I mean, this is a rather fun article to read but I'm not entirely sure about the thesis.
> AI Safety Is Mostly A Sex Cult.
> I don't think these people should make policy. (1/?)
One of the learnings from things like the whole Epstein saga has been there are a lot of sex cults in the policy making world and, yes, the people making policy generally shouldn't be. But I'm not sure this article actually comes up with a good explanation of why these particular people shouldn't be making policy. People having active sex lives isn't a disqualifying trait. Being in a cult doesn't disqualify people from being in politics. It is routine and expected that fields will have a lot of similar people in them (as I recall the overlap between security researchers and the furry community is unusual too, and that is hardly more important than justifying a passing comment).
It is more routine than the article writer seems to think for all the people in a small field to know each other and get on really well.
Because they don't get enough votes to control the military. If they put a convincing pitch in for why they should then they can. Being a cult doesn't rule them out.
> You do understand what a cult is?
Pretty much any religion and a few other organisations beside. Basically people who believe something strongly. What do you think a cult is, in the sense the article is using it?
No, a cult is any closed-off fanatical group that is deemed harmful to its members and sometimes to outsiders as well. The group who launched a sarin gas attack in Tokyo's metro, Aum Shinrikyo, was a cult. The Jonestown group was a cult. Scientology is often considered a cult, though this is less widely accepted (especially since Scientology is much larger).
No one considers Catholicism, or Protestantism, or Baptism cults. There may be specific communities that are cults that claim to be parts of these churches, but that doesn't mean that "pretty much any religion is a cult".
> No one calls the Catholic Church "a cult"
> No one considers Catholicism, or Protestantism, or Baptism cults.
Speak for yourself. I was coercively and forcefully added to the Roman Catholic church when I was baptised. Attempts to record myself as removed (the 'Count Me Out' campaign) were met with familial and attempted Church pressure. I was asked to visit the church to discuss the 'impacts of my decision'. I was not recorded as leaving, and the church updated its rules so people in Ireland could no longer request to leave the church.
The ways cults control you can vary, and they don't have to involve threats or violence to be coercive control. Threatening to take away someone's community for a lack of belief is controlling.
As I said, I'm certain there are specific parts of Catholicism that do exhibit cult-like behaviors. That doesn't mean the Pope is a cult leader in the same way as Reverend Jones was.
He is, though. It's just that this particular cult has been around for so long that it's "traditional", kinda like tobacco and alcohol were not counted as "narcotics" in most jurisdictions.
No, he's not. Just look at the life of an average Catholic person and the life of an average Scientologist, or better yet, the life of an average Jonestown resident before the suicide, and see the obvious differences. Note also how little the life of an average Catholic differs from that of an average non-religious person in the same country.
I would be completely fine with saying that there do exist cults operating within the Catholic Church. Arguably, monasteries, especially the more isolated ones, are very much cults, with the cloistered lifestyle, complete dedication to the faith, strict authority, and requirement to cut previous ties to join, plus cutting ties if deciding to leave. I'd even agree that the priesthood constitutes somewhat of a cult, for similar reasons.
However, claiming that all of the hundreds of millions of lay Catholic believers are members of a cult is ludicrous.
Papal infallibility, at least as it is today, is basically equivalent to the SC having the final word on law in the USA. It simply means that all of the church agrees to recognize his word as final in matters of faith. Not at all uncommon.
If he were a cult leader, you would see him abusing this power constantly to reassert his power. Instead, papal bulls are rare, we'll thought out, and generally limited to nuances of the faith, not some capricious overhauls.
That's not to say that popes, even the most admired ones in recent times, have not engaged in horrid behaviors that are a detriment to humanity, and also in outright corruption. They've hidden the extent of pedophilia in the priesthood, they preach and run campaigns against condom use in some of the areas worse affected by STDs in the world, they systematically exclude women and LGBT people from the church leadership, and many others. I am not some lover of the pope, and I am an atheist myself.
About mormonism I honestly know too little to have a good opinion. It certainly seems to have started as a cult, but no idea if it still is, and even less so when it might have stopped being one.
roenxi · · focus · HN ↗
> AI Safety Is Mostly A Sex Cult.
> I don't think these people should make policy. (1/?)
One of the learnings from things like the whole Epstein saga has been there are a lot of sex cults in the policy making world and, yes, the people making policy generally shouldn't be. But I'm not sure this article actually comes up with a good explanation of why these particular people shouldn't be making policy. People having active sex lives isn't a disqualifying trait. Being in a cult doesn't disqualify people from being in politics. It is routine and expected that fields will have a lot of similar people in them (as I recall the overlap between security researchers and the furry community is unusual too, and that is hardly more important than justifying a passing comment).
It is more routine than the article writer seems to think for all the people in a small field to know each other and get on really well.
delis-thumbs-7e · · focus · HN ↗
roenxi · · focus · HN ↗
> You do understand what a cult is?
Pretty much any religion and a few other organisations beside. Basically people who believe something strongly. What do you think a cult is, in the sense the article is using it?
tsimionescu · · focus · HN ↗
No one considers Catholicism, or Protestantism, or Baptism cults. There may be specific communities that are cults that claim to be parts of these churches, but that doesn't mean that "pretty much any religion is a cult".
rithdmc · · focus · HN ↗
> No one considers Catholicism, or Protestantism, or Baptism cults.
Speak for yourself. I was coercively and forcefully added to the Roman Catholic church when I was baptised. Attempts to record myself as removed (the 'Count Me Out' campaign) were met with familial and attempted Church pressure. I was asked to visit the church to discuss the 'impacts of my decision'. I was not recorded as leaving, and the church updated its rules so people in Ireland could no longer request to leave the church.
The ways cults control you can vary, and they don't have to involve threats or violence to be coercive control. Threatening to take away someone's community for a lack of belief is controlling.
tsimionescu · · focus · HN ↗
int_19h · · focus · HN ↗
tsimionescu · · focus · HN ↗
I would be completely fine with saying that there do exist cults operating within the Catholic Church. Arguably, monasteries, especially the more isolated ones, are very much cults, with the cloistered lifestyle, complete dedication to the faith, strict authority, and requirement to cut previous ties to join, plus cutting ties if deciding to leave. I'd even agree that the priesthood constitutes somewhat of a cult, for similar reasons.
However, claiming that all of the hundreds of millions of lay Catholic believers are members of a cult is ludicrous.
int_19h · · focus · HN ↗
Or how about Mormons? Are they a cult or not? If not, were they a cult at some point, and when exactly did they stop being one?
tsimionescu · · focus · HN ↗
If he were a cult leader, you would see him abusing this power constantly to reassert his power. Instead, papal bulls are rare, we'll thought out, and generally limited to nuances of the faith, not some capricious overhauls.
That's not to say that popes, even the most admired ones in recent times, have not engaged in horrid behaviors that are a detriment to humanity, and also in outright corruption. They've hidden the extent of pedophilia in the priesthood, they preach and run campaigns against condom use in some of the areas worse affected by STDs in the world, they systematically exclude women and LGBT people from the church leadership, and many others. I am not some lover of the pope, and I am an atheist myself.
About mormonism I honestly know too little to have a good opinion. It certainly seems to have started as a cult, but no idea if it still is, and even less so when it might have stopped being one.