this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2026
14 points (88.9% liked)

SneerClub

1246 readers
18 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.]

See our twin at Reddit

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This was posted on catholic easter sunday on the ssc subreddit. It's a posted-on-April 1st-for-plausible-deniability siskind post from back in 2018, where he outlines a kind of argument about how an all-powerfull entity that's God in all but name (and obviously emanated from a culture discovering AGI) is actually "logically necessary".

He calls the whole thing "The Hour I First Believed". I think it's notable for being a bit of a treasure trove of rationalist weird accepted truths, such as:

  • All copies of a consciousness share a self, because consciousness is like an equation, or something:

But if consciousness is a mathematical object, it might be that two copies of the same consciousness are impossible. If you create a second copy, you just have the consciousness having the same single stream of conscious experience on two different physical substrates.

Which is both the original transhumanist cope to enable so-called consciousness upload so it's not just copying a simulacrum of your personality to a computer while you continue to rot away, and also what makes the basilisk torturing you possible.

  • And it's corollary, Simulation Capture:

This means that an AI can actually “capture” you, piece by piece, into its simulation. First your consciousness is just in the real world. Then your consciousness is distributed across one real-world copy and a million simulated copies. Then the AI makes the simulated copies slightly different, and 99.9999% of you is in the simulation.

which is a kind of nuts I hadn't happened upon before.

There's also a bunch of rationalist decision theory stuff which I think make obvious how they were concocted to serve this type of narrative in the first place, instead for being broadly useful, Yud posing as a decision theory trailblazer notwithstanding.

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The decision theory stuff itself ought to be called out more for playing pretty fast and loose with reality to begin with. "If you have a supercomputer that perfectly simulates blah blah blah" is such a fundamentally bad premise because once you presume such a thing exists you're committing to the same basic metaphysical problems that you would if you replaced the computer with God. In particular I think it commits you to hard determinism at which point there's no sense arguing about what the right action is because the answer was set in stone not just before you entered the room but when the initial state of the universe was set up. Like, there's a version of this where the question is meaningful in which case the premise is impossible, and a version where we accept the premise as given and render the question pointless. Why are you doing decision theory in a hypothetical world where nobody really makes decisions?

Or we could acknowledge that yudkowskian decision theory is just singularity apologetics and accept the impossible elements of the premise on faith.

[–] Architeuthis@awful.systems 3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Luckily we should be getting trickle down free will, since all universes are (of course) able to develop technology to perfectly simulate universes of lesser complexity, which seems to imply the existence of a special universe of ultimate complexity where all others emanate from, possibly in line with ain soph or equivalent mystical concept.

I don't know how that squares with that blabbing about the tegmarkian multiverse that supposedly posits that mathematically simple universes "exist 'more'", which siskind probably just included to reinforce his consciousness as a non-physical, mathematical object premise.

[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

On a different note, 'our god means you have no free will' is also quite opposed to what I got from Christianity.

[–] grumpybozo@toad.social 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 2 points 2 hours ago

Get that heresy out of here, pope or nope!

[–] Architeuthis@awful.systems 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Christianity certainly runs the gamut wrt to free will, from it being strictly necessary to explain away the problem of evil to, well, Calvinism.

[–] YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 5 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I will back up soyweiser here by saying that at least in modern Christianity you run into the latter a hell of a lot less often. I don't know that most of them have done a lot of theological introspection to try and reconcile the usual contradictions you get from trying to use bronze-age source material dealing in absolutes, but when push comes to shove I think most of them lean towards believing that the choice to be a decent person is real and matters.

[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Yeah been a while since I was confirmed (or believed) but the free will part of that was considered important from what I remember. So not only being a decent person, but also the choice to believe in and act on the faith.

Unrelated, but it is odd how much I have been thinking back about all that the last few years, esp more so the last year. Lot of it is due to the US gov being really keep on getting excommunications back on the menu. (Note this doesn't make the church good in any way, like even if we ignore the coverup of the pedophilia, they went full anti trans recently).

[–] Evinceo@awful.systems 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Which is both the original transhumanist cope to enable so-called consciousness upload so it’s not just copying a simulacrum of your personality to a computer while you continue to rot away

Often-missed point btw.

[–] YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ah yes, the Soma problem. I can't think of another premise of the transhumanist not-faith that can be so viscerally upsetting when wrong.

[–] Architeuthis@awful.systems 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Committing suicide to "force the coin toss" like in SOMA's backstory is approaching transhumanist praxis.

[–] cstross@wandering.shop 4 points 13 hours ago

@Architeuthis As I keep shouting, Transhumanism (and the whole of TESCREAL) is essentially just Christianity in atheist drag.

[–] CinnasVerses@awful.systems 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I am not reading a SlateStar essay early on a Monday, but I think this is a response to Yud's teaching that a copy of you is really you so Colossus can really bring you back to live in digital heaven / hell. '90s Star Trek had some episodes about 'what if the transporter makes two copies of you?' Scott Alexander / SlateScott avoids talking about Yudkowsky's ideas in detail, I used to think he saw Yudkowsky as someone who got the rubes in the door to hear the good word about race and IQ, but then they worked on AI 2027 together. https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/08/17/ai-doomsday-and-ai-heaven-live-forever-in-ai-god/

[–] Architeuthis@awful.systems 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I think this is a response to Yud’s teaching that a copy of you is really you

It's not so much a response as it is just running with it until you hit the concepts of the soul and the godhead face first.

edit: it's also mercifully short, like not even 3k words.

[–] CinnasVerses@awful.systems 4 points 1 day ago

Although not by accident: Scott Alexander is a practicing Jew and Unsong is the kind of thing that someone interested in theology and Neo-Platonism writes. So I think he knows his friends are recapitulating Christianity, but if he backed away from them over that, they might back away from him reinventing social Darwinism and eugenics.

[–] CinnasVerses@awful.systems 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

There’s also a bunch of rationalist decision theory stuff which I think make obvious how they were concocted to serve this type of narrative in the first place, instead for being broadly useful, Yud posing as a decision theory trailblazer notwithstanding.

Anna Salamon talked about that obliquely after CFAR burned out in 2020.

I think CFAR's actions were far from the kind of straight-forward, sincere attempt to increase rationality, compared to what people might have hoped for from us, or compared to what a relatively untraumatized 12-year-old up-and-coming-LWer might expect to see from adults who said they were trying to save the world from AI via learning how to think...I didn't say things I believed false, but I did choose which things to say in a way that was more manipulative than I let on, and I hoarded information to have more control of people and what they could or couldn't do in the way of pulling on CFAR's plans in ways I couldn't predict, and so on.

Its the same old story as the Libertarians who tell each other they are conning the Liberals, and just have one thing in common with the facists and oligarchs. Most of these people think they are conning everyone around them and can spread their favourite crazy idea and not be infected by everyone else's.

[–] Architeuthis@awful.systems 5 points 1 day ago

I didn’t say things I believed false

What a peculiar and lawyer-friendly way to say "I didn't outright lie".