MelodicBerries
virtus junxit mors non separabit
No bio...
User ID: 1678
Reading about OpenAI's success with ChatGPT it becomes quite clear that a major reason why they are perceived as being ahead isn't because they are technically superior to Google/Meta/Microsoft but simply that they have fewer inhibitions. Most of the underlying tech that powers ChatGPT was invented by the major tech firms, they simply sat on that tech and slowed down its release. Exactly why is not explicitly spelled out, but reading between the lines it does appear it was a fear of bad PR + regulatory scrutiny. OpenAI, being smaller and thus escaping the same scrutiny, decided to simply implement the readily available technology and rush it out the door.
Nobody is denying that they have great engineers, but they are not inventing anything fundamentally new. That, at least, is the view of Yann LeCun in his latest interview. Perhaps he is an embittered man trying to protect his turf, but even OpenAI boosters will admit that Google has a similar chatbot which they simply have not publicly released yet.
Google's response has been quick, basically loosening internal controls and "ethics reviews" in order to boost the release cadence. This prompted Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, to publicly criticise Google. This is of course cynical, draping yourself in the flag of responsibility while having had your success based upon being more reckless than the big boys.
I think these developments are part of a larger shift. The ever-increasing "wokism" of Big Tech has not only slowed down but arguably is even starting to decline, albeit gently. The slaughter of a substantial part of Google's AI "ethics" team in recent years come to mind. Timnit Gebru was its most high-profile victim but hardly the only one. OpenAI's success is simply yet another factor that will allow the further sidelining of naysayers inside Big Tech who are preoccupied with slowing down AI development due to social concerns.
I read a lot of inflamed commentary of how SJWs will destroy Silicon Valley during the height of the BLM mania. Ultimately, these developments tell us that once the bottom lines of Big Tech companies are even remotely threatened, they will cast aside any moral qualms without a moment's hesitation. Whether or not that is good is debatable, but it seems to be final. Obviously, this also has implications for any hopes of "holding back" AGI if it ever came close to fruition, i.e. the likelihood of that ever being feasible is probably close to nil.
I just find it funny that voices are now being raised about "protecting our culture" solely against a Chinese tech firm. If you take this argument to its logical conclusion, you'd start censoring films, banning pornography etc. But of course this moral crusade is conveniently deployed against a single firm and the argument that TikTok is somehow uniquely bad compared to other social vices is unpersuasive to the point of being laughable. Either be consistent with the principle or admit the hypocrisy.
Their best-case scenario (which I suspect is their current strategic aim) is to occupy the areas that they have claimed so far, ethnically cleanse most of the Ukrainian population in these areas as they have begun to do (taking children to Russia and giving them to Russian families) and to hope for a gradual rapproachment with the West, just as happened over the annexation of the Baltic States. For example, that could happen if Russia implicitly or explicitly sided with the US in a conflict with China, just as Western mollification over the annexation of the Baltic States was eased by the USSR inadvertently ending up in the war against the Nazis.
The annexation would never be recognised in the West, but it would eventually cease to be an issue that inhibits Russian trade, finance, diplomacy etc.
Yes, I agree with you. As noted in my OP, however, my intention was not primarily to handicap the war so much as to question the importance of this conflict and of Ukraine more generally. There's a whiff of existential crisis in the coverage of the war, which is frankly absurd if you take a step back and look at the stakes rationally. A potential loss in Ukraine for NATO isn't going to end the West just as defeats in Vietnam or Afghanistan didn't.
But Serge's paragraph is about America and American stockpiles--so why link to a piece about European supply issues?
Poland and other countries have ordered HIMARS already in 2018 but still haven't gotten deliveries. Why do you think America has outsourced significant parts of F-35 production to friendly countries? It no longer has the domestic capacity to fully manufacture the plane at scale. It isn't only Europe which has cut back massively on military production. Equipment has gotten more expensive and fewer units are built, along with lower investment in manufacturing more generally.
If you want to analogize Russia and Ukraine to the Domino Theory historical results, it absolutely would imply that Russia keep going
Where would Russia go if Ukraine fell this year? I can only think of Moldova and maybe Georgia. Finland is part of the EU which has a common defence clause which in turn would automatically drag in NATO since most of the EU is also part of NATO. Baltics are self-explanatory. Moreover, this all assumes that UA's population would be passive which isn't at all my assumption.
If Russia were to win on the battlefield, they'd have to deal with a restive and deeply hostile population and perhaps even insurgencies. Hence my skepticism that winning the UA war is somehow a geopolitical necessity of titanic proportions, which is what the narrative coming from Western capitals and large parts of the media would have us believe.
I don't think anyone has had a spotless record in this war. US intelligence got the invasion right but then publicly claimed that Kiev was in danger of falling 'within days'. How did that pan out?
But the facts speak their own language: if Ukraine was doing well, they wouldn't need to ask for NATO materiel when the same NATO countries no longer have "easy" choices available to them, such as mothbolled ex-Soviet stuff.
At any rate, trying to handicap the chances of UA victory wasn't the primary aim of my OP, but rather to question the assumption that victory in this conflict for the pro-NATO side is of such titantic importance that the media and the political class would have us believe. As I outlined in my OP, Russia is unlikely to be a long-term winner even in the event of battlefield victory and Ukraine's importance has also been grossly overstated.
The Big Serge has a good overview of the RU-UA war. The TL;DR is that Ukraine has burned through multiple iterations of armaments and is now reduced to begging for active NATO matériel, hence Germany's reticence to send Leopards. One should understand that Europe's and even America's production capacities have atrophied badly over the decades. Losing hundreds of tanks - the number that Ukraine is asking for - isn't something you replenish within a year.
Serge's prediction that Ukraine will lose the war "gradually, then suddenly" seems plausible given Russia's attrition strategy. If we assume that Russia will win this war, then the question needs to be asked.. how much will actually change? Ukraine as a country isn't particularly important and the population is likely to be hostile to Russia, meaning that to integrate it into Russia proper will be difficult if not impossible.
I keep hearing hysterical rhetoric that the West must win this war or... something something bad. It reminds me of the flawed 'domino theory' that was used to justify the Vietnam intervention. While I don't think NATO will ever proceed towards direct intervention á la Vietnam, I can't help but think that too many of the West's elites have trapped themselves rhetorically where Ukraine's importance is overblown for political reasons (so as to overcome domestic opposition towards sending arms) and it has now become established canon in a way that is difficult to dislodge.
The one group who might oppose Affirmative Action and have the power to stop it in practice - middle aged predominantly white college administrators - get preferred admission (as employees of the college) for their own children
No, it's much broader than that. The donor/legacy system is geared towards all alumni (legacy) and wealthy elites (donor). So the buy-in is far more comprehensive. This also helps explain why affirmative action hasn't been acted on for all these years. It never touched wide swaths of the elite. College administrators per se don't really matter. If they had unique advantages then the system would have fallen apart long ago and you're overestimating their importance in maintaining it, in terms of political legitimacy.
It is also a silly argument to make re India in particular, given that it is 6th in the world in total GDP.
I explicitly wrote that I was pretty optimistic about India and centered my argument around countries like Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria. Do read carefully.
Well, the solution to that problem would seem to be obvious: Give them more actual power, starting by giving countries like India, Indonesia, Brazil, and Nigeria seats on the Security Council and taking similar steps re other international organizations and international agreements.
Right... except geopolitics isn't run on charity. You get a seat at the table if you can wrangle your way there. Thus far, most of the Third World is too weak and incapable of doing that, which contrasts with the "our time has come" rhetoric. It clearly hasn't and may in fact never. There's no reason to expect someone else to voluntarily do your heavy lifting for you, which appears to be the underlying premise of a lot of these arguments.
Japan is indeed a better bet than Eastern Europe in terms of resistance to wokeness but how comfortable would you really feel to be an alien in the most basic, racial sense on a perpetual basis? The Japanese, even in supposedly cosmopolitan areas, will always treat you as an outsider. Maybe you're fine by that, but for me, being around my own kin will always be preferable. Wokeness is a small price to pay and it has likely peaked anyway, certainly there's much more skepticism today than even 3-4 years ago.
Israel, for example, probably has one of the largest per-capita populations of +2 std IQ persons, and while they're certainly prosperous, they're hardly one of the wealthiest countries in the world
Israel is indeed one of the wealthiest countries in the world (by nominal GDP per capita). They surpassed Germany last year.
When they are fully "mature", aka at Japan levels of income, China will far eclipse the U.S. as a world power due to having 4x the population, and probably 10x the population of +3 std IQ people.
Which is why we may see the US kneecap them by embroiling Taiwan into a conflict with PRC by pushing Taipei to declare independence etc. It's certainly the smart thing to do if you're the top dog and what I'd have done if I were in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Why wait for your rival to get stronger?
One should also add that China may only have 500 million people at the end of this century due to their TFR only being ~1 per woman now and will likely fall even lower as they get richer. Meanwhile, the US could potentially even pass them by the 2090s. If America is still a richer country (big if) then the so-called 'Chinese century' may in fact never materialise. I think America's superpower is that it is better than anyone else at drawing in skilled migrants, something China can never copy.
In addition, America has a very large friendship network. So just comparing China and America on their own is probably a mistake. In my view, while China is unlikely to be subdued it is also unlikely to replace the US as the global hegemon.
The massive growth in "administrators" has been one of the factors responsible for education cost inflation far in excess to the general economy.
Well, turns out the same problem exists in health care too. The data is clear. If people can carve out a comfortable but ultimately superflous sinecure for themselves and get away with it, why wouldn't they? That part is obvious. What I don't understand is why everyone else lets them, whether in healthcare or education. Because the rest of us end up footing the bill.
Can geopolitics also be culture war? I'd argue yes.
PM Modi: Global South must create new world order
“We, the Global South, have the largest stakes in the future. Three-fourth of humanity lives in our countries. We should also have equivalent voice. Hence, as the eight-decade old model of global governance slowly changes, we should try to shape the emerging order,’’ he said, while underscoring the need to escape the cycle of dependency on systems and circumstances which are not of developing world’s making.
My question is, what makes people living in Third World countries think that just because they are numerous, that means they count? Nigeria has a much bigger population than France. Which country matters more in international affairs? Why is Taiwan so important? The country has a huge footprint in semiconductors despite having only 24 million people. Had it been a primitive basket-case, its potential capture by China would still be opposed but there wouldn't be fears of far-reaching economic ramifications.
I worry that a narrative of "our time is due" has set in, giving birth to unreasonable expectations of international influence that may in fact never materialise for most Third World countries. Once this finally dawns on them, rage and jealousy may set in, a feeling of being betrayed of "our rightful influence". Influence is earned, not given. I'm reasonably optimistic about India but not so optimistic on most other poor large countries (Egypt, Pakistan, Ethiopia etc). Given disparate birth rates over the world, a growing imbalance between countries who hold the actual power versus where most of humanity will increasingly be located could lead to increased international tension.
Calling attention to anti-white racism isn't the same as claiming whites are "powerless victims", which is a form of strawmanning. Asian-Americans have above-average levels of education, incomes etc... doesn't mean that they can't be victims of hate-crimes or a more subtle form of discrimination in society (e.g. university admissions).
The problem for whites is that too many other whites have an instinctual distaste for collective group politics. As whites were the supermajority, this wasn't a big problem but as their shares will slowly diminish, it will become increasingly obvious that being an individualist in a system where other groups largely compete as collectives is a losing strategy.
Conservatives' "blacks are natural conservatives, but are kept degenerate because liberals give them too much shit" borders on the most batshit take imaginable.
Black-majority countries certainly seem decidedly more conservative than white-majority countries on most issues, especially LGBT rights. Feminism is outlier. For whatever reason, SSA countries have a much higher share of female participation in political elites than their income level would typically predict, but that's atypical for most social issues. So US conservatives might not be as wrong as you imply here, though that "natural conservatism" is clearly weak enough to be subdued in a US context.
To take an extreme example: compare and contrast Kanye and Nick Cannon. Both engaged in anti-Semitism but one backed down and the other didn't. Nick Cannon has a thriving career after apologising (repeatedly) and Kanye doesn't. So it is factually incorrect to say that it can never work to back down. Indeed in some cases, such as this example, backing down shouldn't even be seen as a negative.
Easy to say that as anonymous troll demons (as Jordan Peterson would call us), but for someone with a public reputation/standing and a lot to lose - not least socially - as Bostrom the choice isn't clear-cut. Of course, his grovelling shows that he prefers the comfort of the establishment to telling hard truths. Which should probably lower his standing as a philosopher. But it also shows he's just a coward like most people.
Yes, that's an actual headline at Yahoo News, published just a week ago. It's basically a long anti-white rant by a bigoted ethnic activist. I am fascinated that white Americans are so sissified in the face of this open bigotry. In many ways, their patience is Christ-like. I for one don't hope for a tit-for-tat development, because this world needs less tribalism and conflict. But as long as anti-white racism isn't called out, I can't take people who claim to be anti-racists seriously. And the editors at Yahoo news allowing this vile rant to be published shows that its ingrained in US culture.
It's an interesting article which seems to suggest that SBF had ethnic interests (i.e. Israel activism) in mind when donating, on top of having an anti-working class agenda, which he shares with many other rich people. Of course, even if we assume that FTX never went down in flames, it shows us that his universalist utilitarianism was just a fraud on its own terms given these revelations.
I already saw on Twitter that the effect is not replicating in non-Anglophone West.
You can already see it on issues like migration and to a lesser extent more general "woke" cultural issues. I noticed in particular that according to the survey data, Italy's youth are way above the historical average in terms of how right-wing they are. Ditto Hungary. This should mean:
A) these general patterns will not go away (e.g. Orban/Meloni are not flukes)
B) this could lead to significant political tension in 10-15 years from now between the non-Anglo West and the Anglos.
I personally don't see a problem with a religious Jew refusing to host a Christmas party. There are many venues to choose from in Israel.
I get what you're saying, but I disagree. There is deep divide, but rather it's between small l liberals (in the classical sense) like Gideon Saar and Benny Gantz and a conservative faction represented by Smotrich et al. Politics in Israel is more about secular/religious which is their version of left/right. In the West, everyone is basically secular so being conservative means a different thing. That doesn't mean that there isn't a liberal (centrist liberal) establishment in Israel's media, academia etc. Because there is.
I think you may be projecting some of the US culture wars a bit too much on Israel yourself, because your definition of what passes for conservatism and liberalism is very US-centric and you appear to think if it doesn't fit this bill then it can't be applied.
After a surprisingly fractious negotiating period, Israel finally has a new government in place. The most religious, hard-right government it has ever had! A brief list of its priorities are listed here.
For my part, I remain puzzled over how some of their initiatives are termed anti-democratic. For instance, they want to allow businesses to reject certain customers/requests based on their faith. This reminds me of the "LGBT cake" ordered by a gay couple from a Christian baker in the US a few years ago. One gets the sense that they did it as a provocation, and to rub it in his eyes. He refused, was sued, and the case later went all the way up the courts.
If you're libertarian, shouldn't individuals and businesses be free to associate and do business with whoever they may want? I can see why this would be offensive if you're a leftist, but the charge is that this is "anti-democratic" which isn't synonymous with leftism. Or it shouldn't be, at least.
The coalition agreement is non-binding but rather a statement of principles. How much gets implemented remains to be seen, and there is rife speculation - one may be forgiven for thinking it is wishful thinking - in the media about the current government being short-lived. Either way, Israel's new government will be worth watching for how far a genuine right-wing government can be allowed to travel before it gets blocked by the establishment.
It's also worth mentioning that Prime Minister Netanyahu's own Likud party is substantially more secular than its right-wing/religious partners. So there is also an internal split that Netanyahu has to manage. He is liked by his base, but is loathed by much of the larger Israeli establishment. Particularly in the judiciary and the academic/media class.
Reminds me of the protests in Ireland. I suspect both will fail for a similar reason: street reactions to Twitter videos have clear limits of how far they can change matters. Policy is changed in the halls of power, ultimately. Though, the issue of "street power" is interesting to ponder. I've been following the Israeli debate on trying to enlist Haredi men into the army and every single government has failed because they managed to bring about huge numbers of people to the streets every single time. So perhaps if this was sustained, there could be a way to change policy indirectly. I don't know.
Either way, the government does try to be tough. The Economist has a piece about it. Predictably, The Economist's solution to the boat asylum issue is to speed up offshore processing. That would actually increase the amount of asylum seekers in the UK, the paper acknowledges, but it would also mean fewer boats. (The paper thinks the main issue is one of optics rather than volumes, but that probably speaks to their own delusion).
So what has the government done? It tried to enlist the help of Rwanda to send failed asylum seekers. The problem is that the Rwandan government only wants a few hundreds. There's talk of quitting the EHCR, which is a Europe-wide human rights court that often makes it hard to deport failed asylum seekers without several re-trails, at which many simply go underground and authorities lose touch with them. 800K people in the UK are thought to be living illegally and the number is growing.
Last year, Britain received 45,000 asylum seekers and the current projections is that this figure will rise to 65,000 this year. It's worth pointing out that Sweden received over 100K in 2015, so on a per capita basis, the UK is definitely not in a "crisis" even at this numbers. But the UK has historically had low levels of asylum seekers compared to the Scandinavians and some mainland European countries, so this situation is new.
I'm frankly not sure if there's any real solution (that is democratic and passes the basic threshold for decency). The problem is that the Third World is not doing well. Pakistan is on the verge of bankruptcy yet has 230 million people. It has a TFR well above 3. Egypt is barely doing better. Nigeria is holding on for the moment but the future looks uncertain. In the 1950s, these countries had much smaller populations and air travel was expensive. Today you have large and growing diaspora populations and smartphones are common even in poor countries, so people know how it is possible to live in the West. In short, there are structural reasons for these waves to continue. Not just to Europe but also to the US. Europe's geographic connectivity with MENA, SSA and to some extent South Asia means that pressures will be greater on Europe. I suspect this will lead to increasing political divergence with the US over the long-term as the far-right will gain ground (just look at the latest polls out of Germany or Austria).
More options
Context Copy link