SneerClub

989 readers

2 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

self@awful.systems

blakestacey@awful.systems

dgerard@awful.systems

Nonlinear seem to think this post replying to the accusations about them will make them look like the heroes (forum.effectivealtruism.org)

submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by dgerard@awful.systems to c/sneerclub@awful.systems

52 comments fedilink hide all child comments

warning: seriously nasty narcissism at length

archive: https://archive.is/eoXQj

this is a response to the post discussed in: https://awful.systems/post/220620

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TinyTimmyTokyo@awful.systems 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

She seems to do this kind of thing a lot.

According to a comment, she apparently claimed on Facebook that, due to her post, "around 75% of people changed their minds based on the evidence!"

After someone questioned how she knew it was 75%:

Update: I changed the wording of the post to now state: 𝗔𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝟳𝟓% 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘂𝗽𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻*

And the * at the bottom says: Did some napkin math guesstimates based on the vote count and karma. Wide error bars on the actual ratio. And of course this is not proof that everybody changed their mind. There's a lot of reasons to upvote the post or down vote it. However, I do think it's a good indicator.

She then goes on to talk about how she made the Facebook post private because she didn't think it should be reposted in places where it's not appropriate to lie and make things up.

Clown. Car.