Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
No bio...
User ID: 1558
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
26d ago
but the task is entirely artificial.
It is trained on the corpus of human text, most of which pertains to artificial problems rather than real problems. So AI should be better at the administrative-state stuff than the real stuff.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1mo ago
Oh come on. The “if you have this opinion you’re an incel” implication is the most trite of Twitter-tier ad hominems.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
3mo ago
This doesn’t seem to be the pattern in early 20th century. What changed? Is politics today just much harder to succeed in without being a cutthroat monster?
Respect for property rights in liberal democracies has become a victim of its own success. Back in the day there was no guarantee that the government wouldn’t just have a communist revolution and expropriate all your capital, so becoming a capitalist was a roll of the dice: much like becoming a politician, so neither was much worse than the other of a career path for a smart young man. Today, a career in politics is still a roll of the dice - you might lose the election - whereas a career as a capitalist is a much safer proposition because the politicians have done so good of a job at ensuring property rights are sacrosanct and no-one’s gonna expropriate your business and put you up against a wall.
This means that today all the smart people go into moneymaking, leaving politics the preserve of midwits and pathological narcissists.
Bad property rights create strong politicians, strong politicians create good property rights, good property rights create weak politicians [YOU ARE HERE], weak politicians create bad property rights.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
3mo ago
it's basically guaranteed that foreign adversaries have access to much of that information.
“Basically” seems to be doing a tremendous amount of work in this sentence. You’re constructing an entire catastrophic narrative from one piece of evidence where nothing catastrophic happened. Here’s an alternative take that fits the evidence just as well: when they’re discussing adversaries who have more hacking capability than stone-age Yemenis, they stick to more secure channels.
If this had been discussing China or Israel I would be more sympathetic to your concerns, but it’s bombing a group of people who have never seen a computer in their lives, not bombing 1337 h4X0rz. The Pareto frontier of convenience vs. security is placed in a very different location when Yemen is your foe vs. when China is your foe.
Obviously it would be a terrible precedent in such agencies to say 'actually you can discuss your work if you, as an individual employee, decide on a random ad hoc basis that its probably fine this time'.
Can you elaborate? Because I think it unironically would be perfectly fine.
Better that everyone know USG’s secrets than I have to pay taxes to keep them under wraps.
I feel like your model of the situation can’t explain why Daniel’s discord mods resigned en masse even after the truth came out (so there was no way they still did believe the allegations). What is your explanation for their behaviour, if you think the parties in this situation were choosing sides based on what they believed to be true (rather than what they believed to be expeditious)?
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
7mo ago
Playing that anecdote as an Uno Reverse card won’t work, as a sufficiently motivated counterparty will just respond with “He wasn’t fired, he was still in the academy and drawing a salary, therefore he wasn’t suffering discrimination”.
As a practicing academic myself I wish I’d be able to spend more time on my research by getting banned from my teaching workload, teaching fucking sucks.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
8mo ago
The entire institutional ecosystem is soft-rigged against the GOP, regardless of whether there was any direct voter fraud. This is an argument that I have a lot of time for - if one faction has a huge advantage in political communication, and its credibility is laundered by all the major epistemic institutions of its society, then it's hardly a free and fair contest of ideas. …However, these were not the actual arguments made by Trump and allies, nor were they the arguments voiced on January 6.
This seems like some sort of reverse-motte-and-Bailey on your part. Some crazies yell extreme theories, therefore the moderate theories are not worth considering?
At some point you're just too far away from the candidate himself or his campaign.
It also seems like an effort of sophistry to avoid the question of “how to get Republicans to accept the election results” by playing around with definitions until the people with legitimate reasons to distrust the election don’t count as Republicans any more, ergo dusts hands job done.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
11mo ago
Foolishly I got my news on the opening ceremony from the BBC, who make no mention of any problems or embarrassments at all, and just breathlessly report it as the greatest show on earth.
I would have expected the Anglos at least to be Francophobic enough to tell the truth, but apparently globohomo must not be embarrassed. The Party is always right!
N=1, but the only prostitute I’ve ever known in person was a friend of a friend who whored herself out essentially because she watched too much porn and Internet goon-brained herself into a female coomer. No economic privation or tragic backstory needed.
As four decades of Doomsday Argument arguments show, there are legitimate difficulties on inferring the shape of a distribution from a single sample, but there you go.
She didn’t hate men though, so this does not support the whole of the thesis.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
13d ago
if you're gonna fight a war , uncoordinated vassal swarm is a bad tactic because the AI will get defeated in detail
Sic semper those-who-invest-in-the-Diplomatic-Ideas-group
As I said, it was devil’s advocacy. I agree that one should be required to reap what they’ve sown, and if she didn’t want a baby, she should have kept it in her pants.
In non-devils-advocacy, I think that the negative externalities of an unwanted child and a resentful mother are sufficiently bad for society that my desire to profit society exceeds my desire to force people to eat their just desserts, so on balance I come down grudgingly pro-choice in the end. And I wouldn’t prosecute doctor or mother for straight-up infanticide, let alone late-term abortion. The UK’s new legislation moves us closer to that.
I am reluctant to laud it though, because it’s pretty transparent that British lawmakers’ motivations are, as @Southkraut speculates, “Women can do no wrong”, which means we have good law (or at least lesser-evil law) for bad motives.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
18d ago
First of all: It's fun
Came here to post this. Arguing online is entertaining. I possibly spent too much time in high school debate club as a teen
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
4mo ago
Came here to post this. Rescinding PhD offers is throwing-toys-out-of-the-pram tier malicious compliance: and their decisions of who to cut will likely be based on which student they think can most convincingly cry in a CNN interview about how Trump crushed their family’s dreams of escaping poverty through studying hard.
It’ll damage the university in the long run and it would be much easier for them to cut administrators, but there’s a Principal-Agent-Problem here where the it’s the Admin department who decides what cuts to make and they’re sure as hell not going to be making them in the Admin department.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
5mo ago
There’s a big difference between dating a single mom who’s single because her husband died, and dating a single mom who’s single because she had a kid out of wedlock or went through a divorce.
Granted, but the number of dating age single mother widows is to within an epsilon of zero compared to the number of dating age single mother high-time-preference-poor-planning-out-of-wedlock-dumpster-fires.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
5mo ago
I don’t think this term will catch on because it’s too anti-white
I don’t think this term will catch on because it’s too pro-white, insofar as fifty years of argument-by-connotation has given us the meme of “Minorities good, majorities bad”, and therefore calling nonwhites the majority and whites the minority is not a linguistic change that the Cathedral is going to condone.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
7mo ago
Reminds me of the Bolsheviks being so scared of “Napoleonisation” (i.e. that a strong and charismatic party leader would upstage everyone else) that they hamstrung their most popular and effective guy, Trotsky, and were much the worse for it.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
7mo ago
My first advice to democrats is find a vision of a future you want to build that people would actually want to live in. And not only start talking about it, but start trying to actually build it.
Adam Curtis’ documentary Hypernormalisation is my recommendation to you: https://youtube.com/watch?v=to72IJzQT5k?si=zvQm4rUCploqAEtw
TL;DR: no such positive vision can exist any more, because there is simply nothing aspirational left inside democratic Western political philosophy that hasn’t already been tried and failed.
In addition to prognostications, I'd like to voice my disdain for these postmortems… Obviously not an ideal outcome, but far from cause to hit the panic button and start realigning your policies.
I think you’re correct, and the reason we get a flood of prognostications is that the prognosticators are not arguing in good faith. They’re arguing because they want jobs. In the same way that (I contend) lawyers and bureaucrats make law and bureaucracy unnecessarily complicated in order to invent jobs for themselves assisting normies trying to navigate their regulations, so too do policy analysts try to make every event constitute a “We need a serious policy reevaluation” moment. They hope the “…therefore, hire me” is inferred by think-tank funders.
It’s hustlers all the way down.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
9mo ago
Israel is at war. Am I missing something or shouldn't this be hot-take level shocking?
Israel is winning a war (insofar as shooting fish in a barrel and tampering with Taiwanese pager shipments constitutes a war); what surprise is it that hot-blooded youngsters rejoice in seeing their enemies driven before them, and hearing the lamentations of their women?
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
9mo ago
By not inviting the channels’ major shareholders to the cool cocktail parties if they took a heterodox editorial position.
I agree that, ceteris paribus, habitual risky-sex-havers more deserve to be denied abortions than “I used three different prophylactics but somehow they all failed at the same time” neurotics deserve it. But given that you can’t fractionally abort a baby like you can fractionally vary a fine or a prison sentence, there is alas no room for a sliding scale here.
More options
Context Copy link