I am aware of that. I am disagreeing in their interpretation and pointing out how convenient it is to define the word cult in the most favourable way possible to the rationalist (or whatever) movement possible. I am therefore inviting either a strong textual interpretation of the bluesky post we are discussing, or proof of their ability in telepathy.

> There is substantial doubt, I don't think the article did accuse them of being any of those things.

The article says:

> Rationalism as a whole is a religious movement. Not everyone takes marching orders. The core people who mostly live together and attend events and especially orgies in Berkeley are a sex cult, and the ones that aren't having any sex are part of the wider movement and are its recruiting funnel.

> This industry frames its regulations in this way because it has, at its core, a millenarian death cult that worships and fears AI as the cause of the end of the world, that feels compelled to create AI, and that at least somewhat wants to destroy AI as a field.

This is quite clearly accusing them of being a cult in the sense of Scientology or Jonestown, not in the sense of Britney Spears lovers.

As for specific nefarious things that it associates this sex cult with:

- being beneficiaries of money that FTX defrauded their customers of

- being an inspiration/breeding ground for more extreme cults, like the murderous Zizians

- inspiring corporate collusion for absurd outcomes

- monopolizing the discussion and real research/influence into AI safety by focusing on their doomsday scenario instead of more concrete short-term issues (say, copyright issues, cybersecurity, bias-induction, institutional degradation in favor of AI decision making)

- extreme alarmism, such as Yudkowsky advocating for nuclear war as an alternative to allowing AI risks