Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
Disabled Alaskan Monarchist doomer
User ID: 2666
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
3d ago
If anyone who is right-leaning engages with violent methods, people will make an example out of him
Does that include Trump sending in the Marines? Or a future President Vance rolling tanks into Harvard yard a la Yarvin?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
3d ago
while the right polishes their gun collection muttering "one of these days, for sure..."
Yes, which is why I'm not calling for rebellion, but a Caesar sending soldiers as "right-wing death squads" to purge the domestic enemy.
how do we stop it happening again?"
The only answers to that question, at this point, involve literal bullets.
Well, now that I'm off ban, to clarify: I mean less "2nd amendment solutions," more Suharto.
How we stop it happening again is we get a Caesar Augustus or a Bonaparte, with the loyalty of the warriors, and the willingness to use them to purge the enemy. It's "tanks in Harvard yard" as part of going Henry VIII (or Qin Shi Huangdi) on academia.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
15d ago
This is what frustrates me about these discussions — how people like you have this veritable worship of intelligence as the ultimate superpower. That "smarter" always translates to "more powerful"; that sufficiently-advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from godhood; that every foe of lesser intelligence can always be "outthought."
It relates to one of my peeves with liberalism, specifically its utopian strain: that every barrier or obstacle is just a problem to be solved, and that every problem can be solved if only you're "smart enough." It's a view that refuses to accept the possibility that some things simply cannot be outthought, no matter how massive your intelligence.
You mentioned the possibility of diminishing returns in how smart an entity can get, and that humans are probably not near that upper bound. Sure, granted. But you don't consider that intelligence can itself have diminishing returns in power/efficacy/whatever you want to call ability to affect the world and overcome other agents. Just because we can make a machine that's say, 100 times smarter than us, doesn't mean it will be 100 times more powerful, or even 10 times more.
(Do I need to mention how plenty of people die to organisms with rather minuscule brains?)
There's an assumption in your arguments I'd like to point to: that any barrier we can put up against a machine intelligence will always have a way of being overcome through sufficient intelligence. That a being can always "think a way around it" if only it's smart enough. We can't see any way around the problem? Well, then we're just not smart enough, but a way has to be there, waiting for a smart enough agent to find it.
Note that this is an assumption: that such a way around must always exist. That there is no problem that intelligence cannot overcome, if only an entity has enough of it.
I challenge this assumption, and with it, the possibility of "superintelligence" as you seem to define it. I argue that it probably isn't possible to build an AI with sufficient intelligence to have the kind of invincibility you posit, not — as you seem to be interpreting the critics — because we cannot make something much smarter than us, but because however smarter than us it is, will not be sufficient. It doesn't matter if it's a thousand times smarter than a human being, a million times, a billion times smarter; no amount of intelligence will ever give an entity the sort of invincibility and omni-competence you hold as a precondition for being a "superintelligence."
Like Shrike said, "superintelligence" isn't real because intelligence does not work that way.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
16d ago
But between him and moldbug putting out "okay, newage rightwing, sometimes the system is actually pretty good, we just need to change who the system caters to" posts, I've noticed my growing confusion on what they actually wanted with the change of the guard.
Without getting into my whole long analysis/rant about Yarvin's thought and political project (and my many disagreements with it), it seems to me that it was always about an internal turnover within the "Brahmin"/"Elf" ruling caste, away from quasi-religious "Puritan" Mayflower descendants trying to "uplift" the chuds and towards people like, well, himself; away from promoting ideology and toward efficient technocracy a la "Fnargl."
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
27d ago
I'd like to thank you for this post, because it very much sums up neatly a lot of my own disagreements with the sort of "Dissident Right" thinkers you mention. (I also thought of that same Sargon video you linked when I was reading it.)
(It also helped clarify, by showing points of agreement, where both of my differences with you, and those with Hlynka, lie.)
I hate this attitude to politics (as I have written elsewhere on the web many times). It treats it like modern professional sports, where you pick your "team," and all that you care about is how often your team "wins." It treats "[insert party here] wins elections" as a terminal goal, rather than an instrumental goal.
I do not care that the Republican party would "maintaining equal winning chances" if it has to move leftward to do so. Because what I care about is where we are (and which way we are moving) on the political spectrum. I care about "my party winning" as an instrumental goal, as a means to that end.
"The entire political spectrum moving left" is a long-term loss for the right, regardless of whether or not some body called the "Republican party" wins or loses elections.
More options
Context Copy link