This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I would imagine a fair number of people here know who he is. I take it you don't - he has a series of interviews on youtube where he has a variety of guests. I've only seen one or two, but found that I enjoyed his interviewing style. He manages to balance asking challenging questions with being respectful, which I enjoyed. He also apparently had a successful career as a ML researcher before that.
Now as to the other part of your question, I agree. Nobody here should be expected to know about his relationship status.
Now that you describe him I do feel like I may have come across one of his interviews at some point and just ignored the interviewer in favor of the guest.
TBH from the vaguely Jewish-sounding gender-neutral name and @gosouthyoungman's proclivities I just kind of assumed that this had something to do with whatever the latest bit of poly/trans drama amongst Bay Area Rationalists is.
More options
Context Copy link
Did he? I'd check first, maybe check what ML people say on him. His MIT affiliation is .. suspect..
He doesn't have a degree from there. He teaches an unimpressive, low profile course there.
Much about the guy screams 'fraud'. Starting e.g. with his profile picture.
He's widely detested for being a huge bore, asking plain bad questions yet being inexplicably popular.
People (mostly RW, but also Greenwald) suspect he has some inexplicable algorithmic favor.
Maybe Lex, being a clever and driven status seeker figured how to do that. Beats being just another overworked techie with no status and more money than he has time to spend, I guess.
Or it could be that the reason algorithm smiles on him is that he's part of the 'containment'.
That's a theory I've mostly seen Neema Parvini push - that IDW and various seemingly dissident influencers / intellectuals like e.g. Peterson, Eric Weinstein, Bari Weiss cooperate with the less insane parts of the ruling regime. That is, they're part of a show, earning goodwill by standing up for common sense, goodwill they'd use to help smash any actual challenge to the system.
It's not that they're totally fake, or don't have things worth saying, just that they're deemed reliable enough. E.g. Peterson has a lot of interesting things to say, but he's quite shallow on history* and very much lives inside the Boomer moral universe.
Beattie on the IDW:
*I don't remember what it was but I physically cringed listening to him explaing something about 20th century European history. Basically a an American schoolkid's version of it.
What is "the system" or "the establishment" to which you are referring? And who are its real opponents and what do they want?
Managerial regime.
People in US state bureaucracies, major foundations, notorious think tanks (CFR, for example), media corporations that are comingled with these two and where there exists a revolving door.
For a more concrete description, I recommend this video by Academic Agent on the topic..
It basically does what Moldbug never really tried to do: explains the Cathedral and describes it, instead of just sketching it out.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is amazing. Can't believe I never heard of the guy.
More options
Context Copy link
if you search Lex Fridman on google scholar he did publish a number of unremarkable but technically-involved papers.
That doesn't explain why someone with zero charisma is getting so much exposure.
I get Joe Rogan, he's funny, he seems genuimely curious about people. Fridman is stiff, boring and not charming enough to get away with saying cringe.
Why did he ever get more views than say 5k? SEO bs may be part of it, but it's just very weird.
He doesn't have zero charisma. He's providing a product people want.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
After the 'toadie' disaster , the IDW/Substack angle/pivot revived her career and credibility.
https://twitter.com/turncoatd/status/1268691071342501888
(still painful to watch...)
Maybe you are right that it's an attempt at gatekeeping. I wonder why some people are so heavily promoted.
Yep, painful.
With Weinstein, Shapiro, Weiss - I don't think there's any mystery.
Israel's national security literally depends on them having supporters among elites in the US.
Of course they're going to engage in robust influence operations. Ask the ghost of Senator Fulbright about that.
One can hardly begrudge Israelis for doing what they do.
Fridman, although he's Jewish doesn't seem like one of them. Or maybe, as it's been said, he's not ripe yet so they won't try to use them. E.g. he recently got criticised by some Israeli activists for being too soft on some Muslim he interviewed who described Israel as an genocidal apartheid state, yada yada.
I'm not much certain about the gatekeeping / containment theory that posits a degree of kayfabe among pundits.
It'd fit in with how the American political system used to work, however, I just see it as a possibility.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You need to do better than link some random reddit post of a screenshot of someone anonymous making a vague statement. And then pretend it's damning evidence.
Im no Lex fanboy, but I am a fanboy of the motte not dropping its standards to rDrama level of hyperbole and sensationalism.
Also FYI as an ML person myself, his research output is average, just look at his google scholar. He's not moving and shaking the field of ML but he's not lying when he says he is an ML researcher, he is more of that than most people who claim to be one. Seriously you could have just looked at his published research output instead of linking to a post of a screenshot from a "mit person" in the fucking Brendan Schaub subreddit. And before I get dogpiled on how his research is mediocre, so is the majority of ML research, the field of ML has a power law distribution of quality like no other, Out of maybe 100 people, no one in the world is producing really impactful ML research.
It's not a 'vague' statement. Lex didn't graduate from MIT, he graduated from Drexel. T
Yet he aggressively markets himself as a 'researcher' at MIT despite being very from an excellent one as would fit with MIT's reputation. This was noted by the far-left comp-bio prof I linked in my previous post in this chain.
Looking at his video output, that looks a little funny, but whatever. Maybe he does nothing but research and podcasts.
Here's some more detail on the smelly things about Lex the [twitter anon Aristophanes:]
(https://twitter.com/Aristos_Revenge/status/1621201783518265345)
You are aware that you can research at an institute you didn't graduate from right? Once again, you don't need to speculate anything about his caliber, you can just check his google scholar profile. It's not rocket science my guy he literally published research from MIT with other researchers at MIT, and all of this is a trivial google search away. Lex has an h-index of 23, which is not going to get him a Nobel Prize anytime soon but that is by all means respectable research output. Some of your professors in college probably had a lower h-index than him. He is a ML researcher at MIT, there is no conspiracy here. MIT website literally says he is a Research Scientist there, why do we need to play guessing games??
I am a ML researcher myself, I really don't need some comp-bio professors' politically motivated opinions to judge things I can google myself.
And honestly, I don't care about rDrama level schizo theories based on tweet frequency about IDW drama.
It's such a weird critique to say he didn't graduate from MIT when he's a grown ass adult. Like criticizing an NBA player for being a low draft pick after they're 4 years into their career.
That thought process isn't as alien in my part of The World. I still dread telling people about that time I did badly in that one specific math exam in school... even though I have an Electrical Engineering degree. They inevitably give me that "you are such a dumbass fraud" look once I tell them that I did badly in a math exam at the age of 17 (while skipping school to fuck around and play CSGO).
Credential dick-measuring contests are weird, you can be employed by MIT and publish papers at MIT but you still catch flak for it for not having gone to MIT.
Most of OP's points can be "debunked" with one or two google searches, With regards to this specific topic, he is in some insane twitter dirt-bag-left bubble where the schizos have control over the narrative. I really don't understand how can there be a 100 comment plus reddit post speculating Lex's connection to MIT and not a single person decided to just check the MIT website and instead rely on twitter screenshot anecdotes and heuristics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
you are right. he never said he graduated from MIT.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Network effects may be at play, but it's more likely that he's popular because -for whatever reason* - he gets good guests. Way more likely that he just has an "in" to the right circles (which is really most of it, in the content game) than Google or whoever is putting a finger on the scales for him specifically.
* When I see popular "nepobabies" online I assume 'their parents know someone" but not necessarily at Google.
The most likely theory I've seen is the one that claims he is secretly part of a media initiative of a pro-Israeli influence group, supposedly the one connected to the Daily Wire.
That'd explain why he's so prominent and getting high profile guests despite lacking charisma and being very fake..
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Now that clip is incredibly unfair and completely misreads the relationship between Rogan and Lex. Lex does ask extraordinarily predictable questions, and is just incredibly naive at times, but I don't believe for a second that he isn't genuine. He's a very un-cynical and charitable guy. To my eyes Rogan gave him his favorite watch as a gesture of love to a friend he likes, it seems like Glennwald and Beattie are too old and cynical to even recognize a mental state of friendly-love. They're completely stumped by the gesture and have to interpret it through their bizzare worldview where everything is a political machination.
edit: okay after looking a bit more into his "MIT credentials", it does seem like Lex was some wannabe social climber dude. My opinion of him is dropped significantly
edit2: out of curiosity I went to read his phd thesis from Drexel University, since it's kind of related to my field. To be frank, his thesis is shit. He basically applied standard ML methods to the problem of identifying internet users from their click patterns and other info. His approach is basically what you'd immediately come up with once the problem of "use ML to identify users from browser data" presented itself, there isn't a non-trivial idea in there that I can see. I'm honestly somewhat baffled that you can get a PhD with a thesis like that...
I find that very hard to believe.
There are people who are as genuinely naive and full of wonder as he pretends to be.
They even may be smart.
But the way he's presenting himself makes it clear he's socially rather savvy, so that doesn't make any sense at all.
You can't have naive people who are networking as aggressively as he is. Unless, of course, the joke about Fridman not being an MIT AI researcher, but actually the MIT AI research is true.
More options
Context Copy link
On trivial PhD.
Old professors and academics are often unaware of how easy it is to spin up a ML model using sk-learn or a Neural Network using pytorch or keras. They think the students are programming backpropagation from scratch. So a lot of ML-related research is a lot more trivial than it looks to non-programmers, this includes theoretical CS academics who don't program much. Some of my GitHub repos could be turned into conference papers.
I predict a lot a lot of careers will be built on kaggle level Jupyter notebooks before the system catches up to it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Lex might be a spook, designed to boost certain conservatives or infiltrate conservative-adjacent podcasting or something. Like, he’s not particularly good at his job, and his appearance isn’t particularly attractive to people who want to listen to podcasts, and neither does he have a sonorous voice. His proximity to Joe Rogan and Elon is bizarre, so I do wonder if both of them know he’s “their guy” from some federal agency.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link