Brainwavez
10hr ago
I think adding a (those who are incompetent or underage will have their button pushed by their parent/guardian) parenthetical would change it even more.
Then I agree with you, but also, I’d say anyone “competent” in this situation (and not suicidal) would press red
This has resurfaced and been trending for a while
Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?
Currently at 42.1% red and 57.9% blue.
What would you choose? (See also r/slatestarcodex discussion)
I was motivated to post because I have a convincing argument for blue:
-
Stupid people will choose blue. You may not care about the disabled, elderly, generally moronic, etc. but this includes children and people who are "too generous": nice, but emotional, and devote their lives to charity
-
Thanos snapping a decent amount of the population (including random children, and biased towards selflessness) will probably overall negatively affect society
-
I probably won't die because most people choose blue, as evidenced by the poll. Even if I do, it may be preferable to living with the survivors (point #2)
How do you know we’re not already glorified pets in some societal experiment and/or universe simulation?
I think your first point is stronger. The author asserts “the Minds are correct” but can’t prove it’s coherent with reality and general humanity. If I define Society A as “a utopia where humans are in constant agony”, is it a utopia? It’s self-contradictory.
Brainwavez
3d ago
One example: social media has dismantled social norms.
Even when phones and TV existed, people used to communicate face-to-face more often, especially to strangers. Privacy used to be expected. News used to be centralized.
How does this affect politics? Perhaps since people have less random face-to-face interactions, they have tighter echo chambers and less respect for those outside. Perhaps since we have dirt on everyone (no privacy), especially dirty politicians are seen no differently. Perhaps since social media promotes strong emotions (especially negative ones; weaker centralized moderation), emotive (especially negative) politicians benefit.
Unfortunately in practice, we can’t ban social media and revert to the past (although that doesn’t stop politicians from trying). I think we need more local groups, in-person events with encouragement to attend, trusted curators who present “unbiased” news (specifically biased towards positivity and important details such that the people receiving the news benefit from hearing it). Most of all, we need to explicitly teach people how to behave socially, how to spot those who deserve sympathy vs. who’d exploit you, how to think critically; and this teaching should be through experience (trial and error, positive and negative reinforcement…). Because I believe those lessons used to be taught implicitly by face-to-face interactions which (para)social media has replaced.
I agree it’s getting better.
Although I think it will only surpass human art if/when the user has fine-grained control, because my favorite art is that I can relate to, and a general LLM isn’t relatable. I’d rather use AI to make art I really like (even with difficulty, as long as there’s a clear progression…I’ve wanted to get into art, but it’s overwhelming and I’m particularly bad at it), than have the AI autonomously make something I mildly like.
Or if/when we get ASI.
Brainwavez
4d ago
Breaking Balenciaga is the best I’m aware of.
I watched some of it and it’s…mid. My problem with AI art is that it’s all mid. Although here the idea is also mid.
I feel that so far, even good GenAI is either an excellent idea or lucky (or trial-and-error) output, and in both cases a real artist could’ve executed better. Even for works where more effort would be wasted, like jokes and concept art, I prefer a simple handmade drawing like a sketch.
The one exception may be hidden images via Stable Diffusion ControlNet (e.g. text, QR code, spiral), because I haven’t seen any human-made pictures nearly as detailed and seamless. Also, GenAI is great for intentionally bad works, like memes making fun of AI.
GenAI is genuinely useful for routine tasks, forms, etc. where quality isn’t important; and with code, where quality is only important to an extent (nobody will notice your micro-optimizations or unnecessarily readable implementation) and there are decent objective metrics (lints and tests, and I still think AI code is hard to read). But art has no practical limit to quality, and good artists apply themselves to every noticeable detail. Also, art (like music, food, and attractiveness) is best slightly imperfect, in a way that human amateurs execute without trying, and experts learn (“learn the rules, then break them”), but AI seems to struggle.
Brainwavez
4d ago
You’re right that plenty of good works rely on unexplained premises/plot (e.g. any involving magic, Bojack Horseman why animals are antropomorphized). So I take back my first theory.
Second theory: “trash” can be substituted for anything and the general point holds: when the work is clearly Isekai, people have predefined expectations, people who like / dislike the genre like / dislike those expectations respectively.
Why this applies to Isekai more than other genres…because Isekai tends to be predictable, so the expectations are stronger.
There are well-received “normal(ish) person transported to alternate world” works, like Gravity Falls, Narnia, Idiocracy, Harry Potter.
My guesses:
Isekai doesn’t even try to justify why the normal person is in the alternate world. Presumably writers who choose Isekai instead of Isekai-like prefer not justifying major plot points.
More likely, because most Isekai are trash, people who like Isekai tend to prefer trash, and people who dislike trash tend to have prejudice against Isekai. So either a) the author makes an Isekai-like to avoid the prejudice, b) they make a trash Isekai, or c) they have a small audience.
I haven't read the novels...but your comment reminded me of this discussion. It and this reply I agree with.
I think a life of only simple pleasures (eating, sleeping, etc.) would get boring, because I desire achievement, and I believe most people agree. I also think such a life isn't realistically human, it's what animals do, while most humans have long-term plans. Achievement also requires adversity, because one needs to at least imagine they could fail.
However, if the Minds were really intent on "preserving humanity", they could also give humans fake achievement and adversity, up to recreating life as it is now.
If you believe The Culture is a dystopia, what would make it a utopia?
I disagree that simply persuading people to choose blue is unethical. Ultimately it’s their decision, and it’s not obviously wrong.
But
A way to lose in real life is to get worked up over a silly hypothetical.
More options
Context Copy link