(Thank you, seems valuable!)

Our experience has been that talking to Congressional staffers about a ban or pause on superintelligence research tends to result in blank stares and a rapid end to the meeting. [...] A global moratorium [....] we don’t see anything that we can do to help make that happen.

Ok. Thank you for the info. Would you speculate a bit about what might change this, that other people might be able to do? E.g. what number of call-ins to their offices from constituents, or how many protests, or what industry testimony, or how much campaign funding, etc.

I mean, I'm not familiar with the whole variety of different ways and reasons that people attack other people as "racist". I'm just saying that only saying true statements is not conclusive evidence that you're not a racist, or that you're not having the effect of supporting racist coalitions. I guess this furthermore implies that it can be justified to attack Bob even if Bob only says true statements, assuming it's sometimes justified to attack people for racist action-stances, apart from any propositional statements they make--but yeah, in that case you'd have to attack Bob for something other than "Bob says false statements", e.g. "Bob implicitly argues for false statements via emphasis" or "Bob has bad action-stances".

Huh? No? Filling in the missing narrative can take a bunch of work, like days or months of study. (What is it even a cope for?)

The term "racist" usually carries the implication or implicature of an attitude that is merely based on an irrational prejudice, not an empirical hypothesis with reference to a significant amount of statistical and other evidence.

It is also possible that Bob is racist in the sense of successfully working to cause unjust ethnic conflict of some kind, but also Bob only says true things. Bob could selectively emphasize some true propositions and deemphasize others. The richer the area, the more you can pick and choose, and paint a more and more outrage-inducing, one-sided story (cf. Israel/Palestine conflict). If I had to guess, in practice racists do systematically say false things; but a lot of the effect comes from selective emphasis.

Things can get even more muddied if people are unepistemically pushing against arguments that X; then someone might be justified in selectively arguing for X, in order to "balance the scales". That could be an appropriate thing to do if the only problem was that some group was unepistemically pushing against X--you correct the shared knowledge pool by bringing back in specifically the data that isn't explained by the unepistemic consensus. But if X is furthermore some natural part of a [selective-emphasis memeplex aimed at generating political will towards some unjust adversariality], then you look a lot like you're intentionally constructing that memeplex.

(Not implying anything about Cremieux, I'm barely familiar with his work.)

I wish more people were interested in lexicogenesis as a serious/shared craft. See:

The possible shared Craft of deliberate Lexicogenesis: https://tsvibt.blogspot.com/2023/05/the-possible-shared-craft-of-deliberate.html (lengthy meditation--recommend skipping around; maybe specifically look at https://tsvibt.blogspot.com/2023/05/the-possible-shared-craft-of-deliberate.html#seeds-of-the-shared-craft)

Sidespeak: https://tsvibt.github.io/theory/pages/bl_25_04_25_23_19_30_300996.html

Tiny community: https://lexicogenesis.zulipchat.com/ Maybe it should be a discord or a reddit, thoughts?

Thanks for doing this! Clarifying things is good.

These arguments are so nonsensical that I don't know how to respond to them without further clarification, and so far the people I've talked to about them haven't provided that clarification. "Programming" is not a type of cognitive activity any more than "moving your left hand in some manner" is. You could try writing out the reasoning, trying to avoid enthymemes, and then I could critique it / ask followup questions. Or we could have a conversation that we record and publish.