Lockstep like this? https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7iAABhWpcGeP5e6SB/it-s-proba... (a post on Less Wrong, karma score currently +442, versus +102 and +230 for the two posts it cites as earlier favourable LW coverage of the lithium claim -- the comments on both of which, by the way, don't look to me any more positive than "skeptical but interested")
Or maybe this https://substack.com/home/post/p-39247037 (I admit I don't know for sure whether the author considers himself a rationalist, but I found the link via a search for whether Scott Alexander had written anything about the lithium theory, which it looks like he hasn't, which turned this up in the subreddit dedicated to his writing).
Speaking of which, I can't find any sign that they got an ACX grant. I can find https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/acx-grants-the-first-half which is basically "hey, here are some interesting projects we didn't give any money to, with a one-paragraph pitch from each" and one of the things there is "Slime Mold Time Mold" talking about lithium; incidentally, the comments there are also pretty skeptical.
So I'm not really seeing this "gets adopted by the others as fact" thing in this case; it looks to me as if some people proposed this hypothesis, some other people said "eh, doesn't look right to me", and rationalists' attitude was mostly "interesting idea but probably wrong". What am I missing here?
> Lockstep like this? https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7iAABhWpcGeP5e6SB/it-s-proba... (a post on Less Wrong, karma score currently +442, versus +102 and +230 for the two posts it cites as earlier favourable LW coverage of the lithium claim -- the comments on both of which, by the way, don't look to me any more positive than "skeptical but interested")
That post came out a year later, in response to the absurdity of the situation. The very introduction of that post has multiple links showing how much the SMTM post was spreading through the rationalist community with little question.
Pretending that this theory didn't grip the rationalist community all the way to top bloggers like Yudkowsky and Scott Alexander is revisionist history.
> That post came out a year later [...] multiple links showing how much the SMTM post was spreading through the rationalist community with little question.
The SMTM series started in July 2021 and finished in November 2021; there was also a paper, similar enough that I assume it's by the same people, from July 2021. The first of those "multiple links" is from July 2021, but the second is from January 2022 and the third from May 2022. The critical post is from June 2022. I agree it's a year later than something but I'm not seeing that the SMTM theory was "spreading ... with little question" a year before it.
The "multiple links" you mention -- the actual number is three -- are the two I mentioned before and a third that (my apologies!) I had somehow not noticed. That third one is at +74 karma, again much lower than the later critical post, and it doesn't endorse the lithium theory.
The one written by E.Y. is the second. Quite aside from the later disclaimer, it's hardly an uncritical endorsement: "you are still probably saying "Wait, lithium?" This is still mostly my own reaction, honestly." and "low-probability massive-high-value gamble".
What about the first post? That one's pretty positive, but to me it reads as "here's an interesting theory; it sounds plausible to me but I am not an expert" rather than "here's a theory that is probably right", still less "here's a theory that is definitely right".
The comments, likewise, don't look to me like lockstep uncritical acceptance. I see "here are some interesting experiments one could do to check this" and "something like this seems plausible but I bet the actual culprit is vegetable oils" and "something like this seems plausible but I bet the actual culprit is rising CO2 levels" and "I bet it's corn somehow" and "quite convincing but didn't really rule out the obvious rival hypothesis" and so forth; I don't think a single one of the comments is straightforwardly agreeing with the theory.
If you've found something Scott Alexander wrote about this then I'd be interested to see it. All I found was that (contrary to what you claimed above) it looks like ACX Grants declined to fund exploration of the lithium theory but included that proposal in a list of "interesting things we didn't fund".
So I'm just not seeing this lockstep thing you claim. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places. The specific things you've cited don't seem like they support it: you said there was an ACX grant but there wasn't; you say the links in the intro to that critical post show the theory spreading with little question, but what they actually show is one person saying "here's an interesting theory but I'm not an expert", E.Y. saying "here's a theory that's probably wrong but worth looking into" (and later changing his mind), and another person saying "I put together some data that might be relevant"; in every case the comments are full of people not agreeing with the lithium theory.
> The very introduction of that post has multiple links showing how much the SMTM post was spreading through the rationalist community with little question.
By "multiple links" you're referring to the same "two posts". Again, they weren't as popular, nor were they as uncritical as you describe. From Yudkowsky's post, for example:
> If you know about the actual epidemiology of obesity and how ridiculous it makes the gluttony theory look, you are still probably saying "Wait, lithium?" This is still mostly my own reaction, honestly.... If some weird person wants to go investigate, I think money should be thrown at them, both to check the low-probability massive-high-value gamble
Yudkowsky's argument is emphatically not that the lithium claim is true. He was merely advocating for someone to fund a study. He explicitly describes the claim as "low-probability", and advocates on the basis of a (admittedly clearly subjective) expected-value calculation.
> One of the links is a Eliezer Yudkowsky blog praising the work
That does not constitute "praise" of the work. Yudkowsky only praised the fact that someone was bucking the trend of
> almost nobody is investigating it in a way that takes the epidemiological facts seriously and elevates those above moralistic gluttony theories
.
> Pretending that this theory didn't grip the rationalist community all the way to top bloggers like Yudkowsky and Scott Alexander is revisionist history.
Aside from the remark given in the other reply to your comment, I wonder what the standard is: how quickly should a community appear to correct its incorrect beliefs for them to not count as sheep?
The followup post from the same author https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NRrbJJWnaSorrqvtZ/on-not-get... is currently at a score of +306, again higher than either of those other pro-lithium-hypothesis posts.
Or maybe this https://substack.com/home/post/p-39247037 (I admit I don't know for sure whether the author considers himself a rationalist, but I found the link via a search for whether Scott Alexander had written anything about the lithium theory, which it looks like he hasn't, which turned this up in the subreddit dedicated to his writing).
Speaking of which, I can't find any sign that they got an ACX grant. I can find https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/acx-grants-the-first-half which is basically "hey, here are some interesting projects we didn't give any money to, with a one-paragraph pitch from each" and one of the things there is "Slime Mold Time Mold" talking about lithium; incidentally, the comments there are also pretty skeptical.
So I'm not really seeing this "gets adopted by the others as fact" thing in this case; it looks to me as if some people proposed this hypothesis, some other people said "eh, doesn't look right to me", and rationalists' attitude was mostly "interesting idea but probably wrong". What am I missing here?