this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
37 points (100.0% liked)

SneerClub

992 readers
52 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
self@awful.systems
blakestacey@awful.systems
dgerard@awful.systems
37
Why Yudkowsky is wrong about "covalently bonded equivalents of biology" (titotal.substack.com)
submitted 1 year ago by titotal@awful.systems to c/sneerclub@awful.systems
NSFW 50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

This is my article on one of the dumbest and most obviously false claims Yudkowsky has ever made, about biology not using covalent bonds.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 year ago

my DMs are open, but lemmy's DMs seem to be janky, matrix should be more reliable

I’m tempted to edit this response into the original post

no issues with that

Yudkowsky’s word salad

i'll have a closer look tomorrow, for now i'd just say that that steel chain protein analogy is okay, however if you wanted to convey directionality of hydrogen bonds, then every link is magnetized, and really these links are not welded shut, but instead bolted, so you can disassemble them and put them together again with some effort. continuing this analogy, diamondoids would be elaborate welded assembly of stiff H-beams or something like that

i see that EY tries to "get" materials science from first principles, in true aristotelian fashion, never reading first year BSc level chemistry textbook, fails badly and can't even comprehend that he can be wrong. in other words, another tuesday