I started using Forfeit from this post, and it worked amazingly for me, but now it turned into subscription AI slop. Is there an alternative?

I never got that cause is deciding to smoke much of an update after you already detected an urge to smoke? edt looks simpler so it should be correct 

real, thanks. both look pretty garbage I guess no choice but to drink it

I used that once and it didn't work, aligned-by-default universe

that's a trick to make me be like them!

(I listened to some of that michael huemer talk and it seemed pretty dumb)

I would say it's perhaps indicative of a problem with academic philosophy. Unless that 62% is mostly moral corporalists, then it's fine by me if they insist that "some moral propositions are objectively true or false", I guess. 

I don't recall saying that recently, though it's true. I don't know what you're getting at. 

I am making guesses about what you might be saying, because you are being unclear.

I was responding to your correction of my definition of moral realism. I somewhat jokingly expressed shame for defining it idiosyncratically.

Well,.it doesn't, and research will tell you that.

It can still be true of my impressions of it, like every time I saw someone arguing for moral realism.

Which debate? 

I think it was this one, regretfully I'm being forced to embed it in my reply.

Hmm yea gameability might not be so interesting of a property of metrics as I've expressed.

(though I still feel there is something in there. Fixing your calibration chart after the fact by predicting one-sided coins dice is maybe a lot like taking a foot off the bathroom scale. But, for example, predicting every event as a constant p%, is that even cheating in the calibration game? Though neither of these directly applies to the case of prediction market platforms)

Most shameful of me to use someone's term and define it as my beef with them. In my impressions, moral realism has also always involved moral non-corporalism if you will. As long as morality is safely stored in animal bodies, I'm fine with that. 

The one in the youtube debate identified as a moral non-realist. But you see, his approach to the subject was different from mine, and that is a problem.

I think there more or less is a rationalist-lesswrongist view of what morality is, shared not by all but most rationalists (I wanted to say it's explained in the sequences, but suspiciously I can't find it in there).