Even if you take Pascal's wager seriously, it is not actually very useful. There are multiple religions that each claim their god created the world, with most of them being mutually exclusive. Thus Pascal's wager works about as well as an argument for believing in the Christian God as it does for believing in Allah.
Regarding the atomic bomb, they did the math which showed that a chain reaction was impossible prior to the test. We have no such proof against the dangers of AI. The equivalent would be a paper that shows the theoretical limits of how intelligent LLM's can get, and thus prove that the line will stop going up before we reach the point of AGI.
Bombadil
2mo ago
- If the hardware is just wrong, or we need some kind of unknown property (like a soul) that computers can't approximate then yeah, we are not getting AGI anytime soon.
- We are not starting from scratch. We can let our algorithms be inspired by what we see in.
- The idea that there is a ceiling to what LLM's can do and that we will hit a wall very soon is part of the bear case.
I think your points are good, and I am myself a bit of an AI sceptic. But I do see where the AI safety crowd is coming from. It may not be particularly likely that we get AGI in the near future. But the fact is that the possibility is there, and is significant enough that it currently cannot be dismissed out of hand. Thus it makes sense to halt development until we are certain that this research won't doom us all.
Bombadil
2mo ago
Humans existing and being good at these problems shows that it is possible to create an intelligence that can solve these problems to at least the skill level of a highly intelligent and competent human, without needing impossibly huge training sets to do so. The question is if we can replicate this on a computer. The bull case is that this is just a question of finding the right algorithm, and once we do, we will achieve AGI.
Since current AI can clearly help researchers write code faster, it stands to reason that the better AI we have access to, the faster we can improve the algorithm, which leads to a loop where better models are developed faster and faster. Once the models start approaching human-level intelligence they will be able to iteratively improve themselves without researcher oversight. And like that, we have justified drawing lines on the graph.
Bombadil
2mo ago
I did write that "teenage sexual relationships should be decriminalized" does not make you sound like a pedo. The issue is that the rest of the rhetoric seems to serve as an argument for why men who are old enough to have degrees and careers should be allowed to have sex with high school students. That last part is where the problem is. When the poster then doubles down and it turns out I was right and this is what they wanted to argue, the rest falls apart.
Generally, if you want to make an academic argument about sexual maturity you probably shouldn't sully it by then immediately using said argument to justify breaking societal taboos.
Bombadil
2mo ago
Presumably, the supermarket chain has a proven business strategy and is already making lots of money. SpaceX might make a lot of money in the future but isn't yet. SpaceX doesn't actually own the sky yet, it just might in the future. I would expect the risk that SpaceX might never make significant money to result in a lower price.
Of course, I completely missed the ball on AI stocks, so maybe I am the one in the wrong here too.
Bombadil
2mo ago
If you could buy SpaceX just for the space business without Grok, and the pricing was in the range of 100-200 billion, then the arguments for it being a good investment opportunity become much easier to swallow. In that case, you would still be paying like it is one of the biggest companies in the world, even though it is not currently earning enough for that to be the case, betting that the space capabilities would eventually make it grow into something worth a trillion or more. But at the current price, it seems like you are paying as if all their goals have already been accomplished or that it is guaranteed to happen in the future. That seems really risky to me.
Bombadil
2mo ago
The issue from an investment perspective is that the valuation is largely driven by the AI portion of the operation. If I believe in the space part of SpaceX, but also believe Grok is a waste of money that is going to be outcompeted by Anthropic, Microsoft, and Google, then it is still reasonable for me to believe the company is overvalued. Take AI out of the equation, and the company loses 93% of its value based on the IPO (this part is covered around 11 minutes in).
So by buying SpaceX what you are really paying for is Grok. And thus arguments about the rocket business largely stops mattering as it is such a small part what the IPO price is based on.
Bombadil
2mo ago
The Dems presumably have access to a good-sized professional network of lobby organizations, activists, and businesses. There are also many political positions that are much less visible to the public.
Since the rape accusations have not been proven, wouldn't the standard political play here be to have him resign, wait for things to die down, and then in a few months hire him at some cushy position outside of media spotlight?
If the stick is that his name will continue to be dragged through the gutter, then this seems like a pretty good deal to me.
Bombadil
2mo ago
In a sense, increased representation is a primary goal. Having minorities be acknowledged and normalized through representation is pretty high up there in terms of importance on the progressive agenda. You can't fight for trans rights if most people don't even know the trans exist.
In practice, I would say it depends on the author. Some write specifically for, say, an LGBT audience and have positive representation as one of the main reasons for why the story exists in the first place. Others do it for the sake of realism. A New York with no black people just doesn't really make sense. Any modern story exploring urban environments, especially if you delve in to the soft, slightly hidden underbelly, is by necessity going to include some level of representation of minority groups as they make up a sizeable part of most large western cities.
It is not usually a sign that oppression has ceased. If you lean more activist as a writer, the point of forcing diversity is exactly the opposite: Opression is still there, but through your writing you give a voice to the marginalized. If there was truly no opression, no one would bat an eye at a trans woman because she would just be another person to the rest of society. The fact that this identity matters enough to write about, and that doing so can garner pushback, is itself proof that there is still a lot of work to be done.
I think the EU generally has been resting on its laurels. There was an assumption that the status quo which prevailed since the cold war would hold forever. That free trade in a rules based world is so profitable for everyone that there is no way anyone would want to jeopardize it with war. Eventually, other countries would see the light and follow suit. Once they did, they would be rewarded with free trade and be welcomed as an ally. It was okay to be dependent on the US for security and Russia for gas, as they would have too much to loose to abuse their leverage.
This assumption extended to immigration. Why would you move to a country only to ruin it? It makes no sense. Obviously, immigrants would assimilate to the local culture as the resulting standard of living is far superior to where they came from.
Under this worldview, providing foreign aid, outsourcing manufacturing to China, and accepting massive amounts of asylum seekers made sense. I don't think either the elites or a majority of the population really considered that things might get worse. The idea that people might take our resources only to turn against us, was just not a narrative that many people believed.
Bombadil
2mo ago
Sure, but the reason for the low age of consent in Europe is generally not so that grown men with careers can have sex with high schoolers. It is to decriminalize sex between teenagers. The social convention for adults not to abuse this is quite strong, so it is pretty rare that it happens.
Yeah that is a fair point. By virtue of them generally not trying to expand their social circle and not being particularly interested in men, I don't get a lot of chances to meet that type. Just like many men find modern dating norms too toxic to bother with, it is entirely possible the same is true for a lot of women.
This group of people existing does not indicate an base instinct towards long term monogamous relationships in women though. At least, the instinct can't be very strong if ignoring it is that easy.
Bombadil
2mo ago
What I quoted is the kind of thing people say when they are trying to push an agenda. Specifically the agenda that older men should be allowed to sexualise and have sexual relations with people under the age of 18. There is a clear taboo against this in modern society, and for good reason. So when someone starts to undermine this taboo through their arguments it is going to result in alarm bells.
Bombadil
2mo ago
That looks more like an attempt at being as charitable as possible. But even through this lens, the officers still look bad. They are clearly not doing their job properly. They end the altercation, yes, but she is also arresting an innocent while letting the criminals run away.
Bombadil
2mo ago
It's not like left wingers in Europe try to defend this kind of thing either. They might claim that these are isolated incidents that don't prove immigration is a problem, or that we are lacking context for the situation. But there is no way they would defend the officers here.
Bombadil
2mo ago
The US just seems weirdly puritan about this. Age of consent in most of the world is slightly younger than 18, and it doesn't seem to cause problems. You can have a low age of consent so that teenagers are not punished for having sex, while still stigmatizing much older men having sex with someone half their age. And obviously 17 year olds should not be charged with possession of child pornography for having nude pictures of themselves on their phones.
Bombadil
2mo ago
The early access scene is looking remarkably healthy these days. Subnautica 2 and Slay the Spire 2 have released to widespread audience acclaim. The gamers who insist on being patient and waiting until release are clearly in the minority. While Slay the Spire 2 is very close to feature complete, Subnautica 2 still needs a lot of time in the oven to really live up to expectations.
While chapter based releases have seemingly fallen out of fashion, Deltarune shows this model can still work. While the most recent chapter did not quite live up to the insane hype, Steam reviews are still overwhelmingly positive. I imagine it helps that you only pay for the game once instead of for every chapter individually. With how well the game has sold already, it surprises me a bit that Toby Fox has not just decided to take the money and run. Continued development is a sign of clear passion from the developers who must be driven in large part by intrinsic desire to finish the game, even though they have already earned most of the money it is likely to earn them.
Bombadil
2mo ago
Girls typically reach physical sexual maturity (adult secondary sexual characteristics) between the ages of 15 and 17, while boys mature a couple of years later.
His argument would go down much better if he did not say this. It may be objectively the case, but holy shit does it make him sound like a pedophile. It generally reflects quite poorly on people when they sexualize those who are legally and popularly regarded as children.
"An 18 and 16 year old having a sexual relationship should not be discouraged" is one thing. "It is ephebophilia not pedophilia"is quite another and makes it sound like what he really wants is for himself to have sex with 15 year olds without risking punishment.
Bombadil
2mo ago
Does evolution actually teach that though? Or is it just a narrative that uses evolutionary terms to make itself sound more plausible?
It is not like you can actually empirically test evopsych theories on real people. All you can do is make theories about evolutionary pressures. Notably, evolution doesn't always lead to the most rational result. Eggs are more expensive than sperm, pregnancy is taxing, and child-rearing requires community support. This implies that women should be wired for stability, and since sleeping around is anything but, there is a rational argument to be made that women would not be wired for this.
But evolutionary theories need to be adjusted to fit reality. In reality young women have a constant sex drive. Not as high as men, but still significant enough to cause some amount of distress if they don't get laid. In reality, a good amount of women cheat on their partners with men they barely know. As barriers to casual relationships have been removed we see more women preferring them. As practical reasons to get into stable relationships with men have been reduced, we see a decrease in desire for stable relationships with men.
In general, if your theory not only fails to predict reality, but actually predicts the opposite, then clearly the theory is wrong.
Bombadil
2mo ago
It is a cultural change not a biological one. Long term relationships are valued less, personal freedom is valued more. Everyone wants to extend their adolescence. Women are encouraged to find themselves through short term flings while anyone speaking out against the status quo is seen as controlling (which to be fair is often a reasonable complaint).
I am not familiar with the dating market of twenty years ago, but I would imagine that long term relationships were more highly valued, and regarded as something important you might miss out on if you are too slow. Combine that with fewer options to sleep around and more status loss for doing so.
In the past, women's behavior was policed more closely and they were more heavily encouraged to control themselves. I would argue this, along with them needing a man's income to help care for the kid, caused the perception that they had some internal biological drive to form lifelong monogamous relationships. Just like people in the west take our morals for granted as natural inborn human virtues only to be surprised when they are not shared by immigrants. It turns out that a lot of what we thought was natural actually had to be taught. It was just such an integral part of society that it was never questioned in the first place. Now we are radically changing the things that we teach, and finding out that the natural state of humans - women included - is more base and savage than we thought.
I suspect that finding the right balance between enforcing prosocial behaviors and allowing people maximum personal freedom, while also minimizing authoritarianism, is going to be a major challenge in the future.
Bombadil
2mo ago
Bombadil
2mo ago
Men also get pissy when their girlfriends are with another man. Yet the people claiming women have an innate drive to be in a relationship usually do not claim the same for men. The normal implication is that men and women are different in this regard. Besides, if you are going to point at women wanting to be in relationships throughout history, I would point to women being unfaithful throughout history. It's not like women are only into the man they are with at any given time.
The way I see it, men and women want to have sex with people they find attractive, but get jealous when their partner has sex with someone else. The committed relationship is a social construct that enforces norms around these expectations, and lets people know their partner is not with anybody else at the cost of only being with one person at a time. But it is not instinctual. People commit infidelity all the time, and those who don't still have to control themselves in the face of temptation.
I am basing this off personal experience. When speaking with the women I meet at my university as well as male friends with girlfriends, a few tings very quickly became clear to me.
- A majority of the single young women seem to enjoy going out a few times per month and find a new person to have sex with.
- The one pushing for a relationship is usually the man. And doing so too early is actually an "ick" for several women. A friends with benefits catching feelings is grounds for ending the relationship.
- This ties into the point above, but sleeping around even while dating is absolutely a thing. Even if she is not having sex with the guy she is seeing, she may still have friends with benefits that she is fucking until the relationship becomes official.
- There is absolutely an expectation that you can sleep around in your early to mid twenties and only build a family once they are done with studying and partying. It is not uncommon for women to want to extend this part of their lives and postpone family formation for as long as possible. Even those who want to be mothers are in no rush to find a man.
I don't quite understand where the idea that women have a "drive to be in a relationship" comes from. From where I am standing it does not look like young men are manipulating innocent maidens with promises of commitment when they actually just want to fuck. If anything, young women seem somewhat afraid of commitment and tend to prefer the men that are less serious, finding solace in knowing that they won't have to worry about the responsibilities of a relationship.
As far as I can tell, the exceptions from the above consist mostly of women who were in relationships since high school, and women who are largely not interested in dating and romance in the first place (too anxious, focused on studies, etc.). There are also some who clearly prefer long term relationships, but even they tend to sleep around for a bit after a breakup.
This does not contradict what I wrote. People are not in relationships, so sex is limited to casual encounters and booty calls. It takes a lot less effort to fuck when you live together or at least hang out often, which is usually reserved for more committed relationships.
The human brain is made up of very different materials than a datacenter. It is entirely possible that the physical structure of the brain is necessary to create intelligence, and that this structure requires materials which certain properties. Maybe a digital simulation will just always require orders of magnitude more data and power than the real, physical thing.
More options
Context Copy link