my contribution to the discourse is that this sentence is straussian; what cade is really trying to tell us is that scott is the avatar
Conversation
“but QC tell us your object-level takes”
my object-level takes are easily guessed, scott good, NYT bad, if you want more detail than that buy me dinner first
3
57
when i wrote the rationalist thread awhile back someone said something like “actually high-quality good-faith criticism of the rationalists is incredibly rare and you’re in an unusually good position to provide it” and i am having thonks about that
3
49
really weird thinking about how i, personally, could write an actually good constructive critique of the rationalists that would blow this piece out of the water along every possible dimension
Replying to
actually it would be more fun to talk about this than write about this. podcast? clubhouse room? hmmmmmm
2
24
3
2
45
it's live! this is the interview i didn't give cade metz
Quote Tweet
rationalists are in the news For Some Reason
earlier, @cademetz asked and failed to interview (ex? post?) rationalist @QiaochuYuan for the hit piece published today because my god who would talk to cade metz
but QC had things to say and does so here:
soundcloud.com/user-557955426
Show this thread
1
24
Replying to
why is that weird? it’s a little piece of journalism, not a critique or polemic. just because it’s unsympathetic to the community doesn’t mean it’s intended as a critique.
for me, baby rationalist
3
Replying to
Well, it's a low standard, but I *also* think you could do a good job of it by a higher standard
1