- original post detailing mistreatment of employees
- meta post about how a good rationalist should correctly epistemically assess the fairness of the post cataloguing and confirming the bad behaviour
tl;dr these fucking guys
Buried in a mountain of polite disclaimers and faux intellectual humility, we have this absolutely damning information which could have been the whole article:
Alice was polyamorous, and she and Drew entered into a casual romantic relationship. Kat previously had a polyamorous marriage that ended in divorce, and is now monogamously partnered with Emerson. Kat reportedly told Alice that she didn’t mind polyamory "on the other side of the world”, but couldn’t stand it right next to her, and probably either Alice would need to become monogamous or Alice should leave the organization.
This Drew character was fucking the intern? No mention of any sort of ethical entanglement regarding having casual sex with your live-in employee. Think of the utilitons you save by hiring a maid/grocery getter to have sex with instead of wasting your valuable genius-minutes actually dating.
The lack of commentary regarding it (there’s one sitting at -15 that points out the obvious) makes me wonder if this sort of thing is the norm in EA circles.
The rationalist subculture is very bad at uncoerced consent.
I was waiting for one of the founder/bosses to be called Mallory. I had also noticed. Skipping Bob made me the Nerd in me cry out.
During the interview, Kat openly admitted to not being productive but shared that she still appeared to be productive because she gets others to do work for her. She relies on volunteers who are willing to do free work for her, which is her top productivity advice.
Productivity pro tip: you can get a lot more done if you can just convince other people to do your work for you for free
Ah the FOSS, not going to fix it, just fork it, method.
oh Nonlinear got FTX money too lol
will my liver regret if I add this to the drinking game?
“got FTX money” is FREE SPACE
My attention span is not what it used to be, and I couldn’t force myself to get to the end of this. A summary or TLDR (on the part of the original author) would have been helpful.
What is it with rationalists and their inability to write with concision? Is there a gene for bloviation that also predisposes them to the cult? Or are they all just mimicking Yud’s irritating style?
yes, and Scott’s logorrhea - but not as badly as the neoreactionaries, who imitate Moldbug’s logorrhea
Was it just me or did OG’s post use the epistemic status not as an epistemic status but as a way to frame how you should feel about the things?+more non epistemic things?
E: What “she was being paid the equivalent of $75k[1] per year (only $1k/month, the rest via room and board)” 62k for room and board? “The staff they hire are either remote, or live in the house with them.” for living with your boss? Wtf is wrong with those people. While also making romantic references to their employees. There were doing indentured servitude ffs. They should get lawyers.
I did not expect a ‘we tried to get our indentured sex servants to smuggle drugs for us’ story to drop.
$75k pa, but $63k is in room, board and fucking the boss
Ok, I got a chunk of the way through it, they’re running it less like a nonprofit and more like the fucking mansion family, what a horror show.
Alice and Chloe report that they were advised not to spend time with ‘low value people’, including their families, romantic partners, and anyone local to where they were staying, with the exception of guests/visitors that Nonlinear invited. Alice and Chloe report this made them very socially dependent on Kat/Emerson/Drew and otherwise very isolated.
Like if this was a journalist piece the first paragraph would contain ‘cult’ and it would relate this example, not make me wade through an entire section about his sit down interview with a Member Of The Family.
Seriously, the mandatory forced equanimity of the text went from merely off-putting to pretty gross actually as it was becoming increasingly apparent the nonlinear people are basically sociopaths who make it a point of pride to flagrantly abuse anyone who finds themselves at the other end of a business arrangement with them, not to mention that their employment model and accounting practices as described seem wildly illegal anywhere not a libertarian dystopia, even without going into the allegations about workplace romance.
Except they are EAs doing unspecified x-risk work, aka literally God’s work, so they are afforded every lenience and every benefit of a doubt, I guess.
it’s not for the first time this whole ea movement sounds like they’re scientologist wannabees either.
It’s only “due diligence” in the lesswrong region of the internet, otherwise it’s just sparkling willful ignorance
oh god there’s another 400 comments here on the EA forum version. I particularly liked* the rationalists incorrecting each other from first principles on US defamation law.
I think of myself as playing the role of a wise old mentor who has had lots of experience, telling stories to the young adventurers, trying to toughen them up, somewhat similar to how Prof Quirrell[8] toughens up the students in HPMOR through teaching them Defense Against the Dark Arts
[8] Note that during our conversation, Emerson brought up HPMOR and the Quirrell similarity, not me.
epistemic status: jesus fucking christ, what is your major malfunction?!
There is a reason I call it all a cult incubator. Uber, for cults.
