@DaseindustriesLtd's banner p
BANNED USER: temperamental dysregulation

DaseindustriesLtd

late version of a small language model

78 followers   follows 28 users  
joined 2022 September 05 23:03:02 UTC

Tell me about it.


				

User ID: 745

Banned by: @Amadan

BANNED USER: temperamental dysregulation

DaseindustriesLtd

late version of a small language model

78 followers   follows 28 users   joined 2022 September 05 23:03:02 UTC

					

Tell me about it.


					

User ID: 745

Banned by: @Amadan

Yes, it's a pretty funny and thought-provoking image really. Black people in it represent competent, essentially Western population, the neo-French (despite crude physiognomy); the legacy French are reduced to smug monkeys thoughtlessly going through the motions, grooming in their effete manner. Unpleasant as it might be for some, it's very different from your average modern day HBD-informed racist's idea that White people are superior on account of their cognitive capacity and affinity for civilized behavior; that they basically deserve higher status for some contingent merits. Assuming that Blacks surpass whites in those regards, would that image even feel bad for an average believer in the République? Or would he go «eh, why not»?

I wonder how we should understand the author's intent and conception of good and evil.

Just-so: partial baldness may have medical reasons other than androgenetic alopecia, like ringworm of the scalp, which indicate weak immune function. This isn't exactly an accurate method (male baldness ≈always has a patch stage) but we have no reason to assume high resolution of those innate priors.

That said, I have no idea whether women even had preference for fully bald men in the ancestral environment.

Frankly I find Musk to be one of the strongest reasons to doubt general intelligence (which I still believe in). The man is super-effective at running his core enterprises, people who deny SpaceX and Tesla's results seem to me to be in denial of overwhelming evidence. This doesn't stop him from being a goof with terrible takes and a streak of very bad calls, including this whole Twitter nonsense.

How do the Indians manage their public unrest, I wonder? Pussy or gigachad-like?

Burdensome is out for the count. @self_made_human, might you have any wisdom to share in his place?

I'm sure this is wrong because the same pattern of shifted phenotypic norms holds in Russia and elsewhere where you get diagnosed with schizophrenia instead of autism and don't receive «meth» except illegally. Unless you believe that to be mimesis.

I put more stock in Uriah's theory of frontal lobe cucumber-like overgrowth from excess of nutrients.

I actually like French movies, both on the merits and due to appreciating this now-quixotic «existence of sovereign, living non-Anglo civilizations» idea. It's very much a shame that, as Zack M. Davis says about him somehow genuinely being a woman, is a scintillating but ultimately untrue thought.

Anyway, I wonder if the public – most of all the disproportionately aged, native public, like this woman – also believes the ongoing tumult to be some sappy melodrama downstream from a bit of entirely optional chud mischief, or maybe misunderstanding due to the insufficiently vigorous mandatory introduction to the State cult of Reason (that starts at 3 for the French).

Autistic people are far more likely to be trans or furries.

I wonder if they are. Didn't look this way decades ago (of course there were no above-ground furries). Obvious enough but I think we'll come to look with horror at this blasé liberal acceptance of really weird and historically recent sociosexual patterns as innate traits that «just exist», like there exist left-handed people, paranoiacs or, well, gays – and that somehow just coincide with vulnerability to getting tricked and bullied, cartoonish literalism and over-systemizing mindset, and inability to read nontrivial social cues. We may discover something simple and nasty, though I'm not sure what exactly (probably not transmaxxing).

Oh, and I think the theory that explanation for the explosion in high-functioning autism cases themselves as something that «just used to be suppressed» will be also revealed as total bullshit, and moreover a deliberate coverup by people who knew better, in the way AGP stuff is desperately covered up right now.

as was widely documented in major movies

As of 2022, the movies were sending a slightly different message:

Abdel, an Algerian-French soldier, holds a press conference outside a police station after his 13-year-old brother Idir dies in hospital, the result of three apparent policemen beating and leaving him for dead. He appeals for calm, but a group of youth, led by Abdel’s brother Karim, disrupt the press conference by tossing a Molotov cocktail and raiding the police station. After stealing a weapons locker and a police van, the youth head back to their banlieue, Athena, where Abdel also grew up. They begin to barricade themselves - and the residents of Athena - inside the housing complex.

CRS riot police are sent to put down the uprising, while the youth respond by shooting fireworks and other improvised missiles at the police. In the middle of the chaos, a drug dealer named Moktar tries to move bags of contraband out of Athena. With the youth refusing to let him leave, Moktar and his gang take shelter in Athena’s shisha lounge, where they dig a hole to stash the contraband until the uprising has passed.

Abdel returns to Athena to attend a memorial service for Idir. He sees Karim and tries to speak to him, but the latter escapes where the memorial service is disrupted by the ongoing violence outside. Abdel then helps to organize an evacuation and shelter for Athena’s residents, including a former terrorist named Sebastien, whom Abdel shelters in Athena’s daycare center. While leading a group of residents past a group of riot police, an altercation begins, and Abdel and other residents of Athena are kettled and arrested.

On and on the tearjerker goes, until – rather endearingly– the whole thing is pinned on the truly agentic evil, The Chuds:

In the final scene of the movie, a man in a van is shown recording the beating of Idir, which is later posted on social media. The “policemen” are revealed to be far-right instigators in disguise; they enter the van, drive into the woods, and burn the uniforms they had worn, revealing that the beating was a deliberate attempt to incite racial unrest.

Looking into the director's background, I was surprised to find something rare in such cases in the US:

Costa-Gavras was born in Loutra Iraias, Arcadia. His family spent the Second World War in a village in the Peloponnese, and moved to Athens after the war. His father had been a member of the Pro-Soviet branch of the Greek Resistance, and was imprisoned during the Greek Civil War. His father's Communist Party membership made it impossible for Costa-Gavras to attend university in Greece or to be granted a visa to the United States, so after high school he settled in France, where he began studying literature at the Sorbonne in 1951.[1]

I noticed some Musk replies in the ML/eacc/doomer sim cluster like 2 weeks ago, but this is still pretty esoteric stuff and he's presumably a busy man. In any case, I am not convinced these measures are effective at all.

It's not much when naively calculated, but we're learning over the last few months that you get vastly more bang for buck out of high-quality datasets, to the extent that you can match models 1000x bigger and trained on 20x more data if you just get real good tokens. And in terms of both quality and especially recency, Twitter is unmatched, I believe. If you want a model that knows not only that there's a war going on in Ukraine but how it's going, you'll have to scrape Twitter.

That said I don't believe Musk knows or cares about that, seems like they just have problems paying the bill for their infra. Sounds insane I know.

This is good for crypto Twitter. We will poast less and shame people for mid poasts, this will usher in a Twitter Renaissance!

Just kidding. I'm absolutely sure there's no 4D chess behind it all; maybe he's balancing his KPI obsession with actual, transient infrastructure problems and his spite for OpenAI, but that's the extent of it. The funniest part is that Twitter has a CEO (what's her name?), but apparently Musk still decides this unilaterally, in the fashion of Putin-Medvedev «castling».

On the plus side, I'll probably be spending more time here.

I sit on the couch. There's a glass of tea (yes, a glass) to the left; hopefully I won't hit it with my elbow and send into the stone floor again. Not wearing a blindfold certainly helps in this regard. I put laptop on, well, my lap, open The Motte, scroll to the end of your post, think a second, click «reply».

What, if anything, in all of this could have been improved by Vision Pro? Adding a dancing Mickey Mouse (partnership with Disney, wooo!) to the periphery? Fitting the website into a circular window superimposed on the room? Strapping the same laptop's motherboard to my forehead? Replacing touch typing with tiny finger gestures that are picked up by the IR sensor array under my nose?

Actually there are some ideas here. I expect great things to come of augmented reality. I envision a future of uncompromising transparency and sovereignty, with tastefully minimal HUDs and AI digital assistants that stay well out of the way while brutally suppressing incoming noise; athletic young people with 20/20 vision and perfect innocence about «dark patterns» who walk in the sunlight and look with concern and pity at hunchbacked millenials and zoomers squinting into their pocket surveillance devices. This can be done. Contra Strugatsky brothers, we don't need communism to get to see the brightest parts of the Noon.

But as roon convincingly argues, text is the universal interface and it is primarily the inherent power of text, not technical limits of the age, that decided the shape of The Mother of All Demos and the hardware paradigm that we're still living in. Why do you think large language models get almost no benefit from multimodality? Because nothing has more meaningful dimensions than a text string. Tablets and smartphones, this great civilizational achievement of Apple, offer a strictly lesser channel than text – beloved by people who'd never have a clue what to do with CLI. Now, I suppose there are designers and architects, and surgeons and such, and all those colorful applications from WWDC will truly shine. But… rotating a 3D model of a Zahi Hadid-esque building in a teleconference? Is this what the digital era is about? I guess PowerPoint will add some zany VR features soon and they'll be adored by the same type of person who inserted WordArt into business presentations in the 90s, but… really?

This reminds me again of that epiphany I had while watching Alita: Battle Angel, particularly the scene where Alita dodges an aesthetic chain attack (admittedly, under a certain influence that brings out visual elaboration): What waste! The CG artists could have gone so much wilder, added complex patterns of acceleration and inertia and homing; but viewers won't perceive such detail. We're long in the regime where our tools let us depict actions of posthumans, but our merely human brains make that power sterile.

It is a nontrivial undertaking to find a paradigm that in practice does better than an IDE, or CLI, or even the humble chat window – when you're limited by the user on the other side. Almost everything of worth that we do is text and ways to manipulate and chain and condition its blocks on different scales. Skeuomorphic gimmicks, graphs, trees, mindmaps, desks with sticky notes, kanbans – frankly, all either collapses into unwieldy mess while text keeps going, or is as close to vanilla text in spirit as to make no difference and not benefit from new peripherals whatsoever. Many have tried. Yet here we still are. When some of us will get Vision Pros and ability to render arbitrary shapes, they'll still be peering into a rectangular website with an input box and a button to send comment.

I hope people with better imaginations than mine will prove me wrong. I'm pretty fed up with our interfaces, as well as with the human condition in general. But gimmicks and fetishes, exciting and novel as they can be, are no more the answer than frivolous surgery. Another, genuinely superior way has to be found and explored.

Epigenetics has fuck all to do with cultural effects on gene expression actually, or with almost anything else. But okay.

Out of curiosity.

What is «elaborate» or «just-so» about smarts being heritable?

When you are dead, you don't know about it, it's just hard for others.

Same issue when you're dumb.

– deep Russian wisdom a meme stolen from Ricky Gervais

Many people strongly value what they consider as fairness.

Leftists are very, uh, fair in mainstreaming the adoption of this new concept of «equity». Because fairness is, of course, more about equality of opportunity, about being able to win «fair and square» – or to lose by the same ruleset and accept the loss. Unless we assume that biological heredity is part of the opportunity endowment that's supposed to be equal, this all works.

Of course, there's a big problem here. One can easily see such an assumption «we hold those truths to be self-evident…»

The analogy falls short of conveying the rich irony of reality because, as Faulkner said, «The past is never dead. It's not even past» Or Panasenkov: «It's the same slogans; moreover, it's even the same people». Nothing has changed since the 1950s; piling new deboonks on a doctrine unshaken by the fall of Lysenkoism is an exercise in futility.

Obligatory Maynard Smith:

Why is it that Hamilton, having had the sort of essential notion, really ran with it, really made it an important part of our biological understanding, whereas Haldane had the notion and did nothing with it, I understood the notion and did nothing with it?

And I do think I have to put it down to some extent to political and ideological commitment. Hamilton had the advantage over us in a sense, a) that he was passionately interested in social insects and knew something about them and wanted to explain them. He saw them as a problem to be explained. And he had clearly no reluctance in his mind about the idea that notions about the evolution of altruism in social insects might possibly have a relevance to humans. Neither Haldane, nor I, knew anything much about social insects at that time, though Haldane did become interested in them later.

But more importantly, we at that time – and we're now talking about '56, '57 I suppose when we were discussing this idea – if you look at it in the context of where Haldane publishes it in an article in New Biology, it's very much in the context of trying to understand human behaviour and human altruism and people going out and winning the VC or joining monasteries or what you will.

And neither he nor I at that stage were at all willing to entertain the notion that such behaviour would be anything other than culturally determined and influenced. We were, I think, very reluctant, as Marxists would be, to admit that anything genetic might influence human behaviour. And I think that it wasn't– we didn't say consciously to ourselves «this would be un-Marxist so we won't do it». I mean, that's not the way that the mind works. But I think it was a path that our minds were not, so to speak, prepared to go down in a quite almost unconscious sense, whereas Bill was very prepared to go down it. And he also had the natural history background and knowledge to enable him to go down it, which we both lacked.

And so what I'm really trying to say is that to make big breaks in science, which Hamilton did, it's not enough to have the technical understanding of some technical point. You've got to have the… it's got to fit in with your world view that you should pursue this road. And I don't think it did for Haldane and myself at that time. It would have done later.

Maynard Smith, of course, was the archetypal Anglo communist professor; but also a genuine intellectual, capable at least in principle of deep self-reflexion and contemplation of ideas (this is clear enough in how he speaks). Most scholars continuing the good fight against bigoted facts today are social – indeed, oversocialized – insects in comparison. Like this. «If U get eugenic, i'll fight U.»

Well, the war had started in 2014 and so did Russian economic woes. I think metrics which suggest Russia had been successfully coping with that are not credible. Holistically, what we have now is… like… 2006 maybe. Only without the positive outlook.

Yes. Basically you either fail to pass the bureaucratic filter, end up insolvent, or get big enough to attract attention of some oprichnik who wants a personal turf. If it were a hard-and-fast rule we'd all have starved of course but it's enough to ensure that Russia never gets back to like 2013 levels of wealth. Like in many other mundane things I concur with Galeev in his analysis here.

On the meta level, I do not think that responding to double standards with triumphant spluttering to the effect that you can also do double standards plus your guys win is cool.

I do not believe that SS asserts that popularity is in itself a measure of merit ever. You probably also understand the theory implied here, where popular opinion is downstream of deliberate political forces molding it, and may be more or less objectively correct depending on the quality of those forces. In principle, I don't think there is any cogent critique of this, certainly not after so many years into CWR, and there is no honest escaping the debate over quality of elites.

More damningly, your other dunks like Aryan/Jewish science are plainly dishonest, instrumental application of Redditbrain memes. «Aryan science» is deficient inasmuch as it's not science proper but an ideological fabrication. If there were «Jewish physics», we'd have good reason to suspect it's fruitless nonsense either, but there isn't, at least Einstein's physics was an organic part of the scientific process in its unrestricted form, with its alleged particular Jewishness a figment of Nazi imagination. On the other hand, there was «Michurin biology», peddled by Isaak Prezent&Trofim Lysenko (Michurin dead upon its founding, Lysenko the illiterate, politically clueless loudmouth, Prezent only known to people in the field, somehow) in the Soviet Union back then, preaching the primacy of material conditions over the false God of heredity. Its obfuscated form is peddled by a number of authoritative leftist Jews and Gentiles in the West today. It is explicitly informed by particularist political values and ethnic concerns, as has been argued to death, and it is weaker on general scientific merits; yet it is more popular, on account of finding purchase with elites who apply your logic: «people who thought otherwise lost in 1945».

There is nothing to be learned in matters of faith, and nothing to debate with a power worshipper, Nazi or Jew. I recall you take issue with Burdensome Count's gloating, but you can't very well object to his method.

It's not a question of standards, it's a question of purpose. Would Estonian nationalists approve of a reversed empire, where everyone has learned Estonian and the capital is in Tallinn, but you still live in the Soviet Union, have no protected representation even in Estonia, and then get purged by Georgians, Russians and Jews? No, I think they consider the current condition much more nationalistic.

Galeev is a delusional Turkic supremacist and tries to conjure his dreams of Russian dissolution into reality with prolific twitter posting. He has been right exactly once – predicting that Russia will not succeed at conquering Ukraine, the rest is downstream of that take; but this could have been and was predicted by anyone with a modicum of insight into Russian system, e.g. me.

Putin looked weak.

This obsession with signaling is predicated on the idea that people in power don't know the real state of events and have to infer them from tea leaves and gestures, and is exactly why most popular analysis is hopeless. Looks don't matter, only actual capabilities. Putin looks like a pitiful monkey and he has been looking this way for a long time, but he has proven still having the capability to make Wagner run. This is enough. It'll be cold comfort for a rebelling general to know that as he dies, he's taking a few batallions' worth of FSO with him.

You just need a general popular with other generals.

So, Surovikin? He's refused to join the mutiny.

There isn't anyone. Putin has worked extraordinarily well to purge every charismatic figure from the army. Killing people cooler than him is his whole edge.

Or you could see a break away Republic by a local governor or some oligarchs.

Yes, well, which republic? Tyva or Chechnya, maybe. If Kadyrov and Shoigu remain "loyal", this doesn't happen. Governor, oligarchs – haha, as if.

Russia can well unravel, don't get me wrong. But this will have very little to do with the fact that Putin has looked weak the other day.

I take offense to self-assured smug stupidity.

No. Once the victor is established, there is nothing to be argued in the framework of power worship. Might makes right? Popularity is the measure of merit? I understand the psychological allure of such a theory. Don't squeal when its practitioners run you over.

The rest of your post is just a sequence of absurdist dunks and gleeful logical fallacies. Ron Unz is a Jew (detested by nearly every other Jew who's had the fortune of contemplating his oeuvre), hence it's illegitimate to discuss Jewish contribution to movements opposing far righters like Unz. Okay, «pal». Real clever.

There is no next general. The army is gelded and atomized; they could only support an external force articulating their dissatisfaction with S&G. And they failed to support that force.

Yes, I think Prig desperately gambled on Putin fearing general mutiny and loss of control of big parts of the army, and personally guaranteeing, overriding S&G's authority, that all attempts of MoD to absorb Wagner are hereby terminated. When it became clear that the army, for the moment, won't seriously stop him from getting to Moscow, but also won't actively help him fight whatever loyalist forces Putin can muster, and that Putin doesn't plan to give up on S&G or their plans, he folded. The key reason was probably high-ranking Army figures like Surovikin refusing to endorse the mutiny.

That is plausible. It works every which way, of course – one can speculate either that Russia is ran by a cabal of noviops, or that the all-powerful Putin allows said noviops to amass power, secure in the knowledge of his ethnically based legitimacy.

many Russian ethno-nationalists respect Stalin even though he was not Russian

I very much doubt they do. Unless one subscribes to the (popular among formerly occupied peoples but completely incoherent) school of thought that Soviet Communism is great Russian ethnic nationalism, in which case that's true by definition.

In practice there's a grain of truth here, Russians who stan Stalin can be arbitrarily casually racist toward non-Russians, gloat about resettlements, endorse The Great Purge on grounds of «at least he got some Jews» etc. But very rarely (that is, much rarer than outside their camp) do they have any sort of positive ethno-nationalist belief, whether mild or extreme, such as interest in Russian demographics, advocacy against immigration, blood purity maxxing, or losses of ethnic Russians themselves from Stalin's policy successes or failures.