CinnasVerses

Brent Dill has appeared on YouTube and was invited to a weekend event by a VibeCamp organizer. There is a 2 hour 39 minute twitter video about how he was supposedly wronged, and a lot of tweets back and forth about the specifics. Even his defenders say that a lot of messed up things happened in Bay Area LessWrong including lying and sexual / emotional abuse.

I posted some quotes on the Stubsack. I don't know what to do because it looks like some messed up things happened between our friends and unnamed young people, and there were coverups, but the details will only be known if someone gets access to their email and text history and interviews them. Some of the same people are probably victims and perpetrators. We don't need all the details to tell anyone curious about them "these spaces are full of abusers, grifters, and cult recruiters and use a lot of drugs, stay away."

Stories about Dill putting his arm around people and telling them that they were the only two who saw what was really going on in society / their group house remind me of stories about Michael Vassar.

Dill once lived in Idaho where Aella grew up.

In another thread there were some questions about how to reduce your exposure to frauds and bubbles around TESCREAL billionaires and chatbot companies in the USA. Although I cannot give specific advice, the basic approach should not take more than a few days. Here are some simple ways to avoid owning a small part of a money-losing slop peddler.

First, check what you own. Even if someone else manages your investments they should send you a monthly, quarterly, or yearly report with a list of holdings. This will often be some kind of fund which takes money and buys other assets with it.

Second, figure out what you ultimately own under all the wrappers. Most investment funds have a list of top 10 holdings and a breakdown into percentages in different types of assets eg. US stocks (equities). You can find this on their website or as a short document called fund fact sheet or similar. If the top ten holdings are full of American tech stocks, and a high percentage of assets are US equities, that is a sign that they are exposed to the chatbot bubble and might give Sam Altman and Elon Musk some of your money.

Good financial institutions will have a complete list of what that fund holds. Sometimes these will be other financial products, like a stock fund and a bond fund, and you have to recursively look up those products and see what they hold. Other times, you can see the underlying assets directly and often download them as a .csv file. Blackrock shows them under Holdings > Aggregate Underlying Holdings.

At other financial institutions you may need to phone or email to get a complete list of holdings, especially if what you own is only available to clients of your institution.

Six publicly-traded companies which seem especially entangled in the TESCREAL movement and the chatbot bubble are Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Microsoft, Nvidia, Tesla, and Palantir. Amazon, Microsoft, and Nvidia own large parts of OpenAI, Tesla is entangled with Elon Musk's other businesses, and Palantir is run by a man who issues fascist manifesti. Google has been threatening to replace search results with slop and is heavily investing in cloud infrastructure for its Gemini 'AI' (more here). If a fund invests in these big companies run by nutters, it probably invests in smaller companies from the same milieu.

Funds which track indexes of large American companies like the S&P500 and the NASDAQ-100 will also be heavily invested in companies run or funded by TESCREAL billionaires and are likely to double down on the forthcoming IPOs of companies like SpaceX and OpenAI. Sometimes large companies in one country do better than average, sometimes they do worse, and trying to guess is not a good way of making money. Some funds track the total US stock market (or other total stock markets) and this can spread your risk slightly more.

Third, if what you own is too exposed to the chatbot companies and fascist CEOs with twitter poisoning, sell some of it and buy something else. You can use the method above to judge how much something you are thinking of buying is exposed. Four strategies which you might employ are:

• underweight US stocks (eg. if you would normally have 20% of your investments in stocks from your country, 20% US stocks, and 20% in stocks from the rest of the world, you might pick 25-10-25). About 60% of global stock markets are in the USA, and 37% of that is in ten giant tech companies, so many funds invest heavily in the US by default.
• underweight US tech stocks. This can be harder but some funds focused on socially responsible investing or ESG screen out the usual suspects.
• focus on companies which pay dividends. In theory, if a company's stock is worth a total of $300m, and it pays out 1% dividends, the company is now worth $297m and the shares will drop in value, so it does not matter whether a company pays dividends or not. However, if a company can pay out dividends to its investors every year, it at least has some positive cashflow proportionate to its value on the stock market. I would be shocked if SpaceX or OpenAI offered dividends and funds which look for dividends tend to prefer well-established companies which have paid out for years or decades. Dividend funds are likely to invest in Microsoft or Apple but not Joe's Slop Shop (est. 2023, net loss last year one zillion dollars but they promise to earn it back by 2030).
• focus on companies whose stock prices have low volatility. This is a newer approach but also tends to screen out 'bubbly' and speculative companies.

None of these strategies will keep your money safe if the US stock market collapses or there is another Global Financial Crisis. When this all falls apart there will be real estate dealers who sold property, copper mines which sold copper, and HR firms which sold services and find themselves knocking on the door of bankrupt companies asking for money. Companies which built their processes around 'AI' will have to scramble to keep going. Nobody can predict all the ramifications. If you pick one of these strategies and the US stock market or the US 'tech' industry do better than average, you will have less money than you would have otherwise. However, if you put in a weekend of work you can be less exposed to chatbot companies running out of money than the average investor.

Finally, if you have not paid attention to your investments for a while, have a look at the Management Expense Ratio and any trailing fees. Many people are still paying around 2% of their investments to a financial services company every year. A mix of stocks and bonds tends to yield about 4% plus inflation over the long term, so this halves your rate of growth. Professional money-managers tell themselves that they take this money to make good decisions, but there is no evidence that they are any better at managing money than people in general, and for every manager with ten million dollars who does better than average, these is a manager with ten million dollars who does worse. It is dangerous to assume that you can pick one of the good ones. These days if you are in a developed country you can easily buy a mix of local bonds and global stocks for about 0.2% of your assets per year. Over decades, that will leave you with twice as much money as the typical investor in a high-fee fund.

Replacing high-fee funds with low-cost funds will make much more of a difference in your financial future than avoiding one stock bubble in one country. For every American billionaire in the news plotting to get 0.4% of your American stocks, there is someone in a financial services company in your country draining 2% from your friends' retirement accounts every year. You can't stop two crooks from starting a war which closes the Straits of Hormuz and cuts off 20% of the global supply of fertilizer, or your boss laying you off for a chatbot that does not work, but you can keep your cost of investing low.

Edit / added sentence to last paragraph

Edit / added a note on NASDAQ

Pretty much everyone in the word business has noticed that audio and video are kicking writing's butts in terms of getting an online audience (I am not sure in terms of influencing people in serious jobs). Ivy Astrix mentioned that our dear friends in Berkeley decided that if a camp for wordy bloggers was good, a camp for short-form vloggers would be even better. The camp is about AI doom, but the vlogs don't have to be. You can live in Berkeley for a month, be paid $2,000, compete for $20,000 in prizes, and hang out with ~~illustrious figures~~ Hereticon alumni like:

• Botez Sisters (professional chess and poker players, one of them is down on the idea that teh men have better genes for chess than women)
• Grimes
• CJ the X
• Aric Floyd
• Liv Boeree
• Quinn Finite who dual-classes in visual social media and sexy social media
• Zoe Curzi
• Rob Miles
• Tor Parsons
• Yud
• Aella
• Nate Soares (the last three in the triangle wing, one presumes)

The marketing mentions "a sprinkling of AI experts" even though Yud's position on Twitter is that he is not an AI expert. I don't think Soares or MIles have any relevant credentials or achievements other than social media posts. Another Robert Miles was a University of Hull computer scientist. Edit/ This Miles was doing a PhD in Computer Science at the University of Nottingham ten years ago but does not mention any publications or industry experience and warns "I do have a broader understanding than some, but I also think that most researchers … yeah, most researchers know everything about one thing and a bit about everything else, and I just know a bit about everything, right?"

Some of the slogans sound lighthearted if you don't know about the phygs and the sexual abuse: "if we're gonna die we might as well have fun" "sleep is optional, posting is not" "we need better messengers" "31 days of chaos" "the stakes could not be higher"

plzdontkillus is definitely less straight and male than their usual lineup, and some of these people would be interesting to meet or have coffee with, but I would not recommend committing to spend a month with them given all the abuse and negligence in rationalist communities.

The LessWrong crowd don't seem to be worried that subsidies for streaming video are killing the culture of reading and writing and the rational, reflective, slow forms of thinking which it inculates, I don't know if they have talked about the need to cooperate with NIMBYs fighting data centers, or if using law to prevent destruction might involve hiring a law team to make OpenAI's life hell. You can hire a very good lawyer and some paralegals for Yud's salary.

edit/ added full list of celebrity guests

Duncan Sabien likes at least two games: punch bug (as long as he is the one doing the punching) and Magic: the Gathering. He has a whole theory of personality types based on colours of magic in M:tG (red, green, white, blue, and black) and got his partner the therapist into it. The four humours are old and unscientific see:

Personalities, organizations, goals, and means can all be thought of in terms of the Magic colors they typify, allowing you to draw interesting connections, make surprisingly useful predictions, identify deficits and growth areas, and increase empathy. I claim that the Magic system, which was designed to be resonant and trope-y and archetypal, does a lot of the same good work that naming things does, and is a richer intuition pump than other popular wrong-but-usefuls like Enneagram or MBTI or chakras or the integral theory colors.

Backlinks show a number of rationalists and one TTRPG designer being excited about it.

Sneerers are having fun riffing on this theory, so lets create a thread for that. https://homosabiens.substack.com/p/the-mtg-color-wheel?open=false#%C2%A7ub

I will begin with the fact that he posted it on Medium in twenty-frigging-eighteen and was offended that they eventually moved it to their "paying members only" section. Who in 2018 could have expected that a 'free' service would shut down or make the experience worse when it ran out of other people's money?

He also makes sure you know that the game designer, who also designed RoboRally, has a PhD. Try to explain Hume to them and they stone you, but invent a CCG which lets a corporation take all your lunch and newspaper-route money and they respect credentials.

The Rationalist web magazine Asterisk published a long article on prediction markets and invested 80 karma to boosting it on Hacker News. It drops the usual names (author has worked for Google and Metaculous, cites Friedrich Hayek, Phil Tetlock, Vitalik Buterin, Scott Alexander, Elon Musk, mentions the tiny prediction market Manifold because its a Rationalist shop). What is notable is that it pivots: so actually existing prediction markets are mostly gambling (he does not say "fraud and insider trading" or "just like cryptocurrency"), but some day soon LLMs will be our superforcasters!

It looks to me like even insiders doubt that prediction markets will be allowed to enable so much corruption for long.

Especially sneerable is the idea that you should ask Grok (the bot trained to praise Melon Husk) whether Melon Husk's latest promise will come to reality.

In December I asked who owns Lighthaven? since rationalist organizations were telling their members one thing and the taxman another. I now have a hypothesis.

Since 2022 the rationalists control a $20m event complex called Lighthaven in Berkeley. It is run by organizations with names like Lightcone Infrastructure or the Lightcone Project. They told the taxman that it belonged to CFAR in 2022, 2023, and 2024. CFAR listed a real estate asset and debt liability, so who was the counterparty? You might assume it was a bank, but you would be wrong.

Some facts came out when the FTX estate sued CFAR to recover money which Sam Bankman-Fried gave or loaned them. In 2024, the FTX trustees described the situation thusly:

The complaint alleges that Lightcone got another $20m loan to fund the Rose Garden Inn purchase from Slimrock Investments Pte Ltd, a Singapore-incorporated company owned by Estonian software billionaire, Skype inventor and EA/rationalism adherent Jaan Tallinn. This included the $16.5m purchase price and $3.5m for renovations and repairs.

Slimrock investments has no apparent public-facing website or means of contact. The Guardian emailed Tallinn for comment via the Future of Life Institute, a non-profit whose self-assigned mission is: “Steering transformative technology towards benefiting life and away from extreme large-scale risks.” Tallinn sits on that organization’s board. Neither Tallinn nor the Future of Life Institute responded to the request.

A loan comes with obligation to repay.

Also (Case 22-11068-JTD):

Throughout 2022, FTX Foundation and CFAR were in discussions to purchase the Rose Garden Inn in Berkeley, California as a retreat center for the Effective Altruist community. ... Lightcone RG closed on the purchase of the hotel on or about November 4, 2022. ... The property is subject to a deed of trust and assignment of rents in favor of Slimrock Investments Pte. Ltd., which provided Lightcone with a $20 million loan for the purchase and renovation of the property

Such a deed means that if Lightcone fails to repay the loan, Slimrock owns Lighthaven, much as when someone fails to pay a mortgage and the bank reposesses their house.

When people asked if this endangered the Lighthaven property, Habryka said:

100% of the equity in Lighthaven is owned by a Jaan Tallinn owned company, so it's not really at risk, though the details are a bit messy. I think it's a relevant consideration but not a big one compared to just basic profitability.

In late 2025 he threatened to sell Lighthaven if people did not donate several million dollars.

If we fundraise less than $1.4M (or at least fail to get reasonably high confidence commitments that we will get more money before we run out of funds), I expect we will shut down. We will start the process of selling Lighthaven. I will make sure that LessWrong.com content somehow ends up in a fine place, but I don't expect I would be up for running it on a much smaller budget in the long run.

To help with this, the Survival and Flourishing Fund is matching donations up to $2.6M at an additional 12.5%! This means if we raise $2.6M, we unlock an additional $325k of SFF funding.

SFF does not seem to actually control money, it just recommends that third parties donate money. One of these is probably the Survival and Flourishing Corp, a public-benefit corporation. "Our primary client is philanthropist Jaan Tallinn."

My hypothesis is that Lighthaven is security for a $20m loan from Tallinn's Slimrock company (much like a house is security for a mortgage). That means that donors to Lightcone pay Slimrock, and if they can't keep up Slimrock keeps $20m of freshly renovated real estate in Berkeley (or the value of selling that real estate). That would also imply that Tallinn is collecting tax deductions for giving to a charity whose greatest single expense is repaying money he lent them.