• 8 Posts
  • 130 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 23rd, 2025

help-circle

  • One more quote. Three years ago, Charlotte Alter investigated sexual harassment in the Effective Altruism movement (a movent which formed around Yudkowsky’s mailing lists and blogs) for Time magazine.

    This story is based on interviews with more than 30 current and former effective altruists and people who live among them. Many of the women spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid personal or professional reprisals, … Their accounts were corroborated by other parties to the incidents, by people to whom the women spoke shortly afterward, and by contemporaneous documents and screenshots. While a few women have raised these issues on online forums, many spoke to TIME about their experiences with sexual misconduct in EA communities for the first time.

    One recalled being “groomed” by a powerful man nearly twice her age who argued that “pedophilic relationships” were both perfectly natural and highly educational. Another told TIME a much older EA recruited her to join his polyamorous relationship while she was still in college. A third described an unsettling experience with an influential figure in EA whose role included picking out promising students and funneling them towards highly coveted jobs. After that leader arranged for her to be flown to the U.K. for a job interview, she recalls being surprised to discover that she was expected to stay in his home, not a hotel. When she arrived, she says, “he told me he needed to masturbate before seeing me.”

    A necessary but not sufficient response to stories like that is to make it utterly clear that this kind of behavior is not tolerated in your community and that you will take complaints of sexual harassment very seriously. Three years later, Yudkowsky is still blathering about how statutory rape is not always wrong and its important not to move too quickly to judgement.

    Edit: See also this response by a professor who was asked why he had asked Epstein to fund a 2016 conference on sexual consent and campus rape.

    I was not then and am not now aware of any evidence that Jeffrey Epstein was a ‘pedophile’ in the technical sense; his sexual preference appears to have been for young women aged 16-22, which would at most reflect partial ephebophilia. Although most of the women who were involved with him at that age retrospectively regret it, I am unaware of any evidence that the contacts were non-consensual at the time. (it goes on. I do not advise reading further but I note that Epstein’s known victims were as young as 14)

    The professor left Austin TX on retirement and now lives in California.



  • I miss when Patrick McKenzie was just sharing an American’s view on Japanese culture and reminding devs that names are not always Firstname Lastname in the Latin alphabet and ‘just’ paying yourself twice the average local income from your business is not a failure. The following is deep twitter pundit brain for a rich white man in Chicago who has lived most of his adult life in Japan and SoCal referring to social programs for poor brown people in Minnesota:

    I think journalism and civil society should do some genuine soul-searching on how we knew—knew—the state of that pond, but didn’t consider it particularly important or newsworthy until someone started fishing on camera.

    Edit. I also like the HN response which explains that private companies have few responses to fraud except refusing service, but the State of Minnesota can arrest fraudsters, command third parties to provide evidence about them, and send them to prison, so the People of Minnesota require strong evidence before it uses those powers.




  • Over on Reddit, somewhatmorenumerous has been looking into Form 990 for the 2009 Epstein donation. Yudkowsky says:

    In 2009, MIRI (then SIAI) was a fiscal sponsor for an open-source project (that is, we extended our nonprofit status to the project, so they could accept donations on a tax-exempt basis, having determined ourselves that their purpose was a charitable one related to our mission) and they got $50K from Epstein. Nobody at SIAI noticed the name, and since it wasn’t a donation aimed at SIAI itself, we did not run major-donor relations about it.

    The Epstein files say the recipient was someone called Ben Goertzel with a project named OpenCog or something like that. somewhatmorenumerous has doubts:

    MatriceJacobine, if SIAI paid out a grant of more than $5k to Goertzel, it should show up in their tax records. It doesn’t.

    If Goertzel was an official Director of Research at SIAI in 2009, he would need to have been listed in Part VII. Compensation of Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, Highest Compensated Employees, and Independent Contractors (he wasn’t).

    I’m not disputing that Goertzel got money from SIAI, or that he and SIAI called him Director of Research: I’m pointing out that SIAI’s official tax records don’t reflect what Eliezer and Goertzel say happened. That’s not good: you’re supposed to file accurate tax records.

    But maybe there’s documentation that proves me wrong! SIAI is, after all, a 501(c)3, a public charity, and Eliezer is here in this chat trying to be transparent. I assure you I would be the most delighted person in this chat if such documentation were provided. …

    Also, “sponsorship” isn’t a thing that costs money: it is a nonprofit funding structure in which organizations that DO have 501(c)3 status can provide a path to tax-deductible donation for entities that DO NOT have 501(c)3 status. People donate to the parent 501(c)3, which then passes the donation to the sponsored project.

    SIAI’s 2009 Accomplishments lists Ben Goertzel as an employee.

    I don’t think this is as serious as telling the Internet you would cover up a mature adult in your organization having sex with multiple minors, but inaccurate tax paperwork can cost you your nonprofit status.

    Edit to escape (c) (renders as © )








  • He is following up with thoughts on how sometimes someone pleads guilty of a crime they did not commit: edit link

    CinnasVerses: Plea bargains work different ways in the USA depending on the race and status of the accused. I would read a wealthy white American who pleads down to one horrible sexual crime very differently than a poor black American pleading guilty to marijuana possession.

    Yudkowsky: I’d read them differently, but still wouldn’t assume the former had been guilty solely upon hearing that they’d been successfully forced into a plea bargain, especially if they were so wealthy that they might have political enemies.

    Epstein does, indeed, appear to have been guilty of much worse than what he plea-bargained for. That does not change my general position on, “I do not believe someone to be guilty solely upon being told that they entered a guilty plea bargain; additional information is required.”

    It’s a classical liberal thing. We don’t automatically trust the government. We sometimes conclude that, yes, the government sure as fucking hell was right that time, but only after looking into it first.

    All I will say is that the rules for felony conviction are stricter than the rules for “you sound creepy, we decline your invitation.” And that this experience is one I will draw on going forward when setting community norms to discourage abuse.

    Edit: Isn’t Dath Ilan the setting of the Project Wonderful glowfic? The setting where people with good genes get more breeding licenses than people with bad genes?


  • Over on Old!SneerClub, Dembara asked Yud what he would do if he learned that a mature adult was grooming fourteen-year-olds into sex. Yud says he would tell nobody outside the community. The r/HPMOR editors erased the exchange but its still available under the two usernames.

    Multiple cases and/or active recruiting would probably have me convene a star chamber to expel Jiff from community events, based on my expectation that at least one of those cases was statistically liable to end in victimful harm. I would not go to the police because of my expectation that law enforcement would be painful, tedious, and ineffective. https://old.reddit.com/user/EliezerYudkowsky

    I hope he gets a chance to talk to Cardinal Pell about how well that response to sexual abuse works. A million years should do it.



  • This was in October 2016, eight years after Epstein was convicted of soliciting sexual services from girls as young as 14. MIRI spent 2014 and 2015 fighting and eventually setting with a former staffer who accused board members of statutory rape. Their legal expenses in those years were around $250k, similar to the money Yud says Epstein offered. So Yudkowsky was very familiar with the concept of older men seeking sex from underage girls and the risks of associating MIRI with it at the time. I don’t remember the exact timeline of Brent Dill’s Bay Area phase but that would have left Yud very familiar with another case where an older man abused younger women and girls.

    The original email thread includes this exchange:

    Yudkowsky: “… (Sorry for the delay in answering; I was checking with Nate (Executive Director) to see what we knew about why the fundraiser is going slowly.)”

    Epstein: “Were you clearing my name with him”

    Yudkowsky: “Not sure what you mean. Nate (Soares) knows you’re Jeffrey E. I check not-yet-published info/speculation past him before saying it.”)

    The phrase “worth MIRI’s while to figure out whether Epstein was an actual bad guy versus random witchhunted guy” sounds like Yud has been listening to Scott Alexander and Scott Aaronson about how rich or educated white men are the real victims and hos be liars. It sounds like he was familiar with the substance of the accusations and thought there was a good chance they were untrue and not the tip of the iceberg.