Mostly, I think the Vassarites’s ideas sound pretty good, it’s just that they really need someone to prevent Vassar from doing any more jailbreaking/giving psychedelics, since his attempts to modify their mind is getting more dangerous, and I’m getting concerned at their willingness to promote jailbreaking their mind, given that unlike the movies, mental illnesses suck for the most part.
Scott did a lot of investigation into Vassar and does not stand by his initial accusations in regards to Vassar giving psychedelics to mindbreak people.
Actually there’s a concept I kind of want to share, which I think is both useful to understand some problems rationalists face, and to understand why Vassar is sometimes considered cultish/dangerous.
I call it “high-energy memes”. I assume that people here are familiar with the concept of a meme; an idea that can be shared from person to person, and spread throughout society. By “high-energy”, I mean a meme that in some sense demands a lot of action, or shifts the political landscape a lot, or similar. For instance, one high-energy meme is “AGI will most likely destroy civilization soon”; taken seriously, it demands strong interventions on AGI development, and if such interventions are not taking, it recommends strong differences in life choices (e.g. less long-term planning, more enjoying the little time we have left).
One can create lots of high-energy memes, and most conceivable high-energy memes are false and harmful. (E.g. “if you masturbate then you will burn in hell unless you repent and strongly act to support our religion”.) Furthermore, even if a high-energy meme originates from a source that is accurate and honest, it may be transformed along the process of sharing, and the original source may not be available, which may make it less constructive in practice.
Since high-energy memes tend to be bad, lots of social circles have created protections to suppress high-energy memes. But these protections also suppress important high-energy memes such as AGI risk. And they also tend to be irrational and exploitable, and to be able to protect the people in power from being held accountable.
So I see much of Vassarism as claiming: These protections against high-energy memes are harmful. We need to break them down so that we can properly hold people in power accountable, and freely discuss important risks.
This also means that Vassarites have broken down a lot of the protections against high-energy memes, which in turns means that they are a superconductor for high-energy memes, and I assume that is part of why they are considered dangerous.
(I may be wrong about some of this, haven’t read that much from Vassar.)
(I don’t know much about the jailbreaks you are talking about. There’s been some discussion about how Vassar doesn’t tend to use the term “jailbreak” much, and I don’t know where you’ve gotten the idea that what he’s doing has been getting more dangerous. That said I don’t necessarily know that you are wrong either. Just wanted to register that the fact that I’m not directly commenting much on your claims of escalation of psychedelics/jailbreaking/etc. is not because I agree, but just because I do not feel I have that much information about it, and vaguely suspect your stories to be incomplete or misleading.)
I like something about this formulation? No idea if you have time, but I’d be interested if you expanded on it.
I’m not convinced “high-energy” is the right phrasing, since the attributes (as I seem them) seem to be:
Diverges from current worldview
High-confidence
Expressed or uptaken, in a way that allows little space for uncertainty/wavering. May take a dark attitude on ensembling it with other worldviews.
May have a lot of internal consistency.
“Unreasonable internal consistency” is (paradoxically) sometimes a marker for reality, and sometimes a tell that something is truly mad and self-reinforcing.
Pushes a large change in behavior, and pushes it hard
The change is costly, at least under your original paradigm
The change may be sticky (& here are some possible mechanisms)
Activates morality or tribal-affiliation concerns
“If you hear X, and don’t believe X and convert X into praxis immediately… then you are our enemy and are infinitely corrupt” or similar attitudes and beliefs
Hard to get data that updates you out of the expensive behavior
ex: Ziz using revenge to try to change the incentive landscape in counterfactual/multiverse-branching universes, which you cannot directly observe? Can’t observe = no clear way to learn if this isn’t working, and update out. (I believe this is how she justifies resisting arrest, too.)
The change in behavior comes with an exhortation for you to do lots of things that spread the idea to other people.
This is sometimes an indicator for highly-contagious memes, that were selected more for virulence than usefulness to the bearer. (Not always, though.)
Leaves you with too little slack to re-evaluate what you’ve been doing, or corrupts your re-evaluation metrics.
ex: It feels like you’d need to argue with someone who is hard to argue with, or else you’ve dismissed it prematurely. That would be really bad. You model that argument as likely to go poorly, and you really don’t want to…
This sentiment shows up really commonly among people deeply affected by “reality warper” people and their beliefs? It shows up in normal circumstances, too. It seems much, much more intense in “reality warper” cases, though.
I would add that some people seem to have a tendency to take what is usually a low-energy meme in most hands, and turn it into a high-energy form? I think this is an attribute that characterizes some varieties of charisma, and is common among “reality warpers.”
(Awkwardly, I think “mapping high-minded ideas to practical behaviors” is also an incredibly useful attribute of highly-practical highly-effective people? Good leaders are often talented at this subskill, not just bad ones. Discernment in what ideas you take seriously, can make a really big difference in the outcomes, here.)
Some varieties of couching or argumentation will push extreme change in behavior and action, harder than others, for the same idea. Some varieties of receptivity and listening, seem more likely to uptake ideas as high-energy memes.
I feel like Pascal’s Mugging is related, but not the only case. Ex: Under Utilitarianism, you can also justify a costly behavior by arguing from very high certainty of a moderate benefit. However, this is usually not as sticky, and it is more likely to rapidly right itself if future data disputes the benefit.
I like something about this formulation? No idea if you have time, but I’d be interested if you expanded on it.
I have considered doing a series of posts on ideology and memetics. I likely will at some point in the future.
I’m not convinced “high-energy” is the right phrasing, since the attributes (as I seem them) seem to be:
The attributes… of what? Of the ideas that Vassarists want to promote? Or?
I am not sure what your list of attributes aims to explain, and the list of attributes does not map to any phenomenon that I am trying to model myself.
(Awkwardly, I think “mapping high-minded ideas to practical behaviors” is also an incredibly useful attribute of highly-practical highly-effective people? Good leaders are often talented at this subskill, not just bad ones. Discernment in what ideas you take seriously, can make a really big difference in the outcomes, here.)
This is an interesting formulation. Grading memes along a spectrum of energy intensity (?). Can you elaborate on some of these “protections against high-energy memes”?
Authoritarian empiricism—if you discuss sensitive topics then people may escalate evidence requirements to hard data that’s rarely available.
The engineer and the diplomat—people try to derail conversations when they become relevant to a person’s long-term interests.
Can crimes be discussed literally? - words that describe problems become coopted as calls to action, and so people do not evaluate descriptions of problems based on whether they are true, but instead based on whether the criticized entity is considered good or not.
Mostly, I think the Vassarites’s ideas sound pretty good, it’s just that they really need someone to prevent Vassar from doing any more jailbreaking/giving psychedelics, since his attempts to modify their mind is getting more dangerous, and I’m getting concerned at their willingness to promote jailbreaking their mind, given that unlike the movies, mental illnesses suck for the most part.
Scott did a lot of investigation into Vassar and does not stand by his initial accusations in regards to Vassar giving psychedelics to mindbreak people.
Thank you, I’ll remove the Vassarites from the post.
Actually there’s a concept I kind of want to share, which I think is both useful to understand some problems rationalists face, and to understand why Vassar is sometimes considered cultish/dangerous.
I call it “high-energy memes”. I assume that people here are familiar with the concept of a meme; an idea that can be shared from person to person, and spread throughout society. By “high-energy”, I mean a meme that in some sense demands a lot of action, or shifts the political landscape a lot, or similar. For instance, one high-energy meme is “AGI will most likely destroy civilization soon”; taken seriously, it demands strong interventions on AGI development, and if such interventions are not taking, it recommends strong differences in life choices (e.g. less long-term planning, more enjoying the little time we have left).
One can create lots of high-energy memes, and most conceivable high-energy memes are false and harmful. (E.g. “if you masturbate then you will burn in hell unless you repent and strongly act to support our religion”.) Furthermore, even if a high-energy meme originates from a source that is accurate and honest, it may be transformed along the process of sharing, and the original source may not be available, which may make it less constructive in practice.
Since high-energy memes tend to be bad, lots of social circles have created protections to suppress high-energy memes. But these protections also suppress important high-energy memes such as AGI risk. And they also tend to be irrational and exploitable, and to be able to protect the people in power from being held accountable.
So I see much of Vassarism as claiming: These protections against high-energy memes are harmful. We need to break them down so that we can properly hold people in power accountable, and freely discuss important risks.
This also means that Vassarites have broken down a lot of the protections against high-energy memes, which in turns means that they are a superconductor for high-energy memes, and I assume that is part of why they are considered dangerous.
(I may be wrong about some of this, haven’t read that much from Vassar.)
(I don’t know much about the jailbreaks you are talking about. There’s been some discussion about how Vassar doesn’t tend to use the term “jailbreak” much, and I don’t know where you’ve gotten the idea that what he’s doing has been getting more dangerous. That said I don’t necessarily know that you are wrong either. Just wanted to register that the fact that I’m not directly commenting much on your claims of escalation of psychedelics/jailbreaking/etc. is not because I agree, but just because I do not feel I have that much information about it, and vaguely suspect your stories to be incomplete or misleading.)
I like something about this formulation? No idea if you have time, but I’d be interested if you expanded on it.
I’m not convinced “high-energy” is the right phrasing, since the attributes (as I seem them) seem to be:
Diverges from current worldview
High-confidence
Expressed or uptaken, in a way that allows little space for uncertainty/wavering. May take a dark attitude on ensembling it with other worldviews.
May have a lot of internal consistency.
“Unreasonable internal consistency” is (paradoxically) sometimes a marker for reality, and sometimes a tell that something is truly mad and self-reinforcing.
Pushes a large change in behavior, and pushes it hard
The change is costly, at least under your original paradigm
The change may be sticky (& here are some possible mechanisms)
Activates morality or tribal-affiliation concerns
“If you hear X, and don’t believe X and convert X into praxis immediately… then you are our enemy and are infinitely corrupt” or similar attitudes and beliefs
Hard to get data that updates you out of the expensive behavior
ex: Ziz using revenge to try to change the incentive landscape in counterfactual/multiverse-branching universes, which you cannot directly observe? Can’t observe = no clear way to learn if this isn’t working, and update out. (I believe this is how she justifies resisting arrest, too.)
The change in behavior comes with an exhortation for you to do lots of things that spread the idea to other people.
This is sometimes an indicator for highly-contagious memes, that were selected more for virulence than usefulness to the bearer. (Not always, though.)
Leaves you with too little slack to re-evaluate what you’ve been doing, or corrupts your re-evaluation metrics.
ex: It feels like you’d need to argue with someone who is hard to argue with, or else you’ve dismissed it prematurely. That would be really bad. You model that argument as likely to go poorly, and you really don’t want to…
This sentiment shows up really commonly among people deeply affected by “reality warper” people and their beliefs? It shows up in normal circumstances, too. It seems much, much more intense in “reality warper” cases, though.
I would add that some people seem to have a tendency to take what is usually a low-energy meme in most hands, and turn it into a high-energy form? I think this is an attribute that characterizes some varieties of charisma, and is common among “reality warpers.”
(Awkwardly, I think “mapping high-minded ideas to practical behaviors” is also an incredibly useful attribute of highly-practical highly-effective people? Good leaders are often talented at this subskill, not just bad ones. Discernment in what ideas you take seriously, can make a really big difference in the outcomes, here.)
Some varieties of couching or argumentation will push extreme change in behavior and action, harder than others, for the same idea. Some varieties of receptivity and listening, seem more likely to uptake ideas as high-energy memes.
I feel like Pascal’s Mugging is related, but not the only case. Ex: Under Utilitarianism, you can also justify a costly behavior by arguing from very high certainty of a moderate benefit. However, this is usually not as sticky, and it is more likely to rapidly right itself if future data disputes the benefit.
I have considered doing a series of posts on ideology and memetics. I likely will at some point in the future.
The attributes… of what? Of the ideas that Vassarists want to promote? Or?
I am not sure what your list of attributes aims to explain, and the list of attributes does not map to any phenomenon that I am trying to model myself.
I would be prone to agreeing with this.
This is an interesting formulation. Grading memes along a spectrum of energy intensity (?). Can you elaborate on some of these “protections against high-energy memes”?
Authoritarian empiricism—if you discuss sensitive topics then people may escalate evidence requirements to hard data that’s rarely available.
The engineer and the diplomat—people try to derail conversations when they become relevant to a person’s long-term interests.
Can crimes be discussed literally? - words that describe problems become coopted as calls to action, and so people do not evaluate descriptions of problems based on whether they are true, but instead based on whether the criticized entity is considered good or not.
Thanks for the examples.
I have seen such ‘protections’ in operation in group settings where the speakers are competing to address a mixed audience.