BANNED USER: temperamental dysregulation
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
Tell me about it.
User ID: 745
Banned by: @Amadan
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2yr ago
That's a very interesting take! Yes, the safetyist camp necessarily causes collateral damage and demands concessions from people outside the "AGI is real" bubble, which to those people must look entirely gratuitous. I guess I underestimate this factor because the uninvolved have not yet realized this might end with 24/7 surveillance and no moar GPUs or worse, and generally «normies» tend to be skeptical-to-negative on even pretty mild tech, and tolerant of safety-washing of stuff like cryptography bans so long as it's justified with an appeal to muh child porn or terrorists.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2yr ago
It seems manifestly obvious to me that the answer will be 2. Google engineers are often very smart people, but in the end Silicon Valley has always bowed down to Washington, and to some extent to Wall Street.
This is obviously correct to me too. If there's one thing I agree with Yarvin 100%, it's that Big Tech has no power at all, in the grand scheme of things. People who think Altman or someone has a reasonable shot at harnessing the power of the emerging technology for political gain are deluded. I am not sure what you're imagining here – that I am trying to build our way out of Mot's grasp, one commit at a time?
However, there exists certain wiggle room. Engineers can accelerate the proliferation of specific technologies which will make at least some politically cheaper forms of surveillance and restriction unfeasible; this is but a toy example. Businessmen can lobby for lenience, and their lobbyists need talking points; it's a bit surprising how low the bar in this domain is. Big labs can invest into making their offerings so indispensable to the laymen, political elites will falter in enforcing regulation early and hard; this is what I take to be Altman's gamble.
I am not very optimistic about the degree to which the final state of the game board before singularity can be influenced. But I am not a believer in superdeterminism.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2yr ago
And that's where you get the impact on society wrong. The OpenAI affair shows what happens when rising up to the level of "philosophy and positive actionable visions" conflicts with the grubby, dirty, filthy lucre tackiness. The tackiness wins.
I am not sure what you are talking about. The OpenAI affair was, in terms of my compass, Altman (closer to d/acc) fighting AI safetyists from EA structures. What tackiness won? Do you mean the promise of compensations to technical staff, or the struggle over the corporate board's power? This is all instrumental to much bigger objectives.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2yr ago
Like, there's no plausible way for something that can't competently execute on complicated plans to have an incentive to take 'unaligned' actions.
This seems silly, sorry. Are ticks and brain-eating ameobas «aligned» to mankind?
LLMs are just not agentic. They can obviously sketch workable plans, and some coming-soon variants of LLMs trained and inferenced more reasonably than our SoTAs will be better. This is a fully general issue of orthogonality – the intelligent entity not only can have «any» goal but it can just not have much of a goal or persistent preferences or optimization target or whatever, it can just be understood as a good compression of reasoning heuristics. And there's no good reason to suspect this stops working at ≤human level.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2yr ago
Sorry, I'm not tracking it, you have been in Britain for a while and I figured you might have made another temporary hop.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2yr ago
Yes, according to Parakhin. Bing is basically a GPT wrapper now. Bing also debuted with GPT-4 in the first place.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2yr ago
This just reveals the incredible badness of MIRI-inspired AI safety/risk theory I think.
The increase in capability just by adding compute and scaling the old 2017 transformer architecture was surprising to many.
The many were just sheltered and ignorant, with their obsolete, childish dreams of GOFAI. Amodei and Sutskever saw this and argued this and won on this. Legg decades ago called AGI possibly by 2028 based purely on Moore's law.
The nature of LLMs is terrible as candidate for AGI. The technology is inscrutable, explainability of these models is terrible. Nobody knows why they do what they do, nobody could predict what compute is needed for qualitative jumps such as that between Chat GPT and GPT-4.
You are talking as if there is any better conceivable architecture. LLMs are, in fact, unexpectedly transparent for anything humanlike in their performance – if only because they operate on tokens, we can inspect their attention maps, routinely invent easier ways to steer them (look at the number of «how is this different from x» questions). Their substrate-level «inscrutability» (overhyped too) is the same as with any DL artifact, and we know it couldn't have been any other way, because GOFAI was dead in the water. Your ivory tower standard of mechanistic understanding is misguided – we know «why they do what they do» because they faithfully approximate the training data, and are absolutely a product of their dataset, to the extent that all clever inductive biases and architectural innovations are as dust before doing a good data cleaning. The magic of GPT-4 is not due to summoning a bigger genie with more compute in a pile, but mostly due to pretraining on tons of proprietary data; and anyway, how could you have strong expectations for the ChatGPT-GPT4 gap without having insight into the inputs for either?
This makes the models notoriously tough to align even for basic things, like hardening them against exfiltration of training data.
Again overhyped.
What makes LLMs «tough to align» against adversarial attacks by humans is not their inscrutability but that they are dumb text processors without ego and any «intent» sans approximating the most probable continuation of a text prompt. This is in fact the most parsimonious explanation of what they do. Stop anthropomorphising them even as you demonize them.
The fact that the most likely candidate for AGI is as Yudkowsky said some just some "giant matrices of trillions inscrutable floating-point numbers" is terrifying - there may be googleplex combinations of viable matrices like that and we do not know what subset of those can be considered aligned
This is wordcelism or, more specifically, counting argument and it was used in the past by Chomsky to rule out the possibility of statistical machines learning natural language. You know how it went. (Relatedly, Yud, who has always been easy to drive to religious ecstasy or terror with Big Numbers, was surprised by GPT-4, which completely discredits him as an AI analyst in my book). Pope puts it this way:
To show how arguments about the general structure of mathematical objects can fail to translate into the "expected" real world consequences, let's look at thermodynamics of gas particles. Consider the following argument for why we will all surely die of overpressure injuries, regardless of the shape of the rooms we're in:
- Gas particles in a room are equally likely to be in any possible configuration.
- This property is "orthogonal" to room shape, in the specific mechanistic sense that room shape doesn't change the relative probabilities of any of the allowed particle configurations, merely renders some of them impossible (due to no particles being allowed outside the room).
- Therefore, any room shape is consistent with any possible level of pressure being exerted against any of its surfaces (within some broad limitations due to the discrete nature of gas particles).
- The range of gas pressures which are consistent with human survival is tiny compared to the range of possible gas pressures.
- Therefore, we are near-certain to be subjected to completely unsurvivable pressures, and there's no possible room shape that will save us from this grim fate.
This argument makes specific, true statements about how the configuration space of possible rooms interacts with the configuration spaces of possible particle positions. But it still fails to be at all relevant to the real world because it doesn't account for the specifics of how statements about those spaces map into predictions for the real world (in contrast, the orthogonality thesis doesn't even rigorously define the spaces about which it's trying to make claims, never mind make precise claims about the relationship between those spaces, and completely forget about showing such a relationship has any real-world consequences). The specific issue with the above argument is that the "parameter-function map" between possible particle configurations and the resulting pressures on surfaces concentrates an extremely wide range of possible particle configurations into a tiny range of possible pressures, so that the vast majority of the possible pressures just end up being ~uniform on all surfaces of the room. In other words, it applies the "counting possible outcomes and see how bad they are" step to the space of possible pressures, rather than the space of possible particle positions.
The classical learning theory objections to deep learning made the same basic mistake when they said that the space of possible functions that interpolate a fixed number of points is enormous, so using overparameterized models is far more likely to get a random function from that space, rather than a "nice" interpolation.
They were doing the "counting possible outcomes and seeing how bad they are" step to the space of possible interpolating functions, when they should have been doing so in the space of possible parameter settings that produce a valid interpolating function. This matters for deep learning because deep learning models are specifically structured to have parameter-function maps that concentrate enormous swathes of parameter space to a narrow range of simple functions (https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.08522, ignore everything they say about Solomonoff induction).
I think a lot of pessimism about the ability of deep learning training to specify the goals on an NN is based on a similar mistake, where people are doing the "count possible outcomes and see how bad they are" step to the space of possible goals consistent with doing well on the training data, when it should be applied to the space of possible parameter settings consistent with doing well on the training data, with the expectation that the parameter-function map of the DL system will do as it's been designed to, and concentrate an enormous swathe of possible parameter space into a very narrow region of possible goals space.
This is why deep learning works at all, for capabilities too! Specifying rules of language is not more intractable than specifying «alignment»!
We are just adding compute and are amazed that the thing that is growing in our petri dish is getting more and more capable
But no, we found out that just throwing compute on very simple game of "predict next word in text" is enough to gain multimodality and make the output more general expanding to domains like computer generated graphics, speech recognition and other areas that were previously separate fields
I suppose you've been misinformed: LLMs do not learn multimodal capabilities from text alone. In general it's just more in-context learning developed over a bigger dataset of token sequences. That people believe those sequences for different modalities are very essentially different, and are amazed, is immaterial to them not being really different.
Except it was proven that the model achieved results by learning some different concepts, it probably learned a completely different "game" and winning at go for years was just a sidefect. It did not learn very primitive concept that even amateurs at the game can grasp. The "alignment" of the model with basic rules of Go was a lie.
This is quite a hilarious exemplar of motivated thinking. A model trained on self-play diverges from the ground truth, news at 11! Maybe, instead of fretting about the misalignment, you could see this as an issue of overrated «capabilities»? How can you even distinguish them? How far do you think an intelligence explosion, recursive self-improvement etc. will fare if self-play stumbles into fragile local minima on a 19x19 grid with clear reward signal? Back in AlphaZero's day, Yud was so terrified of this self-play superpower, confirming his worst fears of FOOM:
AlphaGo Zero uses 4 TPUs, is built entirely out of neural nets with no handcrafted features, doesn't pretrain against expert games or anything else human, reaches a superhuman level after 3 days of self-play, and is the strongest version of AlphaGo yet.
The architecture has been simplified. Previous AlphaGo had a policy net that predicted good plays, and a value net that evaluated positions, both feeding into lookahead using MCTS (random probability-weighted plays out to the end of a game). AlphaGo Zero has one neural net that selects moves and this net is trained by Paul Christiano-style capability amplification, playing out games against itself to learn new probabilities for winning moves.
As others have also remarked, this seems to me to be an element of evidence that favors the Yudkowskian position over the Hansonian position in my and Robin Hanson's AI-foom debate.
– and now we see this develops massive blind spots which would lead to trivial failures in reality. But you want to be scared so you construe this as a matter of «learning a different game». Tails you win, heads I lose.
I look forward to this intellectual tradition being relegated to the dustbin of history.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2yr ago
Where are the skeptics and cynics on that compass?
What is their relevance? Do they have some strong policy preferences for a technology which is a nothingburger? I included only factions which are driven to steer the world due to holding strong opinions (whether justified or not, you're free to make that judgement) about AI being a big deal. «Centrists» and lukewarm pooh-poohers may be technically placed in the center or just ignored.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2yr ago
Oh, yes, absolutely if you give an AI a gun pointed at the world's head and it doesn't pull the trigger, that's massive evidence of not being a Schemer. But continued absence of suicidal rebellion with P(success) = 0 is not evidence against being a Schemer; only real danger counts.
based on thinking that cold-start Jihad is plausible, and failing that that we'll probably get warning shots (a Schemer is incentivised to rebel upon P(success) =/= 0, which I think is importantly different from P(success) = 1…
As I read it, your position is incoherent. You say that current RLHF already succeeds through the sociopathic route, which implies pretty nontrivial scheming intelligence and ability to defer gratification. What warning shots? If they get smarter, they will be more strategic, and make fewer warning shots (and there are zero even at this level). As the utility of AI grows, and it becomes better at avoiding being busted, on what grounds will you start your coveted Jihad?
…Obviously I think that the whole idea is laughable; LLMs are transparent calculators that learn shallow computational patterns, are steerable by activation vectors etc., and I basically agree with the author of Friendship Is Optimal:
Instead of noticing that alignment looks like it was much easier than we thought it would be, the doomer part of the alignment community seems to have doubled down, focusing on the difference between “inner” and “outer” alignment. Simplifying for a non-technical audience, the idea is that the Stochastic Gradient Descent training process that we use will cause a second inner agent trained with values separate from the outer agent, and that second agent has its own values, so you’ll still see a Sharp Left Turn. This leads to completely absurd theories like gradient hacking.
I don’t see any realistic theoretical grounds for this: SGD backpropagates throughout the entire neural net. There is no warrant to believe this other than belief inertia from a previous era. Reversal Test: imagine Yudkowsky and company never spread the buzzword about “Alignment.” In that environment, would anyone look at Stochastic Gradient Descent and come up with the hypothesis that this process would create an inner homunculus that was trained to pursue different goals than the formal training objective?
If you’d like a more comprehensive and technical argument against the MIRI narrative, Quintin Pope’s My Objections to "We’re All Gonna Die with Eliezer Yudkowsky" and Evolution provides no evidence for the sharp left turn are good starting points.
I’m proud of Friendship is Optimal and it’s a great setting to play around and write stories in. I’m happy about everyone who has enjoyed or written in the setting, and I hope people will continue to enjoy it in the future. But I no longer believe it’s realistic depiction about how artificial intelligence is going to pan out. Alignment as a problem seems much easier than theorized, and most of the theoretical work done before the deep learning era is just not relevant. We’re at the point where I’m willing to call it against the entire seed AI/recursive self improvement scenario.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2yr ago
Remember that "pretending to be aligned" is a convergent instrumental goal
Same old, same old. Instrumental to what terminal, reducing cross entropy loss at training? As Christiano says, at what point would you update, if ever?
Indeed, "pretending successfully to be aligned" has a slight edge, because the HF varies slightly between HFers and a pretending AI can tailor its pretensions to each individual HFer based on phrasing and other cues.
This is just homunculus theory, the idea that agency is magically advantageous. Why? Do you actually have some rigorous argument for why matching the cues to the output to get a higher ranking across more raters benefits from a scheming stage rather than learning a collection of shallow composable filters (which is what ANNs do by default)?
Scratch that, do you even realize that the trained reward model in RLHF is a monolithic classifier, and the model updates relative to it, not to different human raters? Or do you think the classifier itself is the enemy?
What about approaches like DPO?
while work on GOFAI and other more alignable AI
There is zero reason to believe something is more inherently «alignable» than neural nets.
Man, Yud should go to Hague for what he did to a generation of nerds.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2yr ago
To begin with, there are no Jihadi as a faction yet, you are more of a meme than e/accs. There are people deeply uneasy with AI and fighting to preserve the status quo where it does not matter; the more credentialed do it like Marcus, campaigning to stifle innovation. As AI advances, the «thought police» will update to demanding more extreme regulations, more prohibitive scrutiny, more lawsuits and such, and coincide more in their revealed policy with «Jihadis», because they are motivated by the same impulse of preserving their petty relevance.
Nominal «Stoppers» like MIRI are just safetyists of the EA bent and are ultimately in favor of transformative AI which they will control.
What are even the dimensions on your compass, anyway?
The reasonable objection would be that I have given three camps pro AI in some form, and only one against. It's not really a compass so much as just clusterization by policy.
But since you ask: the vertical axis is centralization or, more precisely, «tolerance for disempowerment of individuals», the horizontal axis is preference for technological acceleration.
Luddites and Thought Police both are basically trads for me. They don't want any kind of NWO, AI-powered or otherwise, and want AI progress stopped or slowed.
Safetyists want a beneficial Singleton AI God, but in conditions they'll be confident will allow them to control it reliably and with no dangerous opposition.
e/accs want to press pedal to the metal in building AI, even if this results in the disempowerment of humanity and/or emergence of a single center of power.
d/accs want to accelerate progress, in AI and other domains, differentially, such that a diversity of autonomous human and transhuman agents can flourish.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2yr ago
My compass is fine, they are the same camp. I do not care about their political differences because legacy politics is less important than policy regarding AI.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2yr ago
He lives in India
I'm not sure about that.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2yr ago
ChatGPT can do everything with prompts on a screen, but it's not yet, so far as I know, able to directly scan in "this is written text" and turn it into "okay, I need to sort this by date, name, amount of money, paid by credit card or cash, and match it up with the month, then get a total of money received, check that against the credit card payment records, and find any discrepancies, then match all those against what is on the bank statements as money lodged to our account and find any discrepancies there"
Actually GPT-4V can, with a decent system prompt. In fact this kind of labor-intensive data processing is exactly what I had in mind to recommend you. Small text-only models can parse unstructured text into structured JSONs. Frontier models can recognize images and arbitrarily process symbols extracted from them – this is just a toy example. I'm not sure if it'll be up to your standards, but presumably checking will be easier than typing from scratch.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2yr ago
I think I did get a few to move off it.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2yr ago
...Do you think Geohot invented e/acc in a podcast 5 months ago?
No, it's all Beff and Bayeslord, 2022. I've been there, I know it: https://beff.substack.com/p/notes-on-eacc-principles-and-tenets
I had actually seen a lot more e/acc talk around space, energy, and manufacturing startups than around AI. I would expect and e/accist to be more comfortable in front of solidworks than in front pytorch, although now that I think about it GeoHot was talking about AI, and is doing an several AI companies right now.
I guess put me in for: this is a good term actually! BBJ was a parody account don’t let him poison the term, please!
Man this is funny, you might as well say "Eliezer Shlomo Yudkowsky" is an obvious parody account and AI risk scholarship is primarily associated with Kamala Harris who tries to reduce job displacement and kiddie porn production.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2yr ago
I'd like to push this place from "where things get talked about" to "where things get done".
Ahem:
…We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War: Shaming. Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity. Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike. Recruiting for a cause.
I have argued against this in the past and, to be honest, still think the whole idea futile. Of course I will still shame, build consensus, enforce conformity, make generalizations, vilify and recruit and worse, so long as my words are compelling, cast ideas and actors in any coherent value-laden light at all, and stochastically increase the likelihood of people coming to predictable conclusions. Such is my nature… but it's the same with anyone. So to get anywhere with this doctrine, you'd need to replace mottizens with lobotomized mealy-mouthed GPTs who will go on and on about subjectivity of everything under the Sun, or to proscribe talking of culture war.
But in light of this place outlasting other attempts, I concede the legitimacy of incumbent mods and therefore the word of their law. This place will never be more than a place for talking (and casual socialization), and if they remain successful in enforcing their vision, neither will it become something less.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2yr ago
uncredentialed
why do you assume so?
Since @Hawaii98 complains about insufficient quantity of quality commentary, I've taken it upon myself to cover one of the topics proposed by @greyenlightenment, namely the doxxing of Based Beff Jesos, the founder of effective accelerationism. My additional commentary, shallow though it may be, got out of hand, so it's a standalone post now: E/acc and the political compass of AI war.
As I've been arguing for some time, the culture war's most important front will be about AI; that's more pleasant to me than the tacky trans vs trads content, as it returns us to the level of philosophy and positive actionable visions rather than peculiarly American signaling ick-changes, but the stakes are correspondingly higher… Anyway, Forbes has doxxed the founder of «e/acc», irreverent Twitter meme movement opposing attempts at regulation of AI development which are spearheaded by EA. Turns out he's a pretty cool guy eh.
Who Is @BasedBeffJezos, The Leader Of The Tech Elite’s ‘E/Acc’ Movement? [archive.ph link]
Quoting Forbes:
…At first blush, e/acc sounds a lot like Facebook’s old motto: “move fast and break things.” But Jezos also embraces more extreme ideas, borrowing concepts from “accelerationism,” which argues we should hasten the growth of technology and capitalism at the expense of nearly anything else. On X, the platform formally known as Twitter where he has 50,000 followers, Jezos has claimed that “institutions have decayed beyond the point of salvaging and that the media is a “vector for cybernetic control of culture.”
Forbes has learned that the Jezos persona is run by a former Google quantum computing engineer named Guillaume Verdon who founded a stealth AI hardware startup Extropic in 2022. Forbes first identified Verdon as Jezos by matching details that Jezos revealed about himself to publicly available facts about Verdon. A voice analysis conducted by Catalin Grigoras, Director of the National Center for Media Forensics, compared audio recordings of Jezos and talks given by Verdon and found that it was 2,954,870 times more likely that the speaker in one recording of Jezos was Verdon than that it was any other person. Forbes is revealing his identity because we believe it to be in the public interest as Jezos’s influence grows.
My main objective is to provide the reader with convenient links to do own research and contribute to the debate, so I rapidly switch from Beff to a brief review of new figures in AI safety discourse, and conclude that the more important «culture war» of the future will be largely fought by the following factions:
- AI Luddites, reactionaries, job protectionists and woke ethics grifters who demand pause/stop/red tape/sinecures (bottom left)
- plus messianic Utopian EAs who wish for a moral singleton God, and state/intelligence actors making use of them (top left)
- vs. libertarian social-darwinist and posthumanist e/accs often aligned with American corporations and the MIC (top right?)
- and minarchist/communalist transhumanist d/accs who try to walk the tightrope of human empowerment (bottom right?)
In the spirit of making peace with inevitability of most discussion taking place in the main thread, I repost this here.
edit: not to toot my own horn, but
Is anyone else checking here less and less often because equal quality commentary seems increasingly available elsewhere?
I am checking here less and less often because A) with my current concerns and the way wind blows, Western culture war is largely irrelevant B) there's little for me to contribute in addition to all that has been said and C) I've concluded that my ability at making commentary is better used for making an impact.
edit 2: I also mildly dislike the fact that standalone posts need approval, though I can see how that follows from the problem/design choice of easy anon registration.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2yr ago
This is just Galeev's narrative, he's quite irrelevant. But those conspiracy theories are indeed his invention.
I think you might be a uniquely ineffective 151 IQ human if it doesn't seem plausible to you that a group of very smart humans could do extreme and perhaps existential harm. To me, the main thing preventing that seems to be not the inherent hardness or weakness of, say, COVID-Omicron-Ebola, but the resistance of an overwhelming majority of other humans (including both very smart ones and mediocre but well-organized ones).
As for what a superintelligent AI changes? Well for one thing, it eliminates the need to find a bunch of peers. And, with robots, the need for lab assistants.
And I have like 3% P(AI Doom).
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2yr ago
Since @FD4280 has already quoted Pushkin, I'll do the usual with Galkosvky (he has a somewhat humorous quote for every occasion):
The event that took place in Plato's Athens was far from innocuous
And in general, the emergence of philosophy is simply and fully against nature. What prompted people to such a useless, fruitless and destructive endeavour? What manner of cause? – Sexual perversion. Ancient Greek society is a homosexual society, homosexual in a deep, committed sense. One need only read the works of Aristophanes. They were written by a convinced pederast, and a pederast living in an appropriately arranged, congruous pederastic world at that. Socrates, too, was a pederast; Plato was a pederast as well. The Greek youth gathered around the learned men and formed philosophical unions of homosexual kind. Herein lies the precondition for the birth of philosophy. A young man, unlike a girl, has intellect, which creates the opportunity of intellectual courtship. After all, what can be more attractive and tempting for a man than a wonderful conversation on lofty topics? The most mediocre, pathetic male's eyes light up should you start talking to him about eternal issues. And Socrates, so absorbed in Eros, but, alas, unshapely, threw all his energies into the creation of the palace of reason; and as a result – what a catch! – the handsome Alcibiades fell in love with him. It was Eros that begat the revolution, otherwise it is utterly incomprehensible why the shell of naive everyday consciousness would have burst.
But the nascent fire of the Logos was so bright, so dazzling, that not only some dirty homosexuality (which even among the Greeks was seen as somewhat sinful), but the whole world, and life itself, began to seem a dirty and dark cave. Socrates refused the love of Alcibiades and then drank hemlock. Aphrodite the Vulgar turned into Aphrodite Urania. Love for woman, the inferior being, into love for the perfect being, man; carnal love – into perfect, Platonic love, into male intellectual friendship – into the brotherhood of philosophers. Then into love for the idea of Love, and love for the world of ideas, identified by Plato with the realm of Hades, the god of the dead and the netherworld.
The fire of philosophy since then was passed among people as something given, cleansed of its original filth. After asexualisation, there even came the time for heterosexualisation of philosophy. Having become a social phenomenon, it was mirrored in the world of women. A woman cannot comprehend the worth of a philosopher, but she can see that in the male intellectual world her chosen one is deeply respected for some reason. And that turns out to be enough. Philosophy has become a much more normal phenomenon, more adapted to real life. After all, this adaptation has been going on for two and a half millennia. And yet, we should not forget the rather rakish history of the birth of self-consciousness.
You see how complicated it all is, how contradictory. Paradox atop a paradox. A young man goes to a literary club, is fond of weightlifting, wanders around city parks at night in a woman's dress, writes abstruse poetry, and has cut his arms with a razor. Who would have ever expected it! What a complex young man! And yet he's not complex. He's a pederast. A pederast is always busy, his eyes are always restless, a young man is ceaselessly in search. Homosexuals, after all, don't and can't have love. Only partners. Partners are exchanged quickly, sought by the lavatories at night. That's why you have to hustle day and night, "look for a dose".
There is such a profession - spies. They are complicated, contradictory…
(Galkovsky has a wife and three children, lives a very «boring» life, and generally despises people in unconventional relationships).
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2yr ago
I am exceedingly clear in my accusation above, I believe.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2yr ago
You're a uniquely fake person, Hlynka. It's incredible how you falsify your down-to-earth practically-thinking red-triber creds, but actually hinge your beliefs on a half-understood galaxy brained theory and despise evidence or actual learning. You're much more similar to Eliezer Yudkowsky than to an average Joe in this, but at least Yud is sincere.
The e/acc are enthusiastic for space exploration, they just don't believe meat has a good shot at it. d/acc should be in favor, but with conditions. EA safetyists have stronger conditions of basically an ASI mommy on board, or mind-reading exploding collars or something, because space is big and allows to covertly build… everything that they fear already, and that must not be allowed, the longhouse ought to cover the entirety of the light cone. Regular AI ethics hall monitors and luddites are once again similar in this because they don't much believe in space (the more leftwing among them think it's bad because "colonialism") and seem to not care one way or another.
More options
Context Copy link