All of lc's Comments + Replies

In general, what I'm trying to bet on is the world and rationalist community experiencing some significant ontological shock. If the community stops, melts, and catches fire, I win the bet.

+++

1RatsWrongAboutUAP4d
I have created a post for this bet https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/t5W87hQF5gKyTofQB/ufo-betting-put-up-or-shut-up

"No need to invoke slippery slope fallacies, here. Let's just consider the Czechoslovakian question in of itself" - Adolf Hitler

I would much rather have a 12 month time horizon. Evidence could take a while to filter out. Other than that I'd accept.

2lsusr5d
Thank you for the offer. I think your offer is reasonable. The problem is that $10 is too low a price for "something I have to remember for a year". In theory, this could be fixed by increasing the wager amount, but $100k is above my risk limit for a bet (even something as simple as "the sun will rise tomorrow"). I think we've both established a market spread…which is kind of the point of this exercise. You get skin-in-the-game points for maxing out the market's available liquidity at a 0.1% price point. There's a few other details I though of since my last comment ("mirror life" doesn't count, "shadow biosphere" don't count, and that I can exit the bet pre-resolution by paying repaying your initial payment pro-rated if I experience financial hardship (but not in response to evidence in your favor), and the condition that repayment depends solely on my honor and is not legally-enforcible[1]), but I don't think they're central to the problem of $10 is too high a price for one year of friction, even on a near-certain outcome. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. The reason for this comes from the asymmetry of $10 vs $10k. It results in bad incentives. This condition would not be necessary if the numbers were closer (say, $3k vs $7k). ↩︎

Up a fair amount so far; largest losses have been on meme markets https://manifold.markets/DeanValentine

lc6d9-1

A large part of your evidence is that "far-right" parties, like the Sweden democrats, are growing. But ~none of the western parties you mention are running on an explicitly anti-democratic platform, which was a fairly unifying feature of the worst dictatorships throughout history. "Marine Le Pen is a fascist and will start democratic backsliding if she wins" is a pretty odd assumption to just leave unsubstantiated.

lc6d122

Disagree with this and might write up a more thorough response than the one I have in a bit, but for now, here are some manifold markets around this topic area:

https://manifold.markets/group/weird-doomsday

4the gears to ascension6d
I generally think manifold has a systematic bias to undercount this risk, as people who anticipate this risk are among the most likely to be uninterested in a prediction platform based around play money. that said, I think it's undercounted by a small enough factor that these markets are mostly valid. I lose money betting my long term beliefs on manifold because I'm a bad short term bettor and don't want to get really good; I suspect I'm not the only one. https://manifold.markets/L [https://manifold.markets/L]

Incomprehensible messages are a failure mode that indicates insufficiently advanced capabilities. Ambiguity doesn't help with that message, to the current or to the successor civ.

You do not understand what I am saying. The message is not for us and so our inability to interpret the message is irrelevant. Ambiguity and in general the small amount of relevant information is an important security property that helps ensure the aliens do not convey more than they mean to.

My personal confidence of "no aliens" is so high it rounds to 100%.

I would be willing to send you 100$ in advance, on a promise that you'll pay me 100,000 if it turns out definitively that these UFOs are built by nonhumans.

I will accept under the following conditions:

  • Make it $10 (you) vs $10k (me).
  • I get sole discretion to decide what constitutes "definitively". Official statements aren't enough. I want transhuman tech, alien biological material, or something at that level. (Any one of them is sufficient. Not all are required.) Photographs and sworn testimony aren't good enough.
  • The bet is valid for a three-month time horizon, after which the bet resolves in my favor.
  • "Nonhuman" means aliens in the classic sense. Proper space aliens. No weaseling out with something like "h
... (read more)
3green_leaf7d
(You might want to exclude advanced/experimental AI models from that, to capture the spirit of the bet better.)

The message behind the inclinations may merely be incomprehensible for us. If I were an alien civ anticipating these humans to one day become something much more intelligent, and I wanted to tell them not to harshly expand without endangering myself, one strategy to take would be to just say "I'm here" in the form of airspace trinkets with the expectation that the successor civ fills in the blanks on priors. To tell them a whole lot more about myself wouldn't be prudent until I had an idea of what their intentions were.

4Dagon7d
Incomprehensible messages are a failure mode that indicates insufficiently advanced capabilities.  Ambiguity doesn't help with that message, to the current or to the successor civ. I mean, yeah, a clever writer can think up scenarios that kind of work on first blush, and are probably good enough for a Netflix series.  But I haven't heard any that actually work out as either intentional or accidental physical acquisition of hard evidence by a small group of humans, who then understand the situation well enough to keep it secret for decades.

See the several paragraphs inside the last quotation. According to the article, they haven't actually gotten anywhere with reverse engineering these things.

One quote:

The sources said they suspected that the Chinese and Russians had also retrieved craft, but they did not know for certain.

3shminux8d
It is the same source, so zero new information if one does not trust the source.
5awg8d
I totally get the impulse, but I am getting a little sick of folks just dismissing completely out of hand without even engaging with the information. From the original Debrief article: Edit: oops, meant to reply directly to shminux, my b. Leaving it here for now.

A civilian NASA official would definitely not know about this. It's being treated as a very important military secret.

1awg8d
Exactly. The entire thrust behind Grusch's allegations is that this is being hidden from basically any and all oversight through very, very tight compartmentalization.

Schizophrenia would render you unable to keep your job in the vast majority of the armed forces, and so might explain single individuals in very rare cases, but not entire groups of people around that one person confirming their stories.

Call me gullible, but this article is flabbergasting. I do not understand how to update on its contents, because nothing I can think of let's this information fit into my world model, no matter what hypothesis I try to come up with about the behavior of the sources/etc.

8Thane Ruthenis3d
Perhaps this is genuine whistleblowing, but not on what they make it sound like? Suppose there's something being covered up that Grusch et al. want to expose, but describing what it is plainly is inconvenient for one reason or another. So they coordinate around the wacky UFO story, with the goal being to point people in the rough direction of what they want looked at. My priors are still for all of this being bullshit; some psyop or a psychotic break that snowballed or none of these articles corresponding to reality at all. But if there really is a large number of intelligence officials earnestly coming forward with this, "UFOs are aliens" still seems overwhelmingly unlikely to be what it's about.
1Dumbledore's Army8d
I can come up with a hypothesis about the behaviour of the sources: the drones you send to observe and explore a planet might be disposable. (Eg we’ve left rovers behind on Mars because it’s not worth the effort to retrieve them from the gravity well.) Although if the even-wilder rumours about bio-alien corpses are true, that one fails too.  But the broader picture: that there are high-tech aliens out there who we haven’t observed doing things like building Dyson spheres or tiling the universe with computronium? They’re millions of years ahead of us and somehow didn’t either progress to building mega-tech or to AI apocalypse? They’re not millions of years ahead of us and there’s some insane coincidence where two intelligent species emerged on different planets at the same time but also there are no older civs that already grabbed their lightcone? I’m as boggled as you. I’m kind of hoping this whole thing is a hoax or deliberate disinformation operation or something because I have absolutely no idea what to think about the alternative. But after the amount of leaks about UAPs over the last few years, I’m at at least 10% that there are literal alien spacecraft visiting our planet.
4ChristianKl8d
On the plus side, the allegations seem to be specific enough to push Congress into actually dealing with them and investigating. 

When I first met Vassar, it was a random encounter in an experimental group call organized by some small-brand rationalist. He talked for about an hour, and automatically became the center of conversation, I typed notes as fast as I could, thinking, “if this stuff is true it changes everything; it’s the [crux] of my life.” (It true, but I did not realize it immediately.) Randomly, another person found the link, came in and said, “hi”. [Vassar] said “hi”, she said “hi” again, apparently for humor. [Vassar] said something terse I forget “well if this is wha

... (read more)

The greatest generation imo deserves their name, and we should be grateful to live on their political, military, and scientific achievements.

Misusing the term prior is long-held LessWrong tradition

1mako yass11d
I'm going to put an end to it. I'm not sure anyone else has the notice when a word has implicit parameters ("prior" practically always does btw) and notice when the binding is ambiguous method yet so I feel it's my responsibility.

The best modeling suggests aliens are at least hundreds of millions of light-years away...

As Robin Hanson himself notes: "That's assuming independent origins. Things that have a common origin would find themselves closer in space and time." See also: https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/ufos-what-the-hellhtml

5Daniel Kokotajlo11d
I do like Hanson's story you link. :) Yes, panspermia possibility does make it non-crazy that there could be aliens close to us despite an empty sky. Unlikely, but non-crazy. Then there's still the question of why they are so bad at hiding & why their technology is so shitty, and why they are hiding in the first place. It's not completely impossible but it seems like a lot of implausible assumptions stacked on top of each other. So, I think it's still true that "the best modelling suggests aliens are at least hundreds of millions of light-years away."

It just does not seem like something that the U.S. government would be willing to do. When we want to feed an enemy a mix of information and disinformation, we do it by using a double agent, not by publishing genuine classified info about our capabilities in the media with an asterisk that it's alien technology. The intel bureaucracy would not OK something both this stupid and unusual/complicated.

A steelman might be that, since they didn't actually publish the tech, this is an elaborate and historically funny scam to make UAF personnel in other countries b... (read more)

8ChristianKl11d
I think an important aspect is also that the last thing that the Intelligence Community wants is Congress trying to investigate what secret programs it has. They don't want congressmen asking "You don't manage to give us a financial audit for the money we give you and it seems you are funding strange programs outside our purview."

Sure, but suppose you have a flying saucer that you would like to be able to use for some missions. If you release a fragment of the flying saucer and say "it's aliens guys", this maybe means that when other people see a flying saucer later they don't know it's you.

Press X to doubt. First, the details on flying saucer fragments have not been disclosed (as far as we know), so this strategy was not attempted. Second, though this is not a knockdown argument given that we're dealing with the U.S. government, it would be an incredibly dumb strategy to build ... (read more)

3Vaniver11d
So, I think "conspiratorial thinking" is a weird thing to say here. The existence of a conspiracy is not in doubt, and their willingness to lie to the public shouldn't be either. If you're not willing to engage with conspiratorial thinking when considering a literal conspiracy, how are you going to track reality? That said, is this a tactical or strategic error, and thus unlikely? Sure, that seems like a plausible position to have, but then it's at "mistake" levels of plausibility instead of "impossibile" levels of plausibility.

Obviously he thinks the chances are lower than 1% that this is true, if he's willing to bet at 99% odds.

4bayesed11d
But if that's the case, he could simply mention the amount he's willing to bet. The phrasing kinda suggested to me that he doesn't have all the info needed to do the Kelly calculation yet.
lc11d2718

I think we need to just scrap everything we think we "know" about anthropics and grabby aliens and lightcone-tiling AGI if this is true. The Aristotelian epistemology that has led us to those "conclusions" are obviously garbage, if it turns out that no, high-tech aliens with seemingly capped technology are here and they're not doing anything to us. Confirmed UFO craft would be an absurd, catastrophic indictment of the standard LessWrong worldview and our overconfidence in these sorts of arguments.

4RamblinDash10d
Yeah, I really strongly agree with this. If high-tech aliens have been in contact with Earth for some significant time, the general public weren't aware, and we aren't all dead? "Halt and Catch Fire" moment for sure (wanted to make that a link to where I learned that phrase in The Sequences but I couldn't find it by search. Did I confabulate??)

If it did actually turn out that aliens had visited Earth, I'd be pretty willing to completely scrap the entire Yudkowskian implied-model-of-intelligent-species-development and heavily reevaluate my concerns around AI safety.

1Nate Showell9d
If that turned out to be the case, my preliminary conclusion would be that the hard physical limits of technology are much lower than I'd previously believed.
3Gunnar_Zarncke10d
A lot of cosmological-type facts have this effect. That's why people are so occupied by them. 

He gave an extremely roundabout answer to that question, and the reporter did not follow up on it, which makes me think it was either a misleading cut or he was caught up in the interview. He doesn't mention this would-be much stronger evidence in the original article either.

Obviously the idea that the government has alien bodies is ridiculous and if he doesn't walk that back later it's definitely a hoax.

6ChristianKl11d
It looks like it's a cut. They likely interviewed him for 1-2 hours and cut out the bits they found most interesting.  Hopefully, some long-form podcaster like Joe Rogan will interview him soon and we have him explaining himself in more detail. 

Given a specific video, it can be hard to tell whether it's an aircraft with a surprising capability, or a fake video, or a sensor issue.

According to the article, the evidence comes not in the form of video or sensor data, but in recovered portions of or whole aircraft.

4Vaniver11d
Sure, but suppose you have a flying saucer that you would like to be able to use for some missions. If you release a fragment of the flying saucer and say "it's aliens guys", this maybe means that when other people see a flying saucer later they don't know it's you. [Or the part of your organization that found the flying saucer fragments, which isn't cleared to know about the flying saucer, releases it to the public with "WTF is this?" which the part which is cleared to know about them is barred from responding to, and part A  didn't know about the existence of part B to clear it with them first.]

Saw some today demonstrating what I like to call the "Kirkegaard fallacy", in response to the Debrief article making the rounds.

People who have one obscure or weird belief tend to be unusually open minded and thus have other weird beliefs. Sometimes this is because they enter a feedback loop where they discover some established opinion is likely wrong, and then discount perceived evidence for all other established opinions. 

This is a predictable state of affairs regardless of the nonconsensus belief, so the fact that a person currently talking to you about e.g. UFOs entertains other off-brand ideas like parapsychology or afterlives is not good evidence that the other nonconsensus opinion in particular is false.

When you say "there would be nothing that is a central example of an "alien" or an "alien tech"", do you mean, "no such evidence probably exists", or "you wouldn't be able to identify tech too advanced to be made by present humans?" I agree with the former but not the latter.

9shminux11d
I definitely mean the latter. I think "advanced tech" is an extremely anthropomorphic concept. Real life is not Star Trek. Best I can imagine there would be some substance that is not familiar to whoever found/investigated it, either as "natural" or human-made. Any kind of a leap into "alien" or "tech" would be very much reaching.

"Rich people" already give the lions share to anti malaria charities, just as virtually all of Earth's economic surplus (for now, pre-AGI) comes from fairly-high-IQ people doing functionally prosocial things. The question is not "is standard EA behavior better than good embryo selection" - effective altruism exists because there are enough altruistic intelligent people around to be EAs - but how good existing methods are, and what runway we have to use them.

sanity is like QPU alignment

Yeah, so, looking at econometrics, I was completely misled. Aside from Russia, the fall of communism went about as great as I imagine most people might have expected it would.

The superintelligence could build its own factories, but that would require more time, more action in real world that people might notice, the factory might require some unusual components or raw materials in unusual quantities; some components might even require their own specialized factory, etc.

People who consider this a serious difficulty are living on a way more competent planet than mine. Even if RearAdmiralAI needed to build new factories or procure exotic materials to defeat humans in a martial conflict, who do you expect to notice or raise the alarm? No monkeys are losing their status in this story until the very end.

I'm going to pull this and then repost with more data. While I am anticommunist and anti-authoritarian, most of the QoL indicators were very underwhelming given my priors and I'd like to know more about why.

2lc18d
Yeah, so, looking at econometrics, I was completely misled. Aside from Russia, the fall of communism went about as great as I imagine most people might have expected it would.

Is there a best halting oracle?

Conspiracy theory: sometime in the last twenty years the CIA developed actually effective polygraphs and the government has been using them to weed out spies at intelligence agencies. This is why there haven't been any big American espionage cases in the past ten years or so.

8gwern1mo
Or, even more briefly: "tool AIs want to be agent AIs" [https://gwern.net/tool-ai].
4niplav1mo
To clarify the comment for @tjaffee [https://www.lesswrong.com/users/tjaffee?mention=user], a superintelligence could do the following * Use invalid but extremely convincing arguments that make the "doomer"[1] change his mind. This appears realistic because sometimes people become convinced of false things through invalid argumentation[2]. * Give a complete plan for an aligned superintelligence, shutting itself down in the process, creating a true and probably convincing argument (this is vanishingly unlikely). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Ugh. ↩︎ 2. Like maybe once or twice. ↩︎

I don't understand why you think a multipolar takeoff would run S-risks.

3Dawn Drescher1mo
My perhaps a bit naive take (acausal stuff, other grabby aliens, etc.) is that a conflict needs at least two, and humans are too weak and uncoordinated to be much of an adversary. Hence I’m not so worried about monopolar takeoffs. Not sure, though. Maybe I should be more worried about those too.
lc1mo3-17

It's probably morally imperative that all parents who have the financial means to do this do it.

3Portia15d
The improvements in the mental and physical well-being of the poorest of us if this huge sum of money was instead used to give them healthcare, safety from preventable, transmissible diseases (like malaria nets), clean water, healthy food, crucial supplements, reproductive rights, and most of all education, vastly, vastly outweighs raises the IQs of rich children by this little.
0Portia15d
Also, please keep the hell out of the reproductive rights of other people. At the point where you prescribe this (and according to whose ideal standards, exactly?), I genuinely no longer understand the difference that is being claimed to outright eugenics. How long until it is de facto mandatory? 
2JohnBuridan19d
"Moral imperatives" is not a category that relies upon financial means. Moral imperatives in traditional Kantian framework are supposed to be universal, no? Just because some action could be personally and socially very beneficial doesn't make it morally compulsory. The benefits would have to be weighed against opportunity cost, uncertainty, game theoretic considerations, and possible contrary moral systems being correct.
4nim1mo
This may be an overstatement. I think the moral minimum looks more like "bring children into the world in a way that's consistent with the value system you plan to teach them and hope that they live by". If you want to teach a value system of global optimization, where every dollar should be spent to have the maximum possible impact to global quality of life, you're probably adopting rather than conceiving anyways... but this great an investment into a single individual is likely inconsistent with those values. If you want to teach a value system of local optimization, where every person ought to first do what's best for themself and their loved ones before attempting to intervene in the lives of strangers, then it might be inconsistent to gamble with a family member's lifetime wellbeing when you could instead have stacked the odds in their favor.
8DirectedEvolution1mo
I think it’s morally important that we make this choice increasingly accessible, and fight any bigotry against children born with this method and bigotry against their parents. It would take a pretty niche moral stance and cost benefit analysis to make this morally imperative.
7GeneSmith1mo
I'm not quite sure I would agree with this yet, though I can see the case being made for it. I think it mostly comes down to how much you think you can improve worldwide outcomes by increasing the abilities of those at the top vs bringing up those with the least. Iodine supplementation in the developing world, for example, is probably the single most cost-effective way of increasing average IQ per capita worldwide. It also helps prevent other problems like hypothyroidism. So if just increasing IQ per capita is your goal, polygenic embryo selection is not going to come anywhere close to iodine supplementation. Of course, iodine supplementation is not going to give you any more geniuses, and geniuses per capita has an incredibly strong impact on human progress. I really, really wish we could just ban AI improvements and focus on enhancing human intelligence and morality for a few decades. The reason I originally became interested in embryo selection was that I thought that genetic engineering might be a potential solution to the alignment problem (not to mention many of the other problems the human species faces). But it's going to take at least 20 years to work (and realistically more like 30-40) to have a large impact. I'd put the odds of us getting to AGI before that at like 90%. The only path I can see now involves a worldwide ban on AI capabilities improvements.
7RomanHauksson1mo
Suppose a family values the positive effects that screening would have on their child at $30,000, but in their area, it would cost them $50,000. Them paying for it anyway would be like "donating" $20,000 towards the moral imperative that you propose. But would that really be the best counterfactual use of the money? E.g. donating it instead to the Against Malaria Foundation would save 4-5 lives in expectation.[1] Maybe it would be worth it at $10,000? $5,000? Although, this doesn't take into account the idea that an additional person doing polygenic screening would increase its acceptance in the public, incentivizing companies to innovate and drive the price down. So maybe the knock-on effects would make it worth it. 1. ^ Okay, I've heard that this scale of donations to short-termist charities is actually a lot more complicated than that, but this is just an example.

I think the more basic question is: why has open source software even gotten to the point that it has? Actually running a startup or a software company is really tough. To do it competently requires (as a starting point) constantly swallowing lots of bitter lessons about what your customers actually care about vs. what is technically interesting. Why expect open source software developers to do all of that hard work for free?

This reminds me of stories (maybe exaggerated) about how Microsoft became internally terrified of GPLv3 and Linux in the late 90s and early 2000s.

4Chris_Leong1mo
Yeah, I honestly expected open-source to win out by now. My guess would be: a) Programmers are more enthusiastic about hacking for free than designers are about designing for free b) There's no-one to do the boring tasks that need to be done

Either post your NASDAQ 100 futures contracts or stop fronting near-term slow takeoff probabilities above ~10%.

But would pollsters actually, in real life detect an odd discrepancy between one district and another and loudly proclaim it as voter fraud? Do we even know if such irrelegularities have happened before?

4Adele Lopez2mo
Maybe? I was not trying to answer the object level question either way, but instead just pointing out what sort of evidence there might be that could answer this.

The most common refrain I hear against the possibility of widespread voter fraud is that demographers and pollsters would catch such malfeasance, but in practice when pollsters see a discrepancy between voting results and polls they seem to just assume the polls were biased. Is there a better reason besides "the FBI seems pretty competent"?

2Dagon2mo
This is another case of "people arguing about scope of a fuzzy problem RATHER than how to define/measure the problem or analyze cost/benefit of mitigations".  Almost everyone deeply involved in this has a political/culture-war preference, and it seems to be the case that proposed changes seem to shift results in one direction or another, SEPARATELY from whether it reduces fraud. In fact, it's ludicrous to believe that zero fraud happens, as it's ludicrous to believe that most outcomes are driven by fraud (as opposed to non-fraudulent bullshit reasons like advertising and vote friction).  Most anti-fraud proposals ALSO raise barriers to technically-non-fraudulent-but-distasteful-to-some participation, and without being willing to discuss numbers and impact, there can be no resolution. To your actual question, I believe that watchers would notice very extreme cases of fraud at the state and national levels, though they likely miss some at local levels (where natural variance is much more possible), and they probably can't detect (and won't have sufficient evidence to convince anyone) minor or incremental cases of fraud or illegal manipulation. Controversially, an honest statistician will acknowledge that there's lots of noise in the methodology.  And honest democracy-proponents acknowledge that close races are ... close and it's not too critical for legitimacy which side wins the coinflip.  So even if fraud or biased rulings change an outcome, if it's hard to detect, it probably doesn't matter.
2Adele Lopez2mo
I think a similar type of financial fraud is often detectable via violations of Benford's law. Or more generally, it's hard to fake the right distribution. As another case of that principle, you'd expect the discrepancy between polls and results to fall within a predictable distribution if they were sampling from the same space.

A small colony of humans is a genuinely tiny waste of paperclips. I am slightly more worried about the possibility that the acausal trade equilibrium cashes out to the AGI treating us badly because some aliens in a foreign Everett branch have some bizarre religious/moral opinions about the lives we ought to lead, than I am about being turned into squiggles.

It is unnecessary to postulate that CEOs and governments will be "overthrown" by rogue AI. Board members in the future will insist that their company appoint an AI to run the company because they think they'll get better returns that way. Congressmen will use them to manage their campaigns and draft their laws. Heads of state will use them to manage their militaries and police agencies. If someone objects that their AI is really unreliable or doesn't look like it shares their values, someone else on the board will say "But $NFGM is doing the same thing; we... (read more)

Now is the time to write to your congressman and (may allah forgive me for uttering this term) "signal boost" about actually effective AI regulation strategies - retroactive funding for hitting interpretability milestones, good liability rules surrounding accidents, funding for long term safety research. Use whatever contacts you have, this week. Congress is writing these rules now and we may not have another chance to affect them.

One starts to wonder how many completely qualitatively different worlds and ideologies are out there right now in the minds of schizophrenics, cultists, politicians and homeless people, each totalizing and completely enrapturing in their own way, all ultimately batshit insane.

6Viliam2mo
There is the general concept of "bubbles", which people usually use to refer to internet communities, but the thing existed long before internet. Social class is a giant bubble. Different political tribes. Birds of a feather flock together. It probably started when people started living in groups larger than 150; maybe sooner. I find it fascinating how "normal" people live in different realities. For example, someone is attracted to abusive partners, and they believe that literally all individuals of the opposite sex are abusive. You can't convince them otherwise, because they know that abusive people can pretend to be nice (which makes the theory unfalsifiable), and it is their personal experience that each partner they had sooner or later turned out to be abusive. What's more, their best friend has exactly the same experience! -- But when you look at this from outside, it's like no, you are constructing the reality you live in. Among many possible partners, you instinctively choose the one with most red flags. (Sometimes you rationalize it: the person without obvious red flags is certainly hiding them, which makes such person more dangerous.) And of course your best friend has a similar experience; that's why you chose each other to be best friends! Someone else can live on the same street, but in a completely different universe. Yes, the universes of crazy people are even more diverse. There are practically no limits; the Earth can be flat, people are actually lizards with masks, the entire political situation is all about persecuting you, evildoers use microwave radiation to drive everyone mad, etc. Then there are cults, which is basically systematized craziness / bubbles. But if you talk to random"normal" people, their worlds are sometimes also quite interesting.
Load More