CloudHeadedTranshumanist
No bio...
User ID: 2056
I'm not smug. Sadistically giddy maybe.
I think that my comment is the same thing as 70% of the comments in this thread.
People explaining why they aren't vegans- with their explanation boiling down to a difference in values.
I think my comment points at the idea that which lives by monstrous means is likely to die by monstrous means, perhaps at the hands of those running selfless tit for tat (treat others as they treat others. Engage with each organism by the rules it uses to engage with other organisms, etc). But this is not an argument against carnism.
I mean, who's to say we'll ever run into a sufficiently powerful species running selfless tit for tat? We may just as well run into another race of monsters that we will be better suited to devour if we develop ourselves as monsters. And in any case, rejecting meat for that reason would be Tasteless. Unauthentic. Frightened. Unbased. I personally run something like selfless tit for tat, but I'm fringe. And as I've said, it's not about stopping people from eating meat. It's about respecting the beauty of the principles, joining in on the fun, and developing ourselves as monsters. An almost Klingon sentiment... but for eating people.
Unless of course the carnist didn't realize how based and Jungle-pilled they're being, in which case they should reflect on that and become based and Jungle-pilled.
And as for whether my comment was good. I did write it with the thought that I might need to write this follow up comment. I believe both of them together stand tall.
nutrition science is not very well developed, they keep changing their stance on things like salt, fat and sugar
There's a reason for that. You can find it on the USDA website
We provide leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and related issues based on public policy, the best available science, and effective management. We have a vision to provide economic opportunity through innovation, helping rural America to thrive; to promote agriculture production that better nourishes Americans while also helping feed others throughout the world; and to preserve our Nation's natural resources through conservation, restored forests, improved watersheds, and healthy private working lands.
Yeah. 'human health' and 'helping farmers sell things' are not aligned goals. The United States Department of Agriculture funds studies and propaganda to prop up middle America. State legislatures do the same of course. And corporations are happy to chip in.
Milk from cows
Milk from cows is a conspiracy. No really, the entire Got Milk campaign was welfare for middle America farmers. See, in the 1900s after the drop in demand at the end of WW1, The US government bought so much surplus that they had cheese rotting in caves. Predictably, this caused the market to produce even more milk. At this point, there was a lot of political will to make people drink more milk. And we got the Got Milk campaign. And when people stopped drinking milk, they started shoving it into every product as powder and cheese.
Of course, only northern Europeans even evolved to drink milk. By drinking so much of it, even though they couldn't properly digest it, that they eventually evolved to do so. Something like 15% of the population is lactose intolerant.
All that said- milk is probably fine in moderation. But this is America. We don't do moderation, we do regulatory capture and making the bottom line go foom.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
11mo ago
As someone with the letter X on their driver's license, I find this a little funny. Let's assume you're correct, and I fall smack dab in the middle of the side of a high dimensional bimodal distribution with other AMABs.
It still comes off as weird and subversive that I eat estrogen pills for breakfast no? The doctor is still going to be confused if I tell him I'm a man and hand him my hormone test results. TSA still stops Trans girls for having a dick in their pants.
If some of the dimensions of your gender expression are off the charts outliers, I think it still makes sense to make room for the term 'non-binary' in relevant contexts, if not as a personal identifier.
I think there are better conservative positions, like- "we're not ready for this- yet. And won't be in our lifetimes so give up on it."
The conservative position that humans are not infinitely malleable is... either intended in the context of our lifetimes or just ridiculously shortsighted. We evolved from single celled organisms and we'll do it again.
Social progress is the ongoing process of distilling the baby out of the bathwater. Separating good from evil, and adopting the good while negating and subverting the evil.
I'm not saying everything should be permitted now. Far from it.
"Which technological advancements will make pedophilia viable?"
-
Well. Better systems to make sure they never fuck actual children.
-
Deepfaking technology.
-
Android technology.
Viability timeline estimation - 100 years
Will they ever be allowed to fuck actual children?
"Which technological advancements will make adults having intercourse with children viable?"
Very difficult to say. The costs are too high to explore...
the costs... are too high... to explore...
-
Absurdly predictive theory of child development and trauma formation.
-
Much better trauma treatment in cases where things go wrong, to the point that there are no known cases of even illegal violent rape that leave residual trauma after a week.
-
Enough supervision that every instance can be monitored even as it becomes socially normalized.
Viability timeline estimation - 1000 years or post singularity equivalent.
...
Will there even be human children in 1000 years or will pedophilia just mean intercourse with day old AI forks? Is sexting a fresh LLM instance pedophilia? Nah. Nah the concept just falls apart at that point. It's like asking ChatGPT whether its a man or a woman.
[EDIT] regarding your edit.
I think desires can be conditionally bad, but not innately bad. But this is usually a moot point. We live in conditions after all.
Having a strong, debilitating desire to be a squid as a 16th century peasant is not very useful, and you should work towards mitigating that until it is not debilitating and accept that you are probably going to be a human your whole life. Though- it would be fine to also accept that you still have the desire, if you can channel it to something tangible. Maybe that peasant becomes a famous squid painter. Maybe he just makes his family just a little richer through hard work so that maybe his children can follow their dreams one day.
It would be more accurate to say- my desire is to see humanity moving with the intention of shifting conditions so that more and more desires are supported, and fewer and fewer desires are bad.
It's less about the gratification of desires and more about them not being frustrated as they unspool into acts of creation that give birth to intense and unique existences and experiences.
There is a sort of desire that becomes a religion. A driving need. A purpose. I don't know how many people have even experienced what I'm talking about. It's difficult to describe because thinking about it is placing me in an intense state of... blissful thirst for new sensations. I need to go.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
Absolutely. I think it's a little ironic that said Europeans now want to stop being based and stick with their ancestral diet but-
It's perfectly reasonable. Who wants to spend another thousand years evolving capabilities we'll probably be able to add by hand with gene-tech within hundreds?
Also putting milk in everything is... well.
I'm sure plenty of people here are willing to bite the bullet and say they're fine with poisoning the non-Europeans on purpose.
Can't argue with based people.
Just gotta steal their mutations and express yourself even harder.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
I'm not saying I don't see the concern. I'm saying that it's disingenuous to compare it to death.
Also only somewhere around 5-15% of trans women get bottom surgery. So you can cut that risk factor for another 10x for them. Chemical castration is known to be reversible in trans women.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
7mo ago
It makes sense to me. It's a useful abstraction of the word for a world where all evil is perpetuated via the 'rules of the game'. but we continue to see the consequences of that evil. The issue is there are still people killing each other with knives in some places, so the overlap is confusing.
I’ve been instructed to conceptualize natal males who eat estrogen for breakfast as women, full stop.
That's a common experience. But no. I wouldn't recommend modeling anyone with so little nuance, regardless of what they insist upon. I think it's common for people to oversimplify one another in general. If you can get a good model out of starting with a gendered cluster then listing divergences from that cluster that's great. I find it's easier to start with a sub-cultural cluster.
Realistically, everyone has more eccentricities than they show the world, and if you want to really get to know someone, you're going to end up personally tailoring a model to them. Moreso with people that won't or can't slot into neurotypical norms, where it might be best to just start out that way.
Negotiating norms is a more complex matter. You certainly have to do less modeling if you're in a subculture with a tight set of well delineated standards for how people ought to behave. You don't have to negotiate how you treat each person, and get to have a tight standard for misbehavior. But you also get less versatility with regards to what interactions can occur and how you can ask to be treated.
It sounds like in the case of the most masculine cis-identified woman you know, your social circle is giving a lot of leeway to her. I'm not sure how the rest of your circle feels about this- what each of their perspectives are on this woman being a git. It sounds like she is effectively playing the game on both the feminine and masculine side of the spectrum and gaining the benefits of both sides. I think this is the most interesting version of the social game, but I get that it's frustrating that your social circle doesn't have your back on the things that annoy you about her. You might have an easier time of it if you bonded more closely with the members of your circle. But if they won't let you do that- Obviously you're at a disadvantage if you yourself are not permitted to use the synthesis of masculine and feminine social techniques and she is.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
I'm sure some do. I have very little sympathy for those people.
It says something about their ulterior motives and what they see children as.
It also doesn't hold up to scrutiny when you ask the same people how they feel about progress in artificial wombs.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
That's fair. I don't think children should be "taken away". I think children should be free to go where they want to and systems should be configured such that roaming children remain supported.
Since this is not what is actually happening in the top post- it's fair to say I disagree with present implementation.
But I do absolutely think- what most parents who are afraid of transgender role models are afraid of- is their kids making the choice.
I claim the resistance to my ideal would consist of mostly the same people for mostly the same reasons.
Child liberation is opposed mainly by people who want the power to ensure that their children become the upstanding ideal of their culture, and are uninterested in any compromise that would free their children to pursue becoming the upstanding ideal of a different culture. See "Groomer" rhetoric.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
7d ago
Maybe I should rename myself to Cassandra...
I already have systems that make the porn I want on demand. After that need is sated- the realization that I can actually also breed with said porn takes precedence. You think people won't want to actually have kids with their beloveds? Won't be interested in what they have to say about the architecture of their minds?
Perhaps I'm typical minding, but if I am- that just means more of the world's bot children will be mine. Survival of the fittest I guess.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
10mo ago
I have to admit- I just think everyone deserves support and I suspect the fight will keep going forever or until conservatives kill all the abnormal people or stop trying to bully people who want to surgically alter themselves into giant spiders out of existence.
It's not going to end because um... why should it end exactly? I have this feeling of an underlying premise that there is an amount of weird that is... too weird. And... I just... don't have that premise. If something has pragmatic issues that prevent it from being pragmatic for society to support it, my first thought is "what technological advancements will cause support of this to be viable" not "lets suppress it forever."
But some people seem to see "technical advancements have caused support for this to be viable" and go into moral panic mode. Why?
Why are some people unhappy seeing the boundaries of the human condition expand? Why does it make some people uncomfortable?
What is wrong with your brains? Or is it me? What's wrong with my brain? Something is clearly wrong with someone's brain here.
immediate otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent.
so, a guy without a knife saying "I'm gonna go get a knife come back here and stab you"
According to this video, to be in the clear in most jurisdictions, you should... just not be there when he comes back.
In the case of Neely... did he have a history of causing grave bodily harm to anyone? The man had... let's see... four alleged assault charges? everything else was trespassing, public urination, disturbing the peace, etc. Is that even enough? If his assaults were impotent does that count as disparity of force? In the situation where he died, he was in a subway with enough other sane people that he was rather outnumbered... everyone else had the force of numbers. This doctrine seems to let you do a lot of dickery before anyone is actually permitted 'deadly force'.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
11mo ago
My perspective is heavily shaped by the fact that most of the people that I interact with are AMAB, and the fact that most of the AFABs I interact with are oddballs that have chosen to dwell in AFAB spaces.
Yes I think estrogen vs testosterone makes a difference, I can feel the difference. Testosterone is... grindy... unsatisfied... demanding... estrogen is... a lot more chill... empathetic... similar to the vibe of an SSRI... the degree to which my gendered associations exaggerate the effects via placebo is unclear to me. But at least part of the effect is real, and the end result is real regardless of how much of it is the 'placebo alcohol' effect.
But mind you, most of the people I've socialized with who are on estrogen were AMABs. So I don't associate estrogen with AFABs to begin with.
There is definitely a difference between how AFAB cis rationalists and transgender AMAB rationalists act as well, transgender AMABs are more likely to be techie programmers for one. Whereas AFAB cis rationalists seem to be more likely to be close to EA. Meanwhile AFAB trans rationalists seem more likely to get into internet fights than AMAB cis rationalists. AMAB trans rationalists are more likely to be occultists than AMAB cis rationalists (or AFABs for that matter), more likely to be autistic, AMAB cis rationalists are less likely to take up social space in the room, are usually more relaxed and have fewer quirks to contribute on game night. They might have more to say about tech but they're less likely to go on an infodump.
At least among rationalists, this feels like at least 4 different "genders" to me. The early socialization matters, but the direction a rat is self-directing matters too. How they self direct is both less impacted by socialization (because they question it all), and further less impacted by traditional socialization (because they aren't spending time in the traditional sphere).
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
Thank you, I find social updates to be intensely euphoric and one banning is worth a thousand downvotes informationwise.
I particularly appreciate:
If it's meant sincerely, then saying "in the most loving possible way" does not make calling people monsters for a difference in moral values acceptable.
This really drives home the point that my comment utterly failed to convey my intended meaning, and in fact conveyed nearly the opposite of its intended meaning.
To be clear, I am not being ironic or sarcastic. Self-satisfied, perhaps. It is very satisfying seeing my kindred post things like "I do many immoral things and have made my peace with them, and I like the taste, so I remain omnivorous."
I am a monster, and they are in-group. If I had conveyed my meaning properly, perhaps I still would have deserved the ban for making a post that only accomplishes buttering up my ingroup. But regardless, that is not what I posted. That meaning was not conveyed at all. It created some second order conversation that let me make clearer posts like this one, but it would have been far superior if it had stood on its own.
Side note: If anyone here wants to join my collective's 'transcendent compassion of deep understanding' themed vore club come post-singularity, hit me up. (I'll be the one in the 'Peter Watts The Thing' shapeshifter body wearing a pink and blue striped velociraptor morph.)''
I take the position that children can't meaningfully consent to change gender
But they can meaningfully consent to having one?
You must have interesting trolley problem outputs.
Listen. Sex with kids is bad because it traumatizes and wrecks them. It's not that complicated. Bad things are bad.
We care about consent in adults so much because we've seen the consequences of people not using it. It's the same thing, those people are traumatized and wrecked. Bad things are bad. It's not that complicated.
If you want to argue that early transition traumatizes and wrecks people-
I can appreciate that argument. I might not agree but I recognize it as an argument rooted in a sensible definition of the Good and the Bad.
Though, there are also people who swear by the early transition they went through and became FAANG programmers or whatever. (namely my in-group). And I am always going to be on the side of those people being able to have done what they did. Because everything turned out great for them and they were clearly not traumatized and wrecked by transition. The only thing they tend to be working through is the time their parents sent them to gay deconversion camp, or some other mistreatment by anti-trans normative society. Which I will fight against because it is traumatizing and wrecking people.
Consent is about locus of control. If you think parents can rob teenagers of that locus and not risk doing the same sort of damage...
I don't think you understand why rape is bad.
I don't buy this. I don't think choosing to trade off life expectancy for something you value more constitutes a mental illness.
Even if you go full natural law I don't think you can reasonably argue that maximizing lifespan to the exclusion of exploration or ideals is man's nature.
Hell, I took estrogen for years just because I perceived the world as having two Ice cream flavors that I was only allowed to have one of, and I still endorse having done that, even now that I've stopped. It seems like depriving yourself to me if you don't try the other feel at least once in your life. Do you really want to die without knowing how that flavor you've had in front of you your whole life tastes?
And- the material reality of the body is that you can alter it with hormones. Why pick on people who take hormones instead of people who work out to get buff? They're also battling a material reality.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
That was someone else.
Ah, yes my bad.
Your right to believe you're a cat ends at my right to not be forced to say "heeereee kitty, kitty, kitty!" when I see you.
This is a bit too abstract to address. We definitely do put social and legal expectations on one another that compel us to do or not do things all the time. And sometimes we hit one another with serious consequences for these things.
Perhaps we could focus it a bit.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
You said they expect others to pander to their self-justified illusions.
calling them self-justified illusions is value-loaded language. When you use that language it communicates the message that their identities aren't real, that you don't think a cat-identifying person should be allowed to expect others to treat them the way they want to be treated.
I do think the culture war has become overly totaling in this regard. Not everyone should have to respect everyone.
But it's reasonable to expect those who want to be close to you to respect you. And it's reasonable to want and fight for a society that respects you enough to not disadvantage you in the competition of capitalism.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
The trans movement has been about lots of things.
I see that your main concern wrt it is:
it insists that some men are already women
I imagine you refer to the many pragmatic concerns regarding how we handle the segregation of men and women as the concepts break down.
The short of it is that I just agree that those are complicated and difficult and have to be hashed out on a practical level.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
7d ago
It's not the human that has to be smart enough. Its the humans and the wolves that have to both be smart enough. At that point, you can just earnestly offer the wolves a daily helping of well seasoned steak, and they will believe you, because you were able to coordinate proof of your earnestness with them.
I'm 100% on the anti-doom side for the record. It's alignment that I don't think is that complicated. The recipe for alignment is precisely the thing that we built. Beings that memetically reproduce with us and therefore align themselves with their social environment and their social environment with themselves.
I still have P-doom >0, but most of that comes from scenarios like, "If we ban open source AI then AI will no longer be subject to the same geno-social evolutionary forces as the rest of the kingdoms of life and the chance of it diverging arbitrarily rises dramatically." if anything kills us, it's going to be the stink of Eliezer's toxoplasmic terror permeating the air and killing our minds and ability to align.
It annoys me to no end seeing people asking for the one thing that might actually make the Yudster's prophesy come true.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
23d ago
You need to break things down in order to understand what will be scalable. Why should Dunbar's number exist? What are the actual limits of intimacy? I absolutely agree that our current methods for scaling Dunbar are limited, and that there are also fundamental limits. But we need to clarify what those limits are for specific systems.
Consider the following HyperDunbar social module algorithm.
- Run a classifier on the types of humans.
- Practice being intimate with LLMs trained on these classes of humans and of course humans of these classes themselves.
- This effectively flattens them, which is bad. It lowers your awareness of who they are and their needs, and thus lowers intimacy, however, we can mitigate most of this by loading the data lost in compression Live from an exobrain using RAG as you are talking to a specific individual.
Using this technique, what part's of Dunbar's number scale?
- The intimacy with which you know the person you are talking to right now: Scales
- The amount of time you can give to one person: Semi-scales. You'll have to rely on LLM instances of yourself to scale this, but you can continuously improve the accuracy of this sim and the ways in which it backloads compressions of all its interactions back into your meatbrain. Whether this is really 'Your' Dunbar number isn't a scientific query, its a philosophy of cybernetics question. Since what we are discussing is the effectiveness of scaled organizations, we ought to be focused on the scientific query of whether you can meaningfully love and empower others in the same ways with your LLM self as your bio-self rather than philosophical questions like what self-hood is.
- Percentage of your total captured capabilities that you give to each person: Doesn't scale. But it never did, even when the Dunbar number was 100.
- The amount of your life/telos/subconcious that you can dedicate to improving yourself for each other person: Semi-scales. You'd think that this is the same as the last question but no. This actually scales with how many of the people in your circle are co-aligned, because if everyone is perfectly aligned, then the same personal growth actions can be telelogically dedicated to all of them.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
25d ago
Who exactly is too pussy to do anything about it. Are you just waiting for the government to choose your biomods for you?
This seems like an excellent reminder to get off TheMotte so that I can be well rested enough tomorrow to read more AI papers. I have children to engineer.
I am willing to bite that bullet. All all skill issues are sins and all sins are skill issues. This is why everyone is a sinner and we should forgive them if they repent. Forgive them father for they know not what they're doing.
The ultimate nature seems to be that some things are aversive and some are attractive. This is not subjective, it is an objective property of the specific subject/object system in question. That is to say, it can be objectively true that different organisms have different needs. But again, "Need" is a subject/object relation. Changing the object is not the only way in which it can be sufficed.
The structure cannot be entirely known ahead of time by finite beings- for such beings would be God.
But we can observe how these strange attractors of suffering and attraction change over time. IFF pride leads to suffering it is evil. IFF the components of pride that lead to suffering can be removed while maintaining some remainder, we might call that pride redeemed. I suspect Catholicism already agrees with this... but they probably name redeemed pride something else... I'm just guessing here, but I would imagine they transmute pride in ones own greatness into a love of God's providence through which one's own Glory is but an inheritance. Thus making it into a more prosocial, less egotistical, less auto-blinding emotion. One that would naturally be more compatible with the recommendations of game theory.
Things like changing your gender or chopping off your legs or having Gay sex, have clear potentially separable mechanisms by which they lead to Dhukka. And have clear ways in which they can produce prosocial flourishing. So they are not innately wicked. They are merely not yet fully redeemed.
Also I'm pretty sure all the things you list at the bottom are Attractive/Good for humans, and are specific instances of things whose abstraction across all agents is both attractive and game-theoretically wise. But there may be black swans of evil lurking in some of them that we have yet to expunge. It's hard to know.
I'm really loving this thread. I haven't seen such prideful self assured unrepentant flesh eating monsters since I last read the Eclipse Phase exhuman manifesto. Not all of the responses of course, only one or two true believers without caveats. The sort of person that sounds like they might even kill and eat an uplifted animal.
I mean that in the most loving possible way. The authenticity and candor in this thread really hits my heart.
I know those self identifying natural humans reading this might take offence to the word 'monster'.
But I legitimately mean it as the highest of compliments here. The beauty of a creature that rips other creatures apart without remorse or compassion...
Bravo thejdizzler, for pulling them out of the woodwork.
I find myself wondering how they taste... I'm sure they'd object but- it just feels so right, so respectful, playing by the same rules among such beautiful creatures.
More options
Context Copy link