Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful youāll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cutānāpaste it into its own post ā thereās no quota for posting and the bar really isnāt that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many āesotericā right wing freaks, but thereās no appropriate sneer-space for them. Iām talking redscare-ish, reality challenged āculture criticsā who write about everything but understand nothing. Iām talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. Theyāre inescapable at this point, yet I donāt see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldnāt be surgeons because they didnāt believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I canāt escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
Yall ready for another round of LessWrong edit wars on Wikipedia? This time with a wider list of topics!
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/g6rpo6hshodRaaZF3/mech-interp-wiki-page-and-why-you-should-edit-wikipedia-1
On the very slightly merciful upsideā¦ the lesswronger recommends āIf you want to work on a new page, discuss with the community first by going to the talk page of a related topic or meta-page.ā and āIn general, you shouldnāt post before you understand Wikipedia rules, norms, and guidelines.ā so they are ahead of the previous calls made on Lesswrong for Wikipedia edit-wars.
On the downside, theyāve got a laundry list of lesswrong jargon they want Wikipedia articles for. Even one of the lesswrongers responding to them points out these terms are a bit on the under-defined side:
Aha so OP is just hoping no one will bother reading the sources listed on the articleā¦
Looking to exploit citogenesis for political gain.
I could imagine a lesswronger being delusional/optimistic enough to assume their lesswrong jargon concepts have more academic citations than a handful of arXiv preprintsā¦ but in this case they just admitted otherwise their only sources are lesswrong and arXiv. Also, if they know wikipediaās policies, they should no the No Original Research rule would block their idea even overlooking single source and conflict of interest.
From the comments:
Huh. How oddly sensible.
Ah, never mind.
And looks like dgerad is already on the case and the lesswrongers are aware of it.
o7
I finally steeled myself to look at the page history. After dgerard commented about it, someone else tagged the article for additional problems:
Then a third editor added a section ā¦ made of LLM bullshit.
Iād probably be exaggerating if I said that every time I looked under the hood of Wikipedia, it reaffirmed how I donāt have the temperament to edit there. But I wouldnāt be exaggerating by much. Itās enough of a hassle to agree upon text in a paper co-authored with a colleague I know personally and like. Dealing with posers whose ego pays them by the wordā¦ Ugh.
The lesswrongers hate dgeradās Wikipedia work because they perceive it as calling them out, but if anything Wikipediaās norms makes his ācall outsā downright gentle and routine.