@Exotic_cetacean's banner p

Exotic_cetacean

Aesthetics over ethics

1 follower   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 04 19:20:50 UTC

				

User ID: 102

Exotic_cetacean

Aesthetics over ethics

1 follower   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 04 19:20:50 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 102

This woke plague kind of ruined many themes and tropes, and by extension many pieces of media that perhaps didn't deserve it, at least for me. My inner critic is always on alert, looking out for wokeness, ready to dismiss anything that sets off enough alarms.

I might exaggerate a bit, but it's at least partly true for me. Maybe that's my flaw, but the general instinct to use heuristics like that for quick judgement is sound and useful. So there's an ironic dimension to it - overflow of wokeness and focus on quantity, instead of quality of woke propaganda likely keeps a lot of people from treating it seriously. Well, I guess it's better than the alternative.

I think that makes sense, we could use it to raise activity, at least until this forum is more stable

What makes you think that the planet can support only 2 billion long term? "Carrying capacity" is just a function of available technology. We can support much more than few centuries ago already. Long term ecological strain, global warming and so on are likewise, merely problems of engineering.

First, we don't really know how consciousness works (nor do we know how to even begin to study it), so we must place some discount on animal lives all things being equal. Of course, it can also be applied to other humans, but to much lesser degree. Wouldn't it be a shame to go through so much trouble if it turns out that all or most animals we eat are good old cartesian machines?

Okay, this point is more of a funny food for thought than a serious argument; it's far more likely than not that some animals have subjective experience and can suffer. But if they do...so what?

As buddists figured out millenia ago, suffering is inextricable part of life. But what makes a life, even filled with suffering, worth living, worth preserving? It's quite tough to grap it precisely with language, but here's my take - it's the ability to choose your path, to ponder life's meaning, to appreciate the moment. You know, metacognition. Agency. All of the things animals lack.

Imagine that you died, and arrived at an audience to some kind of heavenly authority and it said - “Your mortal coil is over now, you could go to heaven, if you so desire. Though they say it's bit boring, would you be interested in reincarnation?” You nod.

“Alright. Let's see what positions are vacant right now…I know, there's one that would fit you very well. How about a cow? You will be born to a nice pack, in a lovely farm in rural France. A couple of years of chewing grass and shitting on it. I'm sure you will fit right in. Ready to embark?”

Good set up, good punchline, good joke, by all accounts. Don't know about you, but I would smile, maybe politely laugh a bit. But of course I would refuse. Because that's all that is - a joke. A life as a cow is self-evidently worthless to me.

Another angle - trolley dilemma. Is there a point at which you would sacrifice a human to save X number of cows? 100? 1000? even more zeros attached to the 1? For me, there's no such point.

All these bazillions of cows can go to hell as long as there are human lives at stake.

Resources are scarce. Time is precious. Why on earth would I spend it on improving well being of cattle?

To desire to be more is a part of being human.

Where's the limit to what a human can be? Who's to say? Perhaps there isn't one. If we were to attempt to trap ideal individual in a conceptual box, to limit him to a specific set of characteristics, then at some level, disappointment appears to be inevitable. Any given definition can be retorted with - "That sounds great, a lot better than now, sure. But is it really all we can be?"

When put in theological terms - it's our mission to climb the ladder to God, using tools that he gave us. Estimated time of arrival: one eternity from now.

Ideal human society in this framework is one of multitudes rather than unity, one that allows for experimentation and different ways of being, acknowledging that we don't actually know what is the best way of going forward.

it seems to me it's a bit of a cop out to not characterize and end-state here

I know, right? I just don't like the idea of arriving at some kind of end-state and calling it a day.

At the very least, this end-state should be far, far beyond what we can now comprehend. Wouldn't the universe just feel cramped otherwise?

Are there actually many sci-fi books that excel not just at exploring fun sci-fi themes, but at actually delivering good prose and characters? The trend of having only the former is so persistent that I came to assume that having these two at the same time is supremely difficult for some reason, like running out of skill points when creating an RPG character.

Too late. Retrospectively, this development makes sense - Kulak always stood out from rat-influenced writers with his passionate diotribes relying less on well-thought, charitable arguments than evocative and sharp language mercilessly cutting through all the things, ideas and people many of us resent so much. Not exactly academically strict discourse, but fun to read, so whetever shortcomings he had were easy to ignore.

Alas, I strongly suspect that from now on, when stumbling on his posts I will remember that one time he managed to get his opinion entirely coincide with most hilarious excerpts from Russian state TV, chuckle a bit, and close the tab.

Farewell Icarus, it was fun to watch you fly before you burned your wings.

You had me wondering for a minute what could possibly happen to Contrapoints that he managed to become a conservative Warhammer enthusiast.

I don't follow, why give preference to spatial-reasoning tasks when defining who is smarter? Why not the one at which women are better?

I write down all kind of things from reviews to essay drafts and todo lists in Trillium.

I have a journal folder as well though I can rarely be bothered to touch it, usually only when something particularly interesting happens in my life.

I'm trying to figure out what I should be thinking about AI (largely in attempt to get away from rat-sphere's alarmists and their uncomfortably plausible arguments), so I started by doing the first obvious thing: looking for notable AI skeptics.

Here's the punchline: I used chat GPT for that purpose. Not without mistakes, but on cursory look it seems like the answers are largely correct, most of these are actual people matching the criteria. It gave me five, then I asked "give me some more" and it gave me more. Few months ago something like that would take me a lot more effort in googling, unless I lucked out and someone already did the job for me and I could find it somewhere on internet's surface.

Fuck.

Latter. I just think that the times I live in are sufficiently interesting

Little unrelated, but why I see "You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets" from my account, but not from incognito window? If it's a block notification it's quite amusing, because I never interacted with him in any way

Picked up Golden Oecumene at recommendation of someone here and got much more than I expected. Exploration of society and the individual in post-scarcity environment, immortality, AI, and other sci-fi themes. Beautifully and eloquently written, unlike so much otherwise good science fiction, and also centers around Ayn-Randesque narrative about a promethean figure going through great hardship to fulfill his potential and advance mankind, which turned out to be something I wasn't aware I had a soft spot for.

Certainly! It's the kind of book that is fun to analyze.

Disagree. Satisfying social needs with AI is like satisfying sex needs with an inflatable sex doll, and both will stay incredibly low-status. Especially in the scenario of dramatic automation: if you have the time, you really run out of excuses to just sit in your room and chat with computers.

serious, calm with a note of disapproval

Well, yes, what about China? I'm not reading Lesswrong that much, but at least that Twitter link doesn't have any interesting objections. If it's so dangerous, if it's so powerful, then someone else will do that, China in particular has a lot of data. Strongest counterpoint I can come up with is that they are incompetent, silly commies and they will fail, but that sounds like wishful thinking.

I can only treat the cry for halting AI research seriously not as an actual proposal, but as a way to bring attention to the issue.

That picture of Pope Francis in a puffer coat got me thinking:

AI generation of highly realistic images is a problem. Ideally, we would want a reliable way to distinguish truth from lies. So we train another AI to spot the difference. Then someone trains a different AI to fool both humans and AIs.

Will this be an endless arms race? Will one side win?

Having a goal of "the world doesn't end" does have its advantages. Can't wait until 2030, AI still doesn't kill anyone, and Yud saying "you are welcome" graciously lifting his fedora. Though who am I kidding, the world will then be in need of saving from AI killing everyone by year 20XX.

There's a big rational component to this though. Medium is the message, speaker's appearance, tone and style of delivery are useful heuristics for determining if you should really pay attention to the particular end times prophet, or just not bother and do something more fun.

I never felt invested in arguing about piracy simply because how unbelievably flimsy the whole idea of intellectual property is.

Utilitarian, practical angle: we use property claims, first and foremost, to avoid conflicts over scarce resources. Ideas and combinations of zeros and ones are not scarce. Maybe IP can be justified because it brings value by incentivizing creation? In the first place, I find it questionable that we should bring certain legal frankensteins into existence to maximize GDP per capita, but is this goal even achieved? How to price in costs of legal bickering over patents and lawsuits, big actors using IP to suppress potential competition? What about indirect consequences of curtailing individual freedoms and ever multiplying victimless crime legislation? Surely there's a better way to do this.

Deontological angle: Material and Intellectual property as similar things - intuitive at first glance analogy, after all we could say that creator makes a certain "thing" that he can then "own" because he made it. However, as mentioned before, IP is not scarce and IP holder loses nothing from piracy, and often gains in exposure and influence. Surely it's clear that this analogy doesn't really work. And how applying this ethical principle looks in reality? Is an Indian kid downloading a western textbook because he can't possibly afford buying western ip for dollars committing an ethically wrong act? Do people actually believe things like this? I imagine an IP advocate might bite the bullet and say that he commits a minor wrongdoing that is balanced out by him benefiting from the "theft" a-la a starving man being justified in stealing bread, but I find this whole thing laughable. Though not as laughable as I find calling breaking IP laws piracy. Ah, yes, sea-faring robbers and murderers is a very apt analogy for downloading certain combinations of zeros and ones. It's so absurd that I can't help but like it.

Edit: strongest argument in favor of IP was voiced by one of the other commenters - basically that by disregarding certain laws of the land, no matter what they are, we compromise our social fabric in an ever so small way. It's a real concern, though it would have more weight if our governments and laws were much closer to perfection than they are. I would rather put the blame squarely at legislators for outlawing mundane, victimless actions, making sure that a big chunk of the population will find themselves committing legal crimes at some point or another, which certainly doesn't benefit society.

Now excuse me, I have some torrents to unapologetically download. Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum.

The current model has many costs, and it's not obvious that the benefits are worth it or can't be achieved in other ways. More importantly, this would only justify a thin slice of what is subjected to copyright laws in practice, so it hardly deserves more than a passing mention in this context.

And these zealots are basically the self-appointed enforcers of community policy for all minecraft modding?

Perhaps not all, fabric is actually quite good these days