AI safety is mostly a sex cult
Claims that parts of the AI safety and rationalist/Effective Altruist scene operate like a “sex cult” spark debate over whether this is a meaningful critique or just salacious ad hominem. Commenters argue over how much weight to give the community’s polyamorous, insular social dynamics and alleged cult-like traits (charismatic leaders, apocalyptic beliefs, communal living) when assessing their influence on AI policy and catastrophic-risk narratives. Others contend that focusing on personal lives distracts from more substantive concerns such as regulatory capture by large AI labs and the actual merits of existential-risk arguments.
Overall reaction to “sex cult” framing
- Many see the piece as salacious and ad‑hominem, focusing on polyamory, kinks, and orgies instead of arguments about AI.
- Others argue the “sex cult” frame is relevant because sex, housing, money, and shared ideology tightly bind a small, influential AI-safety/rationalist cluster in the Bay Area.
- Several commenters think “cult” is overused; some distinguish between quirky/intense subcultures and high‑control, coercive groups.
Is it a cult or just a weird community?
- Reported features: communal housing, “debugging”/intense psychological practices, apocalyptic worldview, specialized jargon, charismatic leaders, schisms, and dense romantic/sexual ties.
- Critics say these are classic cult markers and matter for trust and governance, especially if the same people shape AI policy.
- Defenders and insiders say it feels like a normal intellectual community with optional sex; one person describes declining orgy invites without social penalty, questioning the “cult” label’s usefulness.
Sex, morality, and kink
- Strong disagreement over whether the article and thread amount to slut‑shaming.
- Some view casual sex, orgies, and “consensual non‑consent” as normal adult variation; what matters is consent and legality.
- Others argue promiscuity and extreme kink are spiritually or psychologically damaging, or necessarily “degenerate”; they’re challenged for being moralistic and evidence‑light.
- There is debate about how common certain fantasies are and whether having them constitutes a “kink.”
AI safety arguments vs. proponents’ behavior
- Multiple commenters urge separating lifestyle from the validity of AI‑risk arguments, calling the post largely an ad hominem attack.
- Others say incentives and social bonds matter: if careers, funding, and sex lives all depend on “p(doom) is high,” then forecasts and policy proposals (e.g., “pause,” “slow down,” antitrust waivers) deserve extra scrutiny.
- Some insist frontier‑lab leaders and aligned think tanks form a tightly connected network edging toward regulatory capture; others think the piece overstates their power and cohesion.
Comparisons, context, and broader criticism
- Comparisons are drawn to New Atheism and earlier attempts to build “secular religions,” with claims that parts of the rationalist/EA milieu evolved into a millenarian, self‑regarding subculture.
- Several note that elite politics and business already host plenty of sex scandals and “weird” subcultures; singling out this one may reflect discomfort with non‑normative sex more than real risk.
- Some readers found the article entertaining but structurally muddled, saying its substantive policy critique (cartelization of AI via safety rhetoric) could fit in a few paragraphs without the sexual detail.