| ▲ | tsimionescu a day ago | ||||||||||||||||
No, it doesn't define "a cult" as that. It defines the word "cult" to also mean that, in certain contexts. Specifically, when you say "the cult of Britney Spears" or "the cult of Kim Jong Un", the word "cult" in those contexts has the meaning you quoted. But when used simply as "a cult", in a context outside of history or anthropology, it's meaning is virtually always meaning 1 from Merriam-Webster - "a group (such as an organization or religious sect) with tenets and practices regarded as coercive, insular, or dangerous". And there is no doubt that, rightly or wrongly, this is what the article author means to accuse Rationality/EA of being. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | roenxi 18 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Or the cult of Eliezer Yudkowsky aka Yud. > And there is no doubt that, rightly or wrongly, this is what the article author means to accuse Rationality/EA of being. There is substantial doubt, I don't think the article did accuse them of being any of those things. Obsessed, yes. Poorly reasoned, sure. Coercive and insular I am not seeing, and dangerous is a difficult reading to find. Whats the danger here, we accidentally maintain the status quo of the insufferable 2025? There is a totally unrelated firebombing invoked, I doubt the dude was in the sex cult and the US seems a bit CEOcidal right now. The most specific criticism I spotted is the article writer thinks they may, in a possible edge case where people take them seriously, hinder medical research. Which is not actually a rare policy position if you spend any time talking to people about what needs to happen to speed up medical research. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||