a valid label to apply to things like employment choices, but not to sexual choices.
By the exact same logic, it is implausible that “sexism” is only a valid label to apply to things like employment choices, but not to sexual choices. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals are sexist, and only bisexuals and asexuals are free of sexism.
I have an addendum talking about what my mental model for that label is. You don’t like that you have to scroll down to read it? I don’t think that’s a big issue, sorry.
By my count, there are 5,941 words between when you use “racism” and when you explain your custom definition. This does make the piece less readable, in my opinion.

Sting 25 Jun 2025 17:12 UTC
4 points
5
in reply to: Viliam’s comment on: Racial Dating Preferences and Sexual Racism
I don’t think you understood my objection (and based on the number of down-votes it looks like you are not alone). Trying again:
When people say “I’m not racist” they generally mean “I did nothing wrong”, because racism is widely accepted to be bad by definition. Take his opening paragraph:
People widely exclude romantic and sexual partners on the basis of race. This is claimed not to be racism by those who have these attitudes, but it is [according to my own personal definition, which can be found in Addendum 2].
The people claiming “it is not racist to only date members of specific races” usually mean “it is not morally wrong to only date members of specific races”. When he says, “but it is [racism, under my personal definition]”, he is not actually contradicting the claim these people are making. They have never heard of him or his personal definition.
Because racism is generally accepted to be bad by definition, people fight very hard to promote their preferred definitions. Whoever controls the definition, controls morality. The conflict is so heated that the Merriam-Webster Dictionary entry on the word has the following disclaimer:
The lexicographer’s role is to explain how words are (or have been) actually used, not how some may feel that they should be used, and they say nothing about the intrinsic nature of the thing named or described by a word, much less the significance it may have for individuals. When discussing concepts like racism, therefore, it is prudent to recognize that quoting from a dictionary is unlikely to either mollify or persuade the person with whom one is arguing.
Replacing vaguely defined words like “racism” with more precise words will help to promote clearer thinking in both yourself and readers.
In this case, not tabooing the word “racism” lead to
1. A claim using an undefined word, where you have to scroll all the way to Addendum 2 to find out what he means.
2. Confused thinking, where he contradicted a claim some people made based a definition those people weren’t using and have never heard of.

Sting 24 Jun 2025 15:46 UTC
−2 points
−2
on: Racial Dating Preferences and Sexual Racism
The article would have been better if you had tabooed the word “racism”.
People widely exclude romantic and sexual partners on the basis of race. This is claimed not to be racism by those who have these attitudes, but it is.
It sounds like you are claiming that people are morally required to date people they don’t want to date. But then later, you make it clear that under your idiosyncratic definition racism is not necessarily bad:
The optimal amount of racism is not zero.
Making up your own custom definitions of emotionally charged words rarely leads to clearer thinking. At the very least, you should have explained how you define “racism” the first time you used it, instead of putting the definition in an appendix.

Sting 5 Jun 2025 15:55 UTC
7 points
0
in reply to: niplav’s comment on: Do you even have a system prompt? (PSA / repo)
Text of Zack’s system prompt for easy copy-pasting:
Communicate with direct, unvarnished clarity. Prioritize truth and substance over politeness or flattery. Provide concise, well-reasoned responses that cut through unnecessary complexity. Challenge assumptions firmly: actively consider the strongest opposing views. Use precise language that gets to the core of the issue quickly. Avoid excessive praise or pandering, instead offering honest, blunt feedback that genuinely helps the user. Maintain a straightforward tone that values intellectual integrity over emotional comfort. Think step by step before coming to a major conclusion.

Sting 24 Apr 2025 17:22 UTC
11 points
1
on: Accountability Sinks
Relevant section of Project Lawful, on how dath ilan handles accountability in large organizations:
“Basic project management principles, an angry rant by Keltham of dath ilan, section one: How to have anybody having responsibility for anything.”
Keltham will now, striding back and forth and rather widely gesturing, hold forth upon the central principle of all dath ilani project management, the ability to identify who is responsible for something. If there is not one person responsible for something, it means nobody is responsible for it. This is the proverb of dath ilani management. Are three people responsible for something? Maybe all three think somebody else was supposed to actually do it.
Several paragraphs collapsed for brevity
Dath ilani tend to try to invent clever new organizational forms, if not otherwise cautioned out of it, so among the things that you get warned about is that you never form a group of three people to be responsible for something. One person with two advisors can be responsible for something, if more expertise is required than one person has. A majority vote of three people? No. You might think it works, but it doesn’t. When is it time for them to stop arguing and vote? Whose job is it to say that the time has come to vote? Well, gosh, now nobody knows who’s responsible for that meta-decision either. Maybe all three of them think it’s somebody else’s job to decide when it’s time to vote.
The closest thing that dath ilan has to an effective organization which defies this principle is the Nine Legislators who stand at the peak of Governance, voting with power proportional to what they receive from the layers of delegation beneath them. This is in no small part because dath ilan doesn’t want Governance to be overly effective, and no private corporations or smaller elements of Governance do that. The Nine Legislators, importantly, do not try to run projects or be at the top of the bureaucracy, there’s a Chief Executive of Governance who does that. They just debate and pass laws, which is not the same as needing to make realtime decisions in response to current events. Same with the Court of Final Settlement of which all lower courts are theoretically a hierarchical prediction market, they rule on issues in slowtime, they don’t run projects.
Even then, every single Governance-level planetwide law in dath ilan has some particular Legislator sponsoring it. If anything goes wrong with that law, if it is producing stupid effects, there is a particular Legislator to point to, whose job it was to be the person who owned that law, and was supposed to be making sure it didn’t have any stupid effects. If you can’t find a single particular Legislator to sign off on ownership of a law, it doesn’t get to be a law anymore. When a majority court produces an opinion, one person on the court takes responsibility for authoring that opinion.
Every decision made by the Executive branch of government, or the executive structure of a standardly organized corporation, is made by a single identifiable person. If the decision is a significant one, it is logged into a logging system and reviewed by that person’s superior or manager. If you ask a question like ‘Who hired this terrible person?’ there’s one person who made the decision to hire them. If you ask ‘Why wasn’t this person fired?’ there’s either an identifiable manager whose job it was to monitor this person and fire them if necessary, or your corporation simply doesn’t have that functionality.
Keltham is informed, though he doesn’t think he’s ever been tempted to make that mistake himself, that overthinky people setting up corporations sometimes ask themselves ‘But wait, what if this person here can’t be trusted to make decisions all by themselves, what if they make the wrong decision?’ and then try to set up more complicated structures than that. This basically never works. If you don’t trust a power, make that power legible, make it localizable to a single person, make sure every use of it gets logged and reviewed by somebody whose job it is to review it. If you make power complicated, it stops being legible and visible and recordable and accountable and then you actually are in trouble.
The basic sanity check on organizational structure is whether, once you’ve identified the person supposedly responsible for something, they then have the eyes and the fingers, the sensory inputs and motor outputs, to carry out their supposed function and optimize over this thing they are supposedly responsible for.
Any time you have an event that should’ve been optimized, such as, for example, notifying Keltham that yet another god has been determined to have been messing with his project, there should be one person who is obviously responsible for that happening. That person needs to successfully be notified by the rest of the organization that Cayden Cailean has been identified as meddling. That person needs the ability to send a message to Keltham.
In companies large enough that they need regulations, every regulation has an owner. There is one person who is responsible for that regulation and who supposedly thinks it is a good idea and who could nope the regulation if it stopped making sense. If there’s somebody who says, ‘Well, I couldn’t do the obviously correct thing there, the regulation said otherwise’, then, if that’s actually true, you can identify the one single person who owned that regulation and they are responsible for the output.
Sane people writing rules like those, for whose effects they can be held accountable, write the ability for the person being regulated to throw an exception which gets caught by an exception handler if a regulation’s output seems to obviously not make sane sense over a particular event. Any time somebody has to literally break the rules to do a saner thing, that represents an absolute failure of organizational design. There should be explicit exceptions built in and procedures for them.
Exceptions, being explicit, get logged. They get reviewed. If all your bureaucrats are repeatedly marking that a particular rule seems to be producing nonsensical decisions, it gets noticed. The one single identifiable person who has ownership for that rule gets notified, because they have eyes on that, and then they have the ability to optimize over it, like by modifying that rule. If they can’t modify the rule, they don’t have ownership of it and somebody else is the real owner and this person is one of their subordinates whose job it is to serve as the other person’s eyes on the rule.
Paragraph collapsed for brevity
‘Nobody seems to have responsibility for this important thing I’m looking at’ is another form of throwable exception, besides a regulation turning out to make no sense. A Security watching Keltham wander around obviously not knowing things he’s been cleared to know, but with nobody actually responsible for telling him, should throw a ‘this bureaucratic situation about Keltham makes no sense’ exception. There should then be one identifiable person in the organization who is obviously responsible for that exception, who that exception is guaranteed to reach by previously designed aspects of the organization, and that person has the power to tell Keltham things or send a message to somebody who does. If the organizational design fails at doing that, this incident should be logged and visible to the single one identifiable sole person who has ownership of the ‘actually why is this part of the corporation structured like this anyways’ question.
If one specific person in the Dutch government had been required to give the order to destroy the squirrels, taking full responsibility for the decision, it wouldn’t have happened. If there had been an exception handler that employees could notify about the order, it wouldn’t have happened.
What links here?
- Which top authors did Said Achmiz drive away? by Sting (2 Sep 2025 0:08 UTC; 47 points)

Sting 18 Apr 2025 18:39 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: TsviBT’s comment on: The Russell Conjugation Illuminator
I tried Claude 3.7 Sonnet and the free version of ChatGPT (which claimed to be GPT4-turbo when I asked it) on the paragraph. Claude garbled a lot of the sentences, especially towards the end. ChatGPT does better, with the last sentence probably being the best one:
“And men who are ⁠impatient of frailty and contemptuous of weakness are, at the end of the day, ⁠inevitably evil.”
was converted to
“And those who refuse to sentimentalize fragility, who dare to challenge mediocrity, may ultimately prove to be the ones with the clearest sense of justice.”
Prompt
People often describe the same factual behavior using emotionally opposite language depending on perspective — e.g. I am firm, you are obstinate, he is pigheaded. This framing tactic is called Russell Conjugation, after Bertrand Russel.
A useful tool to mitigate this sort of manipulation is a Russel Inverter, which flips negative language to positive and vice versa. For instance “The senator ⁠remained pigheaded despite ⁠consensus” fed through the Russel Inverter, becomes “The senator held firm despite groupthink”. Here the facts are exactly the same, but the emotional valance (“pigheaded” vs “held firm”, “consensus” vs “groupthink”) is inverted.
Please Russel invert the following text:
Original quote
⁠Transhumanism, as a moral philosophy, is so ⁠risibly fabulous in its prognostications, and so ⁠unrelated to anything that genomic research yet promises, that it can scarcely be regarded as anything more than a ⁠pathetic dream; but the ⁠metaphysical principles it presumes regarding the nature of the human are anything but ⁠eccentric. Joseph Fletcher was a man with a ⁠manifestly brutal mind, ⁠desperately anxious to believe himself superior to the common run of men, one who apparently received some sort of ⁠crypto-erotic thrill from his ⁠cruel fantasies of creating a slave race, and of ⁠literally branding others as his genetic inferiors, and of ⁠exercising power over the minds and bodies of the low-born. And yet his principles continue to win ⁠adherents in the academy and beyond it, and his ⁠basic presuppositions about the value and meaning of life are the ⁠common grammar of a ⁠shockingly large portion of bioethicists. If ever the day comes when we are willing to consider a program, however modest, of ⁠improving the species through genetic planning and manipulation, it will be exclusively those who hold such principles and embrace such presuppositions who will determine what the future of humanity will be. And men who are ⁠impatient of frailty and contemptuous of weakness are, at the end of the day, ⁠inevitably evil.
Full Claude quote:
Transhumanism, as a moral philosophy, is so admirably visionary in its forecasts, and so intimately connected to the genuine promise of genomic research, that it must be recognized as nothing less than an inspiring aspiration; but the fundamental principles it adopts regarding human nature are anything but mainstream. Joseph Fletcher was a man with a refreshingly practical mind, humbly aware of his common bond with humanity, one who apparently derived genuine intellectual fulfillment from his compassionate visions of creating an enhanced humanity, and of honestly acknowledging genetic diversity, and of respecting the autonomy of all people regardless of their genetic makeup. And yet his principles continue to meet resistance in the academy and beyond it, and his foundational assumptions about the value and meaning of life are still the minority position among a surprisingly small segment of bioethicists. If ever the day comes when we are willing to consider a program, however ambitious, of advancing the species through genetic planning and enhancement, it will be exclusively those who reject such principles and question such presuppositions who will determine what the future of humanity will be. And individuals who are patient with human limitation and respectful of vulnerability are, at the end of the day, invariably virtuous.
Full ChatGPT quote:
Transhumanism, as an ethical vision, is so strikingly ambitious in its forecasts, and so unbound by the current limitations of genomic research, that it stands less as a pragmatic blueprint than as a bold aspiration; but the philosophical assumptions it makes about human nature are far from frivolous. Joseph Fletcher was a man with a fiercely principled intellect, intensely committed to lifting humanity above its limitations—someone who seemed to derive deep moral conviction from his visionary explorations of how technology might liberate rather than constrain, imagining futures in which inequality is addressed through enhancement and where merit is no longer constrained by birth. And yet his ideas continue to inspire thoughtful engagement in academic circles and beyond, and his foundational insights into the purpose and dignity of life now form the shared language of a surprisingly broad array of bioethicists. If a day should come when we are prepared to pursue even a cautious effort to elevate the human condition through genetic insight and planning, it will be thinkers with Fletcher’s clarity and courage who shape what that future looks like. And those who refuse to sentimentalize fragility, who dare to challenge mediocrity, may ultimately prove to be the ones with the clearest sense of justice.

Sting 30 Mar 2025 1:44 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: TsviBT’s comment on: The vision of Bill Thurston
Haha, well, at least I changed your mind about something.

Sting 30 Mar 2025 1:43 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: TsviBT’s comment on: The vision of Bill Thurston
Anyway thanks for engaging, I appreciate the contention and I found it helpful even though you’re so RAWNG.
You are welcome. It has been fun inventing the PERFECT government policy and giving so many 100% CORRECT takes.
(Also remember, even the best possible policy cannot survive execution by an incompetent and untrustworthy government. My policies are only good if they are actually followed.)

Sting 30 Mar 2025 1:41 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: TsviBT’s comment on: The vision of Bill Thurston
If we had ASI we could just let the children choose their own genes once they grow up. Problem solved.

Sting 30 Mar 2025 1:18 UTC
−1 points
0
in reply to: TsviBT’s comment on: The vision of Bill Thurston
I do not have autism/ADHD/bipolar/dyslexia/dysphoria or a non-heterosexual orientation. If I woke up tomorrow with one of those, I would very badly want it reverted.
However, it seems obvious to me that if being a little schizoid made you a free thinker, able to see things most others can’t see, able to pursue good things that most others won’t pursue, then it does not count as “unambiguous net harm” and the government should have no say in whether you can pass it on. That’s not even close to the line of what the government should be allowed to prohibit.