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
3yr ago
I don't know about the hype, and my experience with survival horrors is very limited. «It's a good game, anon». The worst part is running in circles, dodging reviving zombies, to assemble a trivial puzzle. If you're a skilled gamer you can complete it in like 5 hours (default ending).
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
Could you comment on the Jerusalem cardinal? Is Peirbattisa Pizzaballa really meaningful in some way, as this source alleges?
The greater replacement
I've completed SIGNALIS the other day, on account of it being an internationally acclaimed piece of contemporary German art (something I've previously claimed barely exists, to my chargin); better yet, consciously Old World art, cleansed of the HFCS-heavy «Universal» American culture to the limit of the authors' ability. It was good. Not exactly my glass-in-podstakannik of tea, and sadly compressing the Old World spirit into a thick layer of totalitarian dread covering all aspects of the «Eusan Nation», but compelling.
This isn't a SIGNALIS review.
The core plot device of the game, and the only one relevant to the post, is Replikas – in a nutshell, synthetic-flesh cyborgs driven by uploads of humans deemed particularly well-suited for some jobs; there exist like a dozen models, from the mass-produced laborer Allzweck-Reparatur-Arbeiter «Ara» to the towering BDSM fetish fuel Führungskommando-Leitenheit «Falke». Replikas, often described in home appliance-like terms, aren't superhuman in any interesting sense, but boast «860% higher survivability» in harsh environments (very economical too: can be repaired on the go with an expanding foam gun), predictable well-documented response to stimuli, and are contrasted to legacy Eusians, «Gestalts», whom they're actively replacing in many niches by the time of the game's events, and seem to dominate politically, as befits their greater utility in the glorious struggle against the accursed Empire.
All of this is to say: I think Peter Zeihan might eat crow with his thesis that Demographics is Destiny and a political entity needs a ton of working age people to be relevant in the foreseeable future (and specifically that China is doomed due to its aging population). The whole demographic discourse as we know it, and the complementary geopolitics angle, will likely be derailed quite rapidly. Not the first time: we've gone through population bomb/Limits To Growth delusion, then through the HBD naivete and expectation for nations to grow which never could. Now, mired in comical obstinance of credentialed prognosticators and noise of «democratic» dissent, having failed to reckon with these mistakes, we're going through the Humans-Need-Not-Apply-Denial stage.
Today, I've thought this while watching the vid about the GR-1 (General Robotics?) device by the Chinese startup Fourier Intelligence. Fourier is mostly known for their rehab equipment designs – lower body exoskeletons for people with mobility problems. They've come a long way since 2015 – it so happens that you can keep adding details to the lower body support system and, well, before you know it… Kinda reminds me of Xiaomi's path from bloated Android ROMs to a general electronics and hardware giant. Anyway, they're but one competitor in a space that is rapidly heating up. There's Tesla Optimus, Boston Dynamics' Atlas (admittedly a hydraulic monstrousity that'd never be economically viable outside of a more realistic Terminator reenactment), and lesser-known DIGIT, 1X Eve, Xiaomi CyberOne and probably others I've missed. All (except Atlas) have similar basic powertrain specs comparable to a short human (and leagues above gimmicky old prototypes like ASIMO), and all rely on the promise of AI to make it more adroit; AI that is plummeting in training costs, even faster than USG can kneecap Chinese semiconductors industry. What's unusual in Fouriers is that they're still putting this in the medical frame: «caregiver for the elderly, therapy assistant». The same message had been pushed by Everyday Robots, a Google X company (recent victim to tech cuts).
Technology has delivered us from the Population Explosion Doom. Tech may well deliver us from the Population Implosion Doom too. But… who «us»?
And speaking of Boston Dynamics, there's this thing, Unitree Go2, shamelessly ripping off MIT's Mini Cheetah (rip real Cheetah) and making it sexy. Hardware-wise it's just a very decent quadruped bot, on the smaller side, can carry 7-8 kg, run at ≤5m/s, do backflips and so on. There are two interesting things about it: cost ($1600-$5000, to wit, 15-45x cheaper than BD Spot) and advertised parallel AI training, no doubt inspired by Tesla's fleet-scale data flywheel idea. Well, that and how fucking well it moves already – watch it to the end. It's not vaporware, you can see people using their previous gen robots, I regularly notice them in ML materials, even Western stuff like this. (For comparison, here's a Tencent equivalent).
Here's the deal. I believe this is it, after so many false starts. Robot adoption will accelerate in an exponential manner from now on; the only realistic constraint on this is investor money remaining mostly tied up in AI/Big Tech, but I do not think this'll be enough. There have been two main mutually reinforcing obstacles: software that's laughably inadequate for the task, and extremely expensive actuators, owing to small-scale production and the whole business being tied in institutional deals (and high-liability crap like power plant inspections). Software side is being improved by AI very quickly. Quadruped movement, even over complex terrain, has been independently solved many times over in the post-COVID era (add this to all examples above); simulation and big data approaches like Unitree's will no doubt iron out remaining kinks. Biped movement is lagging but starts to move onto the same curve. As this happens, demand for components will surge, and their price will crash; first for quadrupeds, then for androids. There really isn't any legitimate reason why crappy robots must cost more like a Tesla than a Macbook; it's just a matter of economies of scale. Remaining issues (chiefly: hands; robot hands still suck) will yield to the usual market magic of finding cheap paths through a multidimensional R&D landscape. Did you know that Facebook has developed and opensourced superhuman, dirt cheap tactile sensors? There are oodles of such stuff, waiting to click together, the puzzle to resolve itself (I love watching it; I've been watching it ever so slowly move toward this stage for all my life; seeking for the same feel in toy short-term puzzles). Unitree Go2 relies on GPT for interpreting commands into motion. Have you known that China has like 4 projects to replicate GPT-4 running in parallel? But GPT-4 is already scientifically obsolete, soon to be commodified. This whole stack, whole paradigm will keep getting cheaper and cheaper faster and faster, standards rising, wires-out prototypes making way for slick productivized consumer goods that are about as useful as their users.
…In conclusion, we might be tempted to think in more detail of current destinations of working-age Chinese, like EU, Canada and the US. I can't recall who said this first, probably some guy on Twitter. The point is sound: a nation (or culture) that is willing to replace its population with immigrants when that's economically advantageous – instead of seriously trying to improve demography – may prove equally willing to replace immigrants with robots and AI next. Sure, robots have the demerit of not being able to vote for more of themselves. On the flipside, they can remain plentiful even as the stream of immigrants dries up with their mothers becoming barren, and the global population pyramid inverts and stands on a sharp point. And Dementia Villages (that the Developed World may largely turn into) will be easy to coax to vote for maintenance of their modest palliative creature comforts and pension/UBI. The Glorious Eusian Nation, this future is not; but one not worth living in, it might well be.
If I am right, the Culture War of the near future will be increasingly influenced by this issue.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
I do know better than this. Also I do not believe he is "baiting" or "provoking" me in the sense of calculatingly putting on an act to elicit emotional reaction, I take his line of action as essentially sincere (if supported by intellectually disingenuous arguments, as I've claimed a few times by now) expression of contempt for my object-level worldview and general epistemology; a feeling I mostly reciprocate. He explicitly threw down the gauntlet with this subthread, but despite that I'd be willing to speak more courteously if there were no affected postures of domination and schooling one's lesser («you have failed the test» etc).
You can see I have the same cringeworthy failure mode, and perhaps it would be fair of me to cut him some slack for this reason. But I am constitutionally not fair-minded enough for that, so it is impossible to continue this in a dignified manner, therefore I'll just block @fuckduck9000 for the time being. (Sorry man, you can take this as a win if you see it this way).
Because of the hostility, him, me, @SecureSignals, @FCfromSSC, @Primaprimaprima are missing an opportunity for more fruitful exploration of the question of our alleged «postmodernism». Hermeneutics of suspicion, critical theory (as a method, not contemporary politicized doctrine) and conflict theory (Scott's simplified reinvention of the latter for grey tribe techies who haven't engaged with prog-coded writing) and other adjacent takes are close to the heart of the Culture War problem. A pity.
Well, if you have understood that I argue [against] 4B, why do you feel the need for this laughable, adolescent attempt at condescension?
I see you just trying to weasel out of this. You are not used to losing the debate so one-sidedly, I figure. Well start getting used to it, you're corncobbing yourself out of pure obstinacy, this really looks very childish.
I also disagree with 1A, on this account 4A does not follow, likewise for 1B. Your entire correlative logic is worthless, it does not correspond to reality, because a) truth on all political matters is abundant and b) content of statements is determined by intention regarding their effects, which instrumentally calls for basically any combination of truths and falsehoods in a given situation for a given speaker. Again, your syllogism gotcha game is eristic, as bad as Greek stuff (and even Greks knew that the proper response to it is silent violence), and your idea of truth is undifferentiated to the point that you don't seem to distinguish Truth from Good. Your epistemology is millenia out of date.
You are lost.
Whatever helps you sleep at night. I do hope you will grow up and learn to read, though.
On one hand, this is a nothingburger. On the other, I might be sheltered but it does surprise me when people in positions of seniority, especially Europeans, reveal such base, zoological prejudice, grounded more in axiomatic disgust than in any moral outrage about population replacement, decay of trust, death of the national Logos or whatever. This was striking in older Germans complaining about Turks – they didn't actually have some abstract case for preserving the racial composition of the Faterland, a sense in which it deserves to exist as a separate project of humanity *; they straight up hated how these foreign people look, smell, move, laugh and decorate their dwellings, on some reptilian brain level. It became much clearer how this nation could take so well to Himmler's gibberish.
But this attitude, unpopular within the ranks of elite human capital, probably explains political woes of the far right somewhat. (And Europeans on average are still much less susceptible to zoological racism than the rest of humanity, WEIRD and all that).
Of course, this is also what is most resistant to indoctrination. Ideological ethno-nationalism is somewhat complex and fragile, it can be discredited and memory-holed through institutional means. Just 'ate 'em can survive with juvenile shitposting alone.
* Of course, people needn't consciously reflect on themselves as members of any such project to carry on its intent, especially if we take the HBD angle seriously. Say, the «project» defended by The Finns would be just their compatriots being maximally Finns. I am partial to project and proposition nations, though.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
This is the experience most ordinary people will have about bitcoin/cryptocurrency, and mostly what it says is true: I haven't the faintest idea how to start tracking these bozos down if I wanted to
No.
This is an experience «ordinary people» have with email and in general with the internet outside of their silos where they're corporate-farmed for data and ad exposure. Your inability to track the sender has everything to do with how internet identities work. Certainly Bitcoin would not be my choice of an extortion channel.
Now, a debate can be had on this topic. Ordinary people certainly don't tend to buy the libertarian ethos of anonymity, and sure would prefer to live in a global village, a Panopticon where special respectable representatives of the Community are tracking down offenders at all times. Basically the «ordinary people» imagine Britain or China as the perfect state when they think about these matters.
In this respect, ordinary American people are quite blessed that they aren't listened to more.
So long as cryptocurrency is associated with criminals and fraud, nobody is going to trust it or touch it with a ten-foot barge pole.
For ordinary Argentinian people, meanwhile, it's the government that's associated with fraud, so they're forced to touch crypto on a nearly daily basis.
The value proposition of crypto isn't that it's «untraceable»: it's «trustless». It's the absence of an arbiter able to make arbitrary exceptions from the rules. Code is law, which is immensely attractive wherever law has failed the people.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
IQ correlates with knowledge too, and the ability to create great art and science. That correlates with Truth in the speaker’s statements.
Narrative-crafting ability (a complex form of deception) is correlated with falsehood in the speaker’s statements.
IQ is correlated with narrative-crafting ability…
The idea of capital-T truth and «signals» that you present here is rife with utterly childish essentialism, the pinnacle of muddled Westoid thinking where Truth and Good are One through Jesus or whatever and is-ought distinction is made up by the Devil.
Either that, or this is utter mockery, I'd be tempted to shank you for such a bad faith tactic (which is why people generally don't attempt this kind of Ancient Greek sophistry in person).
Intelligence is causally related to the ability to discover «truth». It is correlated with success in achieving one's goals, because discovery of truth aids in pursuing one's goals. Particularly verbal intelligence is correlated with success in achieving goals in the verbal domain, obviously. What does it mean for something to be true, though? It means simply that it satisfies some relevant constraints. «Do dark matter axions form a condensate with long-range correlation?» is a question for which, presumably, there exists a True answer. «How do I denigrate white people from the position of authority in particle physics» is a question that has some True answers as well. Her answers to both of those questions, Chanda expresses as academic publications, as befits her prestigious role. It is not clear why she thinks the latter is a question worth asking and being answered. @SecureSignals offers his opinion on that. You bristle at his suggestions. But it must have a True answer regardless.
Lies can be true answers to questions. At the same time, Truth isn't an essence, there are no particles of Truth, no single dimension of Truth-Affinity (no matter how much you want to be on top of it), and meditating on correlations of being able to ascertain Truth will get you only a very small part of the way toward good priors. People's interest in enlightening you is not, in fact, causally related to how much they know.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.
Franklin went quite a bit further.
But not even Franklin would have denied those swarthy beasts their Europeanness. This is not a matter of racialism, this is purely incoherent, they are native to Europe in any sense that Saxons are. And it is incoherent to say "She's a fair skinned Latina, not white. Whiteness is about pure European heritage" when the person in question is of European – including South European – stock.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
The more parsimonious explanation is, I imagine, that no matter how Clint personally feels about it, you cannot do some combinations of castings. Or at least it seems you'd need some special circumstances to pull it off.
Whites can be whoever in principle, but you are de facto not allowed to make an all-white story. And in every story that needs a villain, you risk having your colleagues raise eyebrows if you cast a non-white-cishetero-male actor as the main one. Likewise for stories of successors and dying old heroes. So, these little constraints of politesse add up to an overwhelming message that whites are disproportionately bad and will die out, making way for a vibrant, diverse, talented new humanity. Is this done consciously?
I think it can't not be, these media magicians aren't autistic race-blind engineers, they live their whole lives thinking about implications of artistic messages, that's kind of their job.
But most participants need not bother thinking about this part in particular.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
I think we should retvrn to Ben Franklin's terminology and establish that even Swedes are swarthy, to say nothing of Spaniards, leaving only Anglos as truly white (and truly European, for some extra absurdity).
This will let us move on to more interesting and consequential distinctions.
I've ran pretty much every local model ≤65B parameters there is, except a few weird Chinese projects (speaking of foundations, not interchangeable LLaMA finetunes). It's easy these days. If you're paranoid you can inspect the inference code, it's all in the open. llama.cpp and kobold.cpp are probably the best open-source cross-platform applications to use right now. Closed-source stuff like LM Studio is more user-friendly.
It's vastly worse, except for tasks where GPT-4 is deliberately NERFed (erotic roleplay mainly, which I don't use – never saw the point even with humans – but which is a big reason for the community to keep going, it seems).
There isn't even anything entirely on par with ChatGPT-3.5-turbo. Specialized coding models (WizardCoder) are getting close, little by little. But really, I'm quite disappointed. People don't think bigly, don't read the literature thoroughly enough, don't pool resources with remotely the urgency the situation commands.
Speaking of which, if there's anyone here interested in making a local ChatGPT-tier model available, you can support Eric Hartford's Dolphin project. Falcon-40B finetuned on OpenOrca dataset and some textbooks might well surpass it. I think it should be on the level of $20k total. For now best we can look forwards to is his Llama 13B finetune.
EDIT: it seems it's more like 10k for Falcon but also these guys are already doing Orca 13B replication. I was not sure whether they or Hartford are more trustworthy, at least some guys in this team are okay.
take advantage of LLMs for my personal note taking / organization / todos
I'm sorry to say I am not aware of a good extant system that can leverage local models for work with documents. But it'll be something like this or this. There's a big problem with context length and computational cost. Research suggests much more is possible.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
I think behavioral zombies defined as such are just not interesting in the age of LLMs. It doesn't take much to fool people.
A subtler hypothetical subtype of a behavioral zombie that actually precisely matches a specific person's behavior – that is not pre-recorded but generated by zombie's own causality in the same situations – might be interesting though, and I think amounts to the neurological one, or contains it somehow.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
Why do you need postmodernism for that?
Indeed you don't need the teaching of postmodernism for that, which is why your attempts to tar all skeptics with the same brush as Pomo grifters are disingenuous. Personally I'm more informed by philosophy and methodology of science (e.g. Lakatos. I'll save you the trouble, he's Jewish, as are Popper and Kuhn, but not Feyerabend) than e.g. Derrida. But the basic claim is the same in both.
Why deconstruct what can be refuted?
Have you read her argument? How does one refute that crap? It is free of falsifiable claims that can be traced back to a debate over empirical evidence, it is corrupt down to its very method, like your sloppy «truth particles in the winning side» power-worship epistemology. No, the proper «refutation» is discussion of Prescod-Weinstein's curious ideological commitment to slander white people via disingenuous rhetoric after having made a fortunate scientific career and accrued reputation in their society, and of course one can't avoid noticing both parts of her surname when looking into that. By the way, it does seem like she produces perfectly fine science on less political topics.
There is no rule, no shortcut to «thinking straight». This is what broke rationalism. You cannot codify it such that it won't be gamed, you can only try not to delude yourself or be deluded.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
Grasping at straws.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
I mean, why?
Because bad guys can in fact win. The belief that the opposite is true is what is called «just world theory».
If a religious lunatic…
What an example. You sure are soft on yourself, o truth-lover. Consider a strident democracy lover who organizes an anti-war rally in Berlin 1939. It is not, let's say, as entirely implausible as in the case of a lunatic that he might succeed in changing the course of history. Nevertheless he fails, is arrested and processed. Consider my friends who stayed in Moscow and get summoned to court on this very day for doing the same. The main signal I see here is that they are instrumentally outgunned, perhaps naive, less charitably – deceived by their Western «friends». This isn't much of a blemish on their ideology.
Indeed, I would argue that they constitute its best and truest part. And the worst parts are clearly triumphant, gloating, this is the woke stuff we've written and read so much about.
Bad guys can win, both within and without a movement.
You're switching between meanings of deconstruct.
You are. This is the canonical idea of deconstruction (or perhaps better said epistemological break), the motte of it, what I practice, what science practices, the entirely valid practice of skepticism about widely held beliefs/metaphysics/epistemologies/ontologies that you condemn people for using: the tough question of whether we actually know what we think we know, whether our method for ascertaining truths is good enough, and whether the apparent consensus of our esteemed experts is organic, genuine and best-possible attempt at parsing all available evidence.
Pomo garbage in the style of «Making Black Women Scientists under White Empiricism» is cynical or deluded cargo-cult application of this valid premise, and precisely what ought to be deconstructed – as an attempt to manufacture an inorganic, bad-faith consensus.
It's deconstruction all the way down. You can't escape it. What you are trying to do here is deconstruction of a popular epistemology too.
Wait, how do we know what's true anyway?
Indeed, how? Do we just ask a bunch of older white males? Is there, historically speaking, a surer way to know?
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
So you refuse to proclaim that HBD is true out of fear it might help people like him, but have no compunction agreeing with him on the cornerstone of his epistemology.
Strong «I smoke to spite Hitler» energy.
Alternatively, @FCfromSSC just disagrees with him on race and probably other more weighty object-level matters (disagrees with me too), but most everyone accepts that social reality is socially constructed, in precisely the sense that it can systematically deviate from implications of honest scientific investigation, both on the level of a domain-specific narrative and on the meta-level of occasionally prioritizing narratives over evidence and narratively compelling beliefs over epistemically sound ones.
There's no smoking gun here, buddy: it's your epistemology that is the conspicuously deviant sort.
And it's not even consistent, I've pointed out a number of trivial holes and you just angrily shout to not notice them.
But more importantly, why does an error invalidate the whole system?
Because there is no principled way to delineate «the whole system». History is not a laboratory, everything is a one-off, nothing is truly replicable. Early 20th century psychology had happened exactly once, and got dominated by Freudian bullshit. At the same time, Communism with its blatant lies had dominated much of Eurasia, and in Germany this was countered by you-know-who. If anything, this shows us that grand narratives patently work. And this is indeed fucking strong evidence to ask whether you might also be living in the middle of one such grand narrative – or more. No matter how much it vexes you to adopt the «postmodernist» mindset.
«Postmodernists» actually make a strong, evidence-based point – because modernism fucking sucked for their generation.
and now you're questioning gravity.
Questioning gravity is good. That's how we can study anything nontrivial at all. It's just there are no sound reasons to conclude that gravity doesn't exist (whatever that means), so this questioning, normally, ends with (perhaps qualified) affirmation. This is not in any way a guarantee for any topic.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
Greg Cochran
You can think of it this way. In the first case, the parents have 20 extra IQ points. On average, 50% of those points are due to additive genetic factors, while the other 50% is the product of good environmental luck. By the way, when we say "environmental,” we mean “something other than additive genetics.” It doesn’t look as if the usual suspects—the way in which you raise your kids, or the school they attend—contribute much to this "environmental" variance, at least for adult IQ. We know what it’s not, but not much about what it is, although it must include factors like test error and being hit on the head with a ball-peen hammer.
The kids get the good additive genes, but have average "environmental" luck—so their average IQ is 110. The luck (10 pts worth) goes away.
The 120-IQ parents drawn from the IQ-85 population have 35 extra IQ points, half from good additive genes and half from good environmental luck. But in the next generation, the luck goes away… so they drop 17.5 points.
The next point is that the luck only goes away once. If you took those kids from the first group, with average IQs of 110, and dropped them on a friendly uninhabited island, they would eventually get around to mating—and the next generation would also have an IQ of 110. With tougher selection, say by kidnapping a year’s worth of National Merit Finalists, you could create a new ethny with far higher average intelligence than any existing. Eugenics is not only possible, it’s trivial.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
Race cannot be gamed (except for edge cases). The whole point of race is its inherence. Any legible meritocratic evaluation immigrants can and will game, Goodharting the hell out of it and wrecking themselves in the process.
even just English proficiency might suffice.
Why is having had British colonial masters a marker of cultural compatibility?
Furthermore, I don't think it's so hard to do some cursory test for cultural compatibility that again, would be much better than the weak proxy of race.
Cursory, adj: hasty and therefore not thorough or detailed
Why "cursory"? Because you want it to be gameable? Because you actually want it to test your merits – namely, opportunism and ability to manipulate bureaucracies to your benefit? See, this is exactly whom people who are arguing for racial criteria would like to not let in.
That said, I think racial profiling is indeed unfair if it goes beyond defining vague priors. It's desirable to filter immigrants for their comprehensive human capital.
It's just… Suppose you were not allowed into the world's richest country on grounds of your character, which was found wanting not through stereotyping you based on race, but through, de facto, systematic measurement and determination of your similarity to your predominant racial type and dissimilarity from natives.
Of course, this can be couched (and even understood by practitioners) in entirely non-racial terminology, like Harvard does – they would just have a holistic psychometric definition of a desirable immigrant, derived, say, from anonymous surveys of natives' evaluation of character and assimilation success.
Would you be willing to recognize this as a fair choice, or would you support work to undermine it as covertly racist?
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
Yes, obviously, to a degree. If the ukrainians had welcomed their russian liberators in 24 hours, ukrainian nationalism would be discredited and putin’s ‘on the unity’ view would be validated(again, to a degree)
What if they were as oppositional as in reality, but Russian forces were just more competent and swiftly crushed all resistance?
This is not a matter of degree, this is a matter of things having nothing to do with each other. You talked of defeat. The signal in defeat can have zilch to do with merit of ideology.
How can a deconstruction of science be valid?
All of science is deconstruction of earlier failed science: both procedure and facts finding new shared mechanical explanation. We know why Galileo failed to measure the speed of light with lanterns, because we know how all parts of the system work, and which of his assumptions were erroneous.
Propaganda can’t make them believe they have 5 arms.
Can propaganda make a child believe she is in some truer-than-life sense a boy with a penis, and only the nature's caprice has made it seem otherwise?
How does postmodernism accrue popularity at all, in your theory?
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
I am unlikely to make it to the Old World in the next two years or so, thus would be interested in a detailed post.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
Dase's argument in that thread is relatively weak. There are plenty of things to be argued among 'power worshippers'; Western elites, as even Karlin has finally acknowledged, are broadly of a high quality even if they have adopted some low quality memes.
My argument is that these things are extraneous and I think your example shows this best. Karlin's new practice of LARPing as a postgenderist progressive freak on steroids HRT is entirely downstream of Russia's military humiliation. Could the «elite human capital» have convinced him of the potency of their memes without the demonstration of superior (to Russia) kinetic power it can compel? Clearly they have failed to do so over his years in the West, so he came to Russia to venerate Based Putin's symbolic cult of power (I admit I also like the fact that this… thing exists, The Statue notwithstanding). Could the Russians reconvince him of the validity of Russian Nationalism without taking Odessa at the least? He mocks their ideas openly after years of sympathetic writing. In fact, this suggests he doesn't understand either – he cannot recognize the nugget of moral truth in the progressive doctrine, only see its power and grovel at its feet. Progressives, on the other hand, are vindicated in having not deigned to debate his type: Javelins succeeded where words had proven useless. They will likewise prevail over this clown.
'Might makes right' is facile but it is also one of the major longstanding narratives in which the right engages, while it can just be discarded or even blatantly ignored when it becomes inconvenient
I am not a power worshipper, so I can produce arguments beside Chad "who cares lmao my team can fuck up your team" (which is especially helpful when it can't). And I have a consistent set of beliefs that made me deplore the war in the beginning, when it seemed like Ukrainian defenses are being overwhelmed, and make me deplore it now (as a bonus, they allow me to better predict how wars will go), so I hold Karlin's judgement in contempt both then and now.
I read an account of the final attempts at reform in China over the last decades of the Qing dynasty
Link?
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
In general I find this line of debate fruitless; belief that one's opinions are «postmodernist» in the common derogatory sense is at odds with what we understand as having a belief, so it's practically impossible to get someone to do a yes.chad. Nowhere is this clearer than in this exchange with Hlynka. @SecureSignals, too, has a set of beliefs about material reality that he thinks are objectively true.
And from my perspective your argument there was the «postmodernist» one, and your claim of only having loyalty to truth was disingenuous:
I believe those forces are weak. The stronger you assume those forces to be, the harder it is to find what is objectively correct. At the extreme, if the forces can convince everyone of anything (God the deceiver, conspiracy nuts), objective Truth is too corrupted and just disappears.
You think I‘m attacking ‚your guys‘ from the left, when I operate on a completely different scale. Based on love of objectivity. It‘s my scale so of course I‘m at the top, then, in order, scott, the average guy, you, the woke mainstream, anthropologists, SS, critical theorists‚ ‚aryan science‘ believers, lysenko. At the bottom they don‘t even recognize objectivity as a valid concept so they just fight in the dark like good conflict theorists.
Here you conflate (cramming into the same spectrum) the belief in objective correctness of popular narratives, interest in objective truth and conviction in its existence. I think those are all different issues (with the first and other two orthogonal), so I don't even know how to approach this kind of posture.
If jews produce arguments, works of art, or scientific theories that appear to be of high quality, then the simplest conclusion is that they are indeed of high quality and true. Just like similar arguments presented by non-jews.
You conflate merits of science and art, and inferre the truth of a given sociopolitical idea from high quality (measured by popular success) of its propaganda. Restricting the valid scope of our truth evaluation procedure to the whole world or conclusions of wars is unprincipled, so by this token Nazi propaganda, too, was truer than anti-Nazi propaganda within the scope of its dominance in 20th century Europe. So was Lysenkoism in 1938-1962 in the Soviet Union, I guess. What you wrote is definitional postmodernist relativism, pretty much «truth is what sells» and «might is right». This is not me beating up a strawman, you actually practice such a restriction:
My point here was that defeat discredits an ideology, like the ukraine fiasco discredits putin‘s system (to a degree… moscow isn‘t in ruins yet, like berlin was) , the loss of the cold war discredits marxism-leninism, etc. So if, as I understand SS to be saying, Hitler was right about everything, it just makes his defeat inexplicable. If nothing else, defeat is a failed prediction.
This is a snappy slogan. What is «putin's system» – do you mean stuff like logistics and military doctrine? That's too trivial and more consistent with SS's theory than with your argument. (Checking: SS, do you think Hitler's Germany was right about every instrumental issue?) So, had Putin's generals made a few sensible calls prior to 24th February 2022, would that cause Ukrainian nationalism to be discredited? Or the whole of "Rules-Based International Order"? Or all opposition to totalitarians? This is not some Pascal's Mugging; epistemology vulnerable to such pedestrian counterfactuals is laughably flimsy.
I thought with all the bitching about wokes, the criticism of postmodernism was baked in, but it appears it’s a major fault line on the board. So how many of you are postmodernists?
If I understand you correctly, your opposition to postmodernism is simpler and more radical than what people «bitching about wokes» espouse. You reject what you call postmodernism as a method, you claim deconstructions of successful things cannot be valid (of course, this is gibberish: any successful paradigm asserts to explain the failures and delusions of its vanquished predecessor, so this method would retroactively invalidate itself). You say: "yes, it could be the case, logically, that many/most people would believe in constructed propagandistic bullshit, but actually bullshitting is just not that potent and people converge on truth". This is a childish just world theory and a thorough rejection of skepticism.
If God can create light as if emanating from a star en route or plant dino bones, and if the jews or ‘the government’ can make people believe whatever they want, nothing can be declared real . Your own beliefs are subject to this magical power , pehaps the jews created ethnic supremacy to justify israel, orbecause they want to prop your side up so that it can be resoundingly crushed like Hitler. The ways of narrative crafters will forever remain mysterious.
I see terror under your snark. This is an unsustainable and inconsistent prior. Your epistemology is broken, not his. I believe that you'll experience a thorough mental collapse if you ever allow yourself any scrutiny of authenticity of your received wisdoms.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
In this case, the LLM could perfectly well be a P-zombie
No.
An LLM does not, as far as we know, employ an actual physical human brain for computation. A [strong version of] p-zombie does, its causal chains are exactly the same as in our brans, it not an arbitrary Turing-test-passing AI. I think that it "feels like something" to be an LLM computation too, but it very likely doesn't feel like having human quale.
It is obviously unwarranted to say that a system that can ape a human with its behaviors computes a human mind or any part thereof, humans can have low standards among other reasons. And in general, our external behaviors are a low-dimensional lossy and noisy projection of our internal states, so the latter cannot be fully inferred from the former, at least in realistic time (I think).
My argument hinges on the fact that a brain contains events that, from an information perspective, suffice to be described as quale with regard to other events (that are described as sensations). It is coherent to speculate that e.g. there is such a thing as an immaterial human soul and that it does not parse these events, and instead works in some other way. It is not coherent to say that they exist but also don't exist.
Absolutely how it works on Twitter. While neither a Nazi nor an SJW (hopefully), at some point I went from having followers like Nick Land and BAP to getting a whole clique of rabidly Communist transgender Jews. Twitter is dominated by leftists, and they supply cheap attention. If I cared more about such schlock I'd have probably tailored my messaging further; and were I worse at isolating processes (or just younger), I could have had this environmental change propagate back into my own value system.
Many people are not particularly good at that.
More options
Context Copy link