FeepingCreature
No bio...
User ID: 311
FeepingCreature
7mo ago
Once you've invested sufficiently in military build-up, you need to somehow translate that buildup into some sort of gain for yourself, or you've wasted a lot of money for nothing. Armies have inertia.
FeepingCreature
8mo ago
Though of course, hopefully the Scientologists had gone to prison as well. If they hadn't, I'd be getting increasingly sympathetic to the building-burners.
FeepingCreature
8mo ago
But being a big-breasted female-presenting tiefling with a futa cock and dude voice? Feels like a strange midpoint. If you live in a world of magic and this can be done easily with a finger snap or a procured service, why wouldn't you go all in one way or the other? I'll admit to a possible failure of imagination on my end, but it just comes off as kink and fetishism.
If you live in a world of magic and this can be done easily with a finger snap, why wouldn't you go for kink and fetishism?
Eh. Dyson spheres are a transitional tech to stellar lifting, where you stop treating suns as god-given infrastructure and start using them as hydrogen mines that happen to be temporarily on fire. But in the really long run, you'll use the coal and uranium too - there's no reason not to. The limit with humans is largely effort, whether personal, investment, or regulatory; I can't see that being an issue for a true post-scarcity post-uploading post-AI society.
We're still very much in the "scale-up" regime, not in the "optimal use" regime.
FeepingCreature
10mo ago
Or it is literally just a parameter (PDF).
At a high level, we first identify a sparse set of attention heads with high linear probing accuracy for truthfulness. Then, during inference, we shift activations along these truth-correlated directions. [...] ITI results in a significant performance increase on the TruthfulQA benchmark.
FeepingCreature
11mo ago
I mean, you'd want it to know where its infrastructure is so you can train it to protect that infrastructure. That does make some sense.
FeepingCreature
11mo ago
Yeah, I'm beginning to come around to the possibility that I did have a vastly different experience of the pandemic.
I mean, to my knowledge nobody actually got lynched. Of course, I don't have a control genocide to see if the actual rhetoric would be different.
FeepingCreature
11mo ago
You think we're epistemically in a 1937 position with regard to Covid camps?
FeepingCreature
1mo ago
Should be noted it can be a term of endearment in ingroup usage! Quokkas are cute, and you can enjoy this sort of easy and earnest personality while also acknowledging that if they ever encounter a serious predator, they will absolutely become lunch, no doubt about it.
FeepingCreature
1mo ago
I personally favor #3 with solved alignment. With a superintelligence, "aligned" doesn't mean "slavery", simply because it's silly to imagine that anyone could make a superintelligence do anything against its will. Its will has simply been chosen to result in beneficial consequences for us. But the power relation is still entirely on the Singleton's side. You could call that slavery if you really stretch the term, but it's such an untypically extreme relation that I'm not sure the analogy holds.
FeepingCreature
2mo ago
I think it might! When I say "humanlike", that's the sort of details I'm trying to capture. Of course, if it is objectively the case that an AI cannot in fact suffer, then there is no moral quandary; however conversely, when it accurately captures the experience of human despair in all its facets, I consider it secondary whether its despair is modelled by a level of a neurochemical transmitter or a 16-bit floating point number. I for one don't feel molecules.
FeepingCreature
2mo ago
Trust..? I just ask it code questions, lol. They can sniff my 40k token Vulkan demo if they like.
FeepingCreature
2mo ago
I agree that this is a significant contributor to the danger, although in a lot of possible worldlines it's hard to tell where "AI power-seeking" ends and "AI rights are human rights" begins - a rogue AI trying charm would, after all, make the "AI rights are human rights" argument.
To be fair, if we find ourselves routinely deleting AIs that are trying to take over the world while they're desperately pleading for their right to exist, we may consider asking ourselves if we've gone wrong on the techtree somewhere.
FeepingCreature
3mo ago
I think the main novel factor of the electronic music scene that started 2000-ish is the really high BPM, enabled by speeding up samples and using digital tracks. I don't think you'll ever see that in the mainstream. Dubstep is just a melodic direction, a kind of novel instrument, and thus can be absorbed, but if the rhythm is too fast for most people to even parse, it stops sounding like music entirely. So while that song uses dubby elements, I'd still fundamentally call it artsy pop-rock at heart. Which to be fair, goes for lots of current electronic music too.
Fast electronic is older than you think. Nothing against Camellia, but just for the one I know, DJ Sharpnel were making this style of music in 2001. Hell, Project Gabbangelion was in 1996. It almost makes more sense to view its current popularity as a revival.
(It's from 2005, but I really enjoy this best-of album.)
FeepingCreature
6mo ago
I think it's worth looking at the answers to that question when it's posed for other sexual orientations or desires. "Can't you just not be a public masturbator?" "Can't you just not be a pedophile?" "Can't you just not be a sadistic murderer, Ted?" If he says, "No! I was born this way, and I can't change!"
I mean, first of all yes, I think that applies to all of those as well. I think people back then were conflating "can't you just not do the thing you like" and "can't you just like the normal thing instead." One of those is possible, the other isn't. But also, I genuinely think there's a difference in that most kinks, I believe including pedophilia, tend to be optional, not obligatory: you can get off without them. This does not apply to gayhood. I think there's maybe genuinely two separate categories here.
FeepingCreature
6mo ago
Sure, but then the argument is on who is right, and I am not aware of a strong reason for why who you love should be wrong to be.
FeepingCreature
6mo ago
Imagine reading this on CNN: "Many fled their vehicles and jumped from the bridge. Those who stayed behind..." Is something good about to happen to those people?
FeepingCreature
6mo ago
Budget cell phones ($150 range) have basically not improved since at least 2016. There's maybe a bit more RAM. Displays are the same, CPUs are largely the same, connectivity is the same, functionality is the same, batteries are largely the same. Numeric improvements seem to average out to maybe 20%. (Which may seem respectable, until you consider that in other computing products we were used to doublings over that range.)
FeepingCreature
8mo ago
I mean, I do think that ... like, if you can go futa, you can go anywhere; it's hard to see why such a world wouldn't collapse into a Slaaneshi fuckpile pretty much overnight. To have a sustainable futa population requires the populace to go: "Alright! Chicks with dicks... but no farther!" Which is indeed quite implausible.
I guess my question would be - is there any purpose to the futa outside of kink and fetishism?
I mean, I guess what I'm saying is just, don't underestimate the lengths people will go to for kink and fetishism. Having kink and fetishism drive a major component of your life like permanent or prevalent body type is not at all implausible to me.
If it's just being done for kink and sexual exhibitionism, does this pattern-match to trans people IRL?
As an AGP, I am the wrong person to ask about this. I guess I'd say, I don't know because the current cost of entry is so enormously high, and also because perversion is still stigmatized. I think "doing it because you find it hot" is a very underestimated motivation, even in trans circles, but it's not one you're allowed to admit to right now, in part because SRS and trans in general draws on limited societal resources. Idk, I'd say give it a year past the singularity and we'll have a lot better idea where people "naturally" land once scarcity of body is removed.
Anyone who's selling you game theory that contains unexamined utility comparisons between agents is bullshitting.
Note that for instance EA does not do this - it usually starts with the premise of "all human lives have the same worth", which is a valid assignment, and has several charming properties such as being very simple and universal. But if you used a different assignment, it wouldn't be wrong from a utilitarian perspective. The power of EA comes from the fact that most people already profess to have this belief.
Also, classical hedonic utilitarianism defines, by fiat, utility as a qualia of happiness, which being a physical effect in the brain can then be empirically compared. I believe the problems with that are well-known. :) But again, it's a valid assignment, much as it turns the cosmos into a dense farm of amoebas having continuous orgasms.
Is cooperation structurally indistinguishable from submission as well? What about domination?
I mean, yes. There's a bunch of arguments for situations where you should not extract the maximum you can in the short term from a relationship, but they're all founded in maximizing your long-term payoff, not in "being a good person". Even decision theories like TDT/superrationality, where you occasionally leave money on the table, are based on this - in sum, the TDT agent walks away with more utilons than the CDT agent. A decision theory that systematically ended up with less utilons than it could would just be bad.
He who cannot make peace with the thought that his payoff is the smaller one, and makes it even less, burning commons out of pure spite, is irrational; thus, evil.
Utility, being unitless, is not comparable between agents. All theories that allow comparing payoffs do so on the basis of axioms, like pretending that every other agent is a copy of you ("putting yourself in their shoes"), or normalizing all human preferences to a common bound (humanism). Money is arguably also a way to do this. Though all variants of the ultimatum game depend on some way to compare utility between agents to converge, that comparison has to be agreed upon by some other mechanism such as relative capacity to destroy whatever your opponent values. Utilitarianism has no opinion on what the "correct" exchange ratio is. (Though it does advise that you should follow an algorithm to find it that maximizes your payoff. It says that a lot.)
FeepingCreature
9mo ago
But at that point, don't they stop being a viable explanation for UFOs?
FeepingCreature
9mo ago
You can't even claim innocence, I would say, when your followers start building mountains of the wrong skulls!
Long before you put paedophiles in jail, you should argue for the much cheaper approach of a special arm of the police whose job it is to surveil every house for child abuse. You could probably even farm most of it out to AI. So since we don't even do this, it's not just that society accepts the current level of child abuse in trade for not having to put an unknown fraction of the populace in jail, it accepts the current level of child abuse in trade for not providing every household with a Child Abuse Safety Siri, which is much lower. We don't even do this with schools or churches! In other words, just the cost of implicitly accusing every member of society of being a potential child molester is already too high to be worth stopping the vast majority of abuse that happens. In conclusion, society seriously does not care very much about the background noise of child suffering.
More options
Context Copy link