He's not a central figure in the narrative, he's a background character. Things he created (MIRI, CFAR, LessWrong) are important to the narrative, the founder isn't. If I had to condense the article, I'd probably cut him out too. Summarization is inherently lossy.

▲ irthomasthomas 4 hours ago | parent [-]

  > Eliezer Yudkowsky is a central figure in the article, mentioned multiple times as the intellectual originator of the community from which the "Zizians" splintered. His ideas and organizations are foundational to the entire narrative.

▲ stickfigure 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And yet you could eliminate him entirely and the story is still coherent.

The story isn't about Yudkowsky. At each level of summarization you have to make hard decisions about what to keep. Not every story about the United States needs to mention George Washington.

▲ Dilettante_ 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You're absolutely right! The AI said it, so it must be true!

▲ irthomasthomas 2 hours ago | parent [-]

At least read what you respond to... Imagine thinking Yudkowsky was NOT a central figure in the Zizians story.

▲ Dilettante_ 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You literally quoted the LLMs output verbatim as your proof.

Edit: And upon skimming the article at the points where Yudkowsky's name is mentioned, I 100% agree with stickfigure.

I challenge you to name one way in which the story falls apart without the mention of Yudkowsky.

▲ irthomasthomas 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It sounds like both of you are unfamiliar with the link between the Zizians and Yudkowsky. So let us just return to the discussion of gemini-3, do you think the model did a bad job then in it's second response?

▲ Dilettante_ 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It literally does not matter how much they are connected out here in reality, the AI was to summarize the information in the article and that is exactly what it did.

>do you think the model did a bad job then in it's second response

Yes, very obviously it told you what you wanted to hear. This is behavior that should not be surprising to you.

▲ irthomasthomas an hour ago | parent [-]

Why do you think I obviously wanted to hear that?

▲ Dilettante_ 44 minutes ago | parent [-]

It's implicit in your prompt!

  "Wtf - no mention of Yudkowsky?"

Also that is the position you've been defending this whole thread. This whole conversation is happening because you believe Yudkowsy is an important figure to the story.

	▲	irthomasthomas 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Here's another attempt: llm --cid 01kabxtjq10exgk56yf802028f "I notice you did not mention Yudkowsky?" --no-log -m gem3-t1 Based on the text provided, Eliezer Yudkowsky is a central background figure to this story, serving as the intellectual progenitor of the movement from which the Zizians splintered. Here is specifically how he features in the article: * The Founder: Yudkowsky is identified as the founder of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI) and the Center for Applied Rationality (CFAR), as well as the founder of the LessWrong forum. These are the institutions the Zizians originally belonged to and eventually declared war against. * The Source Code: The Zizians based their radical worldview on Yudkowsky’s concepts, specifically "timeless decision theory." However, they believed they were applying his logic more rigorously than he was. They became convinced that Yudkowsky’s organizations had betrayed these principles (specifically regarding a rumor about MIRI paying blackmail to cover up a scandal), which they viewed as a moral failing that justified their rebellion.