A Comparison Between The Pragmatosphere And Less Wrong
post by Zero Contradictions · 2024-09-04T09:39:42.767Z · LW · GW · 10 commentsThis is a link post for https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/morality-FAQs#thoughts-on-less-wrong
Contents
10 comments
The Pragmatosphere and Less Wrong both share rationalism as a fundamental characteristic of their philosophies. Less Wrong was founded by Eliezer Yudkowsky in 2009, whereas the Pragmatosphere was founded by Blithering Genius in 2013. The Pragmatosphere is much smaller, so its followers have more unified beliefs. By contrast, Less Wrong is a big tent movement and is much larger. So although there’s a lot of beliefs and ideas associated with Less Wrong, not all of its followers perfectly overlap in their beliefs.
There are many differences and disagreements between the two rationalist movements. The following observations and criticisms apply towards Less Wrong, from the perspective of the Pragmatosphere. Since Less Wrong is a big tent as aforementioned, not all of these criticisms necessarily apply to every LessWronger. Some of these criticisms also highlight things that we wish had more emphasis within Less Wrong and related movements, so they may not necessarily be disagreements.
- Biological realism is not a main tenet. Many LessWrongers reject aspects of biology.
- Most of them believe in morality. Most of them are humanists.
- There are disagreements relating to “Effective Altruism”.
- It’s rational to be concerned with how the advancement of AI will affect humans. However, we predict that the misuse and/or abuse of AI by humans will be a much bigger problem than AI misalignment.
- Some of them are too optimistic about technology and its (future) effects on humanity (e.g. space colonization, cryogenics, genetic engineering, etc).
- Some of them have too much faith in academic research.
- There isn’t enough emphasis on Georgism and resource scarcity in those circles.
- Most of them greatly underestimate how much overpopulation is a potential threat to humanity. Like most people, they’re more concerned with climate change, for various reasons (e.g. the negative consequences of climate change are more immediately noticeable than overpopulation).
- Most of them don’t support using reproduction licenses to enforce eugenic population control.
- Most of them don’t apply the subject-object dichotomy for understanding truth and knowledge, value, free will and determinism, etc.
- Most of them aren’t consciously aware of Sapir-Whorf Theory, its implications, or its applications.
- The rest of their epistemology is hit-or-miss.
The gateway to a rational community is the Abyss, the recognition that there are no assumptions that we can take for granted in philosophy. Even though the Less Wrong forum was created to focus on promoting rationality, it’s mostly a faction of people who are preoccupied with AI misalignment, futurism, and effective altruism. We believe that they’re confusing their unexamined assumptions for rationality, as most people do. Eliezer Yudkowsky is justified in criticizing mainstream academic philosophy since most of it is frankly garbage, but I don’t believe that the philosophy that he’s created is much better, for all the reasons that I’ve stated here.
Ayn Randian Objectivists also claim and think they are rationalists, but I have a low opinion about them and their philosophy. In my experience, most Randian Objectivists merely parrot Ayn Rand quotes, while choosing to not think for themselves. The average LessWronger is definitely more rational, intelligent, and open-minded than the average Objectivist.
Even though The Pragmatosphere and Less Wrong claim and believe they are rationalist, they both propose remarkably different theories of epistemology. Both movements also hold extraordinarily different beliefs, values, and priorities for humanity. We encourage more Less Wrongers to read and think about the works of the Pragmatosphere, but we also believe it’s unlikely that the two rational movements will ever merge to any great extent. Most of my posts on LessWrong [LW · GW] haven’t gotten a lot of attention, and the ones that transgress the forum’s moral boundaries received a lot of downvotes. The effective altruism forum also banned my account without giving me any warning or notice as to why I was banned. That suggests that EA is more of a cult and echo chamber, rather than a true rationalist movement.
10 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by Brendan Long (korin43) · 2024-09-04T18:07:23.345Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm partially downvoting this for the standard reason that I want to read actual interesting posts and not posts about "Why doesn't LessWrong like my content? Aren't you a cult if you don't agree with me?".
But I'm also downvoting because I specifically think it's good that LessWrong doesn't have a bunch of posts about how we're going to run out of water(?!) if we don't forcibly sterilize people, or that EA is bad because altruism is bad. Sorry, I just can't escape my cult programming here. Helping people is Good Actually and I'd rather solve resource shortages by making more.
Replies from: Zero Contradictions↑ comment by Zero Contradictions · 2024-09-04T18:20:39.239Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I want to read actual interesting posts and not posts about "Why doesn't LessWrong like my content? Aren't you a cult if you don't agree with me?".
That was not the point of the post. The post has many interesting linked essays for you to read, if you bothered to click on the hyperlinks and read them.
how we're going to run out of water
The Overpopulation FAQs is about overpopulation, not necessarily water scarcity. Water scarcity can contribute to overpopulation, but it is only one of multiple potential causes.
if we don't forcibly sterilize people
That is a strawman accusation. I never proposed forcibly sterilizing anybody, except for murderers, rapists, thieves, and other criminals. A hundred years ago, that policy would've had strong public support.
EA is bad because altruism is bad
I wrote that EA is mostly misguided because it makes faulty assumptions. And to the contrary, I did praise a few things about EA.
Sorry, I just can't escape my cult programming here.
Yeah, I can tell. You can’t make any rational arguments. Your behavior is the antithesis of rationality.
Replies from: korin43↑ comment by Brendan Long (korin43) · 2024-09-04T19:55:18.862Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The Overpopulation FAQs is about overpopulation, not necessarily water scarcity. Water scarcity can contribute to overpopulation, but it is only one of multiple potential causes.
My point is that when LessWrongers see not enough water for a given population, we try to [LW · GW] fix the water not the people.
I wrote that EA is mostly misguided because it makes faulty assumptions. And to the contrary, I did praise a few things about EA.
Yes, I read your argument that preventing people from dying of starvation and/or disease is bad:
In some ways, the justification for EA assumes a fallacy of composition since EA believes that people can and should help everyone. [...] To the contrary, I’d argue that a lot of charities that supposedly have the greatest amount of “good” for humanity would contribute to overpopulation, which would negate their benefits in the long run. For example, programs to prevent malaria, provide clean water, and feed starving families in Sub-Saharan Africa would hasten the Earth’s likelihood of becoming overpopulated and exacerbate dysgenics.
So yes, maybe this is my cult programming, but I would rather we do the hard work of supporting a higher population (solar panels, desalination, etc.) than let people starve to death.
Replies from: Zero Contradictions↑ comment by Zero Contradictions · 2024-09-05T03:05:14.531Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
My point is that when LessWrongers see not enough water for a given population, we try to fix the water not the people.
That's also what I proposed. On my Georgism page, I explained that I support taxing water so that water will be used more efficiently. In the Overpopulation FAQs, I explained why that's only a temporary solution, not a long-term solution to overpopulation, but you didn't know that because you never bothered to read it and engage with the arguments that I made.
I read your argument that preventing people from dying of starvation and/or disease is bad:
And you're still misrepresenting it. I didn't say that it's "bad", I explained that it's putting the cart before the horse. Abundant food and increased disease resistance would increase the population and the risk of overpopulation. If we have a viable long-term solution to overpopulation, then we won't have to worry about that if we proceed to reduce starvation and disease.
I would rather we do the hard work of supporting a higher population.
I explained in rigorous, comprehensive depth that raising the carrying capacity is not long-term solution to overpopulation, not without population control.
I also explained that population control would protect human rights, rather than harm them.
solar panels
Solar panels have a low EROI, so they are an inefficient use of resources.
Desalination
Desalination could work in some areas, but it also has environmental consequences, and it would be better to focus on using water more efficiently in many countries.
comment by Richard_Kennaway · 2024-09-04T12:36:19.360Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The We-sphere and the They-sphere each have a philosophy. We in the We-sphere have rationally concluded that our philosophy is right (or it would not be our philosophy). Where Their philosophy is different, it is therefore irrational and wrong. This is proved by listing all the differences between Our philosophy and Theirs. That They adhere to Their wrong views instead of Our true views proves that They are irrational and closed-minded. But We adhere to Our views, which are right, proving Us to have superior rationality.
Replies from: Zero Contradictions↑ comment by Zero Contradictions · 2024-09-04T16:05:47.144Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It would be more rational for you to engage with the bullet points and the essays that are hyperlinked on the page. There is nothing wrong with giving a comparison of disagreements between two different movements. If anything, it's necessary to do that in order to explore different (and potentially better) ideas. Your paragraph of mockery and gibberish is pathetic, and it doesn't accomplish anything.
Replies from: Richard_Kennaway↑ comment by Richard_Kennaway · 2024-09-05T10:02:55.963Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Oh, I read some of them. It was like listening to Saruman. Or to draw a non-fictional comparison, an Adam Curtis documentary. There is no point in engaging with Saruman. One might as well argue with quicksand.
Replies from: Zero Contradictions, Zero Contradictions↑ comment by Zero Contradictions · 2024-09-05T18:58:15.429Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If your goal was to post stupid comments with the intent of angering me, then you did not succeed. The only thing you have accomplished is wasting your own time. I will not respond to you any further.
One can only imagine how empty and miserable your life is, given that you have nothing better to do besides trolling strangers on the Internet. Out of everything else that you could do with your time, that's really what you like to do for fun?
↑ comment by Zero Contradictions · 2024-09-05T13:40:31.892Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you're just going to mock my ideas without rationally engaging with them, then take a hike. You clearly don't have anything to offer to this thread, besides making comments that suggest that your intelligence is quite lacking.
You still don't have any rational arguments to defend your views, so there's no reason to consider anything that you say. Again, your behavior is pathetic, disrespectful, irrational, and unacceptable.
Replies from: Richard_Kennaway↑ comment by Richard_Kennaway · 2024-09-05T18:49:13.009Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I am unperturbed. Have a nice day.