Re: Buh-bye

From: Michael Anissimov (
Date: Wed Aug 30 2006 - 23:56:22 MDT

On 8/30/06, Mark Waser <> wrote:
> Funny. I had absolutely no problem getting details and a highly rational
> workplan from Richard a while back by asking nicely. Maybe it had something
> to do with the fact that every time he tried to get started, you
> successfully suckered him into derailing onto trivialities.

But the thing is, Loosemore actually *did* score above 70 on the
crackpot index. When pressured to give references for what he was
talking about, he would reply with 2-page rambling emails that
continuously dodged the main point. Loosemore seemed perfectly
capable of derailing *himself* into trivialities even when I was being
incredibly blunt and straightforward. Always beating around the bush,
talking about how incredibly well-educated he is, etc etc etc and
always producing ample quantities of dense bullshit.

I agree with some of his Complex Systems arguments (you truly can't
always predict global behavior based on local rules!), but I've never
seen anyone drag on so long when making such a simple point.

One of my favorite posters on SL4 and extropians is Eugen Leitl,
because his posts are short, accurate, and to the point. No bullshit.
 Loosemore is like the polar opposite of Leitl.

> His ideas had a lot of the flavor of Hofstadter and were isomorphic with a

Hah, no.

> shortcoming is that he feels that he needs to defend his dismissal of the
> current approaches before proposing his approach and that's how you suckered
> him in.

Eliezer and Loosemore both have fairly big egos... maybe they can't
exist on the same mailing list, even in principle. Since this is
Eliezer's mailing list, it makes sense that Loosemore should be the
one to leave. Both of them got too personal IMO, but it was Loosemore
was the only one to make his tone blatantly mean.

> And so, in my opinion, burns the last shreds of credibility for Eliezer,
> this mailing list, and the Singularity Institute -- in the fires of
> Eliezer's emotions.

Ah, so pursuing the Singularity is meaningless now because Eliezer
banned someone. I didn't know that maximum utility calculations were
so unstable to low-level perturbations in human social realms.

> quite clear that no one (who might be a threat) who doesn't bow down to your
> edicts (or, at least, pay careful homage to your greatness) will be
> tolerated.

Nonsense, this list is full of dozens of people who contradict Eliezer
constantly. Big whup. Some people are especially excited to
contradict him because it gives them a rush of transgressing some

> NO ONE except a couple of your Singularity Institute syncophants seem to be
> willing to support you, and

I support Eliezer's decision, and trust me, I'm hardly a sycophant.

> I'ma outa here . . . .


Michael Anissimov
Lifeboat Foundation

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:57 MDT