TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
No bio...
User ID: 616
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
1yr ago
I'm going to shamelessly steal @Scimitar's post from the Friday Fun thread because I think we need to talk about LLMs in a CW context:
A few months ago OpenAI dropped their API price, from $0.06/1000 tokens for their best model, to $0.02/1000 tokens. This week, the company released their ChatGPT API which uses their "gpt-3.5-turbo" model, apparently the best one yet, for the price of $0.002/1000 tokens. Yes, an order of magnitude cheaper. I don't quite understand the pricing, and OpenAI themselves say: "Because gpt-3.5-turbo performs at a similar capability to text-davinci-003 but at 10% the price per token, we recommend gpt-3.5-turbo for most use cases." In less than a year, the OpenAI models have not only improved, but become 30 times cheaper. What does this mean?
A human thinks at roughly 800 words per minute. We could debate this all day, but it won’t really effect the math. A word is about 1.33 tokens. This means that a human, working diligently 40 hour weeks for a year, fully engaged, could produce about: 52 * 40 * 60 * 800 * 1.33 = 132 million tokens per year of thought. This would cost $264 out of ChatGPT.
https://old.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/11fn0td/the_implications_of_chatgpts_api_cost/
...or about $0.13 per hour. Yes technically it overlooks the fact that OpenAI charge for both input and output tokens, but this is still cheap and the line is trending downwards.
Full time minimum wage is ~$20k/year. GPT-3.5-turbo is 100x cheaper and vastly outperforms the average minimum wage worker at certain tasks. I dunno, this just feels crazy. And no, I wont apologize for AI posting. It is simply the most interesting thing happening right now.
I strongly agree with @Scimitar, this is the most interesting thing happening right now. If you haven't been following AI/LLM progress the last month, it has been blazingly fast. I've spent a lot of time in AI doomer circles so I have had a layer of cynicism around people talking about the Singularity, but I'll be damned if I'm not started to feel a bit uncomfortable that they may have been right.
The CW implications seem endless - low skill jobs will be automated, but which tribe first? Will HR admins who spend all day writing two emails be the first to go? Fast food cashiers who are already on their way out through self ordering consoles?
Which jobs will be the last to go? The last-mile problem seems pretty bad for legal and medical professionals (i.e. if an LLM makes up an answer it could be very bad) but theoretically we could use them to generate copy or ideas then go through a final check by a professional.
Outside of employment, what will this do to human relations? I've already seen some (admittedly highly autistic) people online saying that talking to ChatGPT is more satisfying than talking to humans. Will the NEET apocalypse turn into overdrive? Will the next generation even interact with other humans, or will people become individualized entirely and surround themselves with digital avatars?
Perhaps I'm being a bit too optimistic on the acceleration, but I can't help but feel that we are truly on the cusp of a massive realignment of technology and society. What are your thoughts on AI?
Circling back around to the topic of space exploration, this article by Palladium on the reasons for exploring space brings up an interesting shift in how geopolitical justifications are made over the last hundred years or so.
The main thrust of the article hypothesizes that there may never be a truly strong economic or political incentive to push space travel. I'm not necessarily convinced this is the case, but I agree that most people that try to justify going to space all those terms are fighting a losing battle. Even if we do stand to gain massively from an economic perspective by pioneering various space initiatives, the timescale for any reasonable returns is in the hundreds of years. Not something that will motivate people to come out to the ballot box anytime soon.
What's really fascinating about the conclusion, however, is that the article points out in excellent pro something I hadn't really grasped before:
Modern governments are often wrongly derided for lacking vision. In fact, they are already committed to multi-trillion-dollar, multi-decade-long visions that require all of society, technology, and world geopolitics to be back-engineered accordingly. The U.S. government, for example, spends half its budget on social welfare programs, especially for the elderly. We take for granted that this is unremarkable, when in fact it is extremely historically unusual and a reflection of our deep commitment to a certain kind of post-industrial society that existentially values comfort and individuality.
While it's debatable whether or not the modern welfare state and social security in western countries really qualifies as a 'vision' of the future, it's absolutely true that the massive social engineering projects we have going on nowadays are far more ambitious and far more expensive than any of the space initiatives that have been proposed so far. This discrepancy is to the tune of multiple orders of magnitude.
The article rightly points out that the only thing that ever motivates people to enact these massive governmental projects are social, religious, or emotional goals. Despite all of our fancy rhetoric, humanity as a whole is nowhere near rational in our large scale decision making. This is a fundamental flaw when it comes to most rationalists or philosophers trying to create policy prescriptions - they lay out a beautiful argument, but failed to give any reasons that will truly motivate people to follow their argument.
I'll let the article conclude itself:
The expansion of human civilization to other stars will not be pioneered by lone adventurers or merry bands of hardy explorers, like we imagine the voyages of Erik the Red or Christopher Columbus. This works for interplanetary space, but not interstellar space, whose travel time will require multiple generations of people to survive a journey, including on the first try. Interstellar travel will need to accommodate not just adventurous young men with nothing to lose, but also women, children, and the elderly. In other words, a whole society. The existence of a society always implies the existence of a government.
More importantly, the sociological challenge of persuading a whole society to migrate into the unknown is very different from that of an explorer’s mission, which needs only the promise of adventure. Like the ancient Israelites, the Pilgrims, or the Mormons, a great migration will only occur when a Promised Land has been credibly found. Indirect evidence of extrasolar planets will never be enough. Whether with colossal space telescopes or ultra-fast nano-probes armed with cameras, we will need to have beautiful images and real maps of alien worlds before human civilization can become interstellar. The purpose of interplanetary expansion is to build the infrastructure and technology to make such scopes and probes feasible. These will be our cathedrals, the legacy which we will leave to our descendants.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
10mo ago
VisionOS and the Future of Input
Ever since the computer first arrived, keyboard and mouse has been the standard. You have a flat surface with raised little squares that you smack with your fingers. You have another little rounded shape with a flat bottom you move around, and click with.
This awkward, clunky interface has significant culture war elements, in that an entire class of powerful people arose - specifically people who didn't have traditional status markers like height, strength, or indomitable physical presence. Instead these 'nerds' or 'geeks' or whatever you want to call them specialized themselves in the digital realm. Now, the Zuckerburgs and Musks of the prior generation rule the world. Or if they don't, they soon will.
These outdated interfaces seem perfectly normal to everyone who has only used them. Sure many people have used a controller for video games, and may think that controllers are superior for some cases, but not others. Keyboard and mouse is the only way to operate when it comes to a computer, most people surely imagine.
That being said, it's actually quite easy to dip your toes into alternate input methods. Talon is a system that utilizes voice to let you do practically anything on a computer. You can move the mouse, click on any object on your screen, dictate, edit text, and you can even code quite well. Talon's system even supports mapping operations, sometimes very complex ones, to custom noises you record on your own.
On top of that you can integrate eye tracking, using a relatively inexpensive device. If you've ever used voice control combined with eye tracking, you can operate around as fast as someone who is decent at using a keyboard and mouse.
If you have ever used these systems, you probably know that because most digital setups are built for keyboard and mouse, it's not necessarily perfect. Keyboard and mouse still hold the crown.
But. There is a certain magic to controlling a computer through your voice, or your eyes. It begins to open your mind to new possibilities, the idea that there are better, faster, easier, more natural ways of interfacing with a computer than the defaults we have been stuck with.
Enter Apple's VisionOS.
If you haven't seen the recent demo of Apple's new VisionOS they're breaking brand new ground. The entire OS is built around looking at things, and making minute hand motions to control the icons you're looking at. There are no controllers, no physical interfaces whatsoever besides your eyes and your hands. It's breathtaking to watch.
In a review from John Gruber, a well respected old head in the VR space and a creator of markdown, the possibilities behind this new technology are apparent. Gruber describes how
First: the overall technology is extraordinary, and far better than I expected. And like my friend and Dithering co-host Ben Thompson, my expectations were high. Apple exceeded them. Vision Pro and VisionOS feel like they’ve been pulled forward in time from the future. I haven’t had that feeling about a new product since the original iPhone in 2007. There are several aspects of the experience that felt impossible.
Now Apple does tend to get a ton of hype, but this reaction of being amazed by the experience is surprisingly common among earlier reviewers:
Similarly, Apple’s ability to do mixed reality is seriously impressive. At one point in a full VR Avatar demo I raised my hands to gesture at something, and the headset automatically detected my hands and overlaid them on the screen, then noticed I was talking to someone and had them appear as well. Reader, I gasped.
The implications of this 'spatial operating system' are varied and multitudinous, of course. There will be all sorts of productivity gains, and new ways of interacting with the digital world, and fun new apps. However I'm most interested in how this innovation could shift the balance of power back to the strong and physically capable, away from the nerds.
No longer will clunky interfaces make sense - instead computers will be optimized around healthy, fully functional humans. Ideally the most intuitive and common control schemes will reward physical fitness and coordination. Traits which nerds lack in droves.
Will we see a reversal of the popularity that being a nerd or geek has gained in the past few decades? Only time will tell.
I made a top-level comment here a couple of weeks ago that tried to outline some of the major updates on the Georgism discussion in the ratsphere.
(Editing for less strawmanning.) I think that a lot of the problem is that Georgism strikes at the heart of fundamental value differences for folks. Many people seem to equate Georgism with Communism, or redistribution of wealth, which I don't find convincing.
For instance:
LVT is equivalent to the state seizing all land, and renting it back at market rates; it's expropriation on a massive scale.
Georgism at heart is about identifying what is often the most precious possession a person can have, that most of the middle class has spent 30 years of their lives working to pay off, to render to their posterity, and stealing it from them despite the fact that they haven't really done anything wrong.
"We know better than you how you should use your land", is roughly analogous to, "We know better than you what you should put in your body".
This strikes me as rationalists rationalizing their own class self-interest. The same way EA just so happens to only support democrat politicians, rationalism coincidentally just so happens to work out extremely well for the types of people that are rationalists. Easy to be YIMBY when you are 25 and living in a rented apartment in San Francisco.
My concern with LVT is that I regard most kinds of property tax (as well as income tax) as fundamentally immoral
@The_Nybbler
Still low-effort is "it's communism, but only with land". But given how bad communism has turned out, I think it's sufficient. The Georgist LVT is equivalent to the government owning all the land and leasing it out to the highest bidder.
Frankly advocating "georgism" is the "break out the guillotines" limit for me, because the victims are my people and the preparators are /r/neoliberal vampires.
These are not cherry picked responses - all of these had at least 10 upvotes, and in many cases 25+.
Some of the responses were less charitable, which has led to me getting heated on this topic, such as people literally calling me a vampire (and getting 15+ upvotes) for arguing for a type of land reform.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
1yr ago
Update to @Quantumfreakonomics 's post about EA Drama downthread.
For context:
You may remember a few weeks ago the article Effective Altruism Promises to Do Good Better. These Women Say It Has a Toxic Culture Of Sexual Harassment and Abuse was published in TIME (Motte discussion here).
Basically, a major EA figure was outed as having sexually harassed at least five women, some he had plausible professional power over. The community health team in EA knew about it and essentially did nothing until the TIME article outed it.
Even now, he's getting the kid glove treatment - temporarily resigning and not taking on new mentorships, but continuing all his other duties. Realistically he'll probably still function as an informal board member.
In addition there have been two other major updates, and I cannot overstate the importance here. Both of the heads of the two biggest EA organizations, Holden Karnofsky at Open Philanthropy and Max Dalton at the Centre for Effective Altruism are stepping down. In Holden's case, temporarily to work on AI risk.
If you haven't been following Effective Altruism this may just seem like another set of scandals - it's not. The past 6 months or so have been a constant barrage of issues, starting with SBF's massive fraud and the collapse of FTX, the issues with Nick Bostrom being outed as a racist/HBD enthusiast, the TIME article mentioned above, and finally both of these central figures resigning. There have been many more petty dramas playing out as well.
This is the crucible, the defining moment for Effective Altruism. Whether the movement lives or dies will likely be determined in the next year.
Whoever takes over the reigns of the movement, it's clear that shifts are happening and power is up for grabs. With AGI likely around the corner, this realignment of power in the EA sphere has the potential to determine the singleton who controls the future.
Expect a bloodbath either way.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
6mo ago
For other Christians on here, or seriously religious people, how do you handle the paradox of belief? I was talking to a friend today about my recent experience joining an Orthodox Christian church, and it's just so interesting. The 'logical' part of my brain relentlessly attacks what it sees as the foolishness of religion, ritual and sacrament.
And yet, when I partake and do my best to take it seriously, I feel healed. The spiritual water that Christ talks about in the Bible slakes my thirst. It's almost impossible to conceptualize, but damn it I've tried so many different ways to heal my inner wounds throughout my life, and this one works better than anything, by far.
How do you make sense of a serious religious practice, while keeping the ability to be seriously rational?
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
11mo ago
The future of AI is likely decided this week with Sam Altman's Congressional testimony. What do you expect?
I expect nothing to happen for another few years, by which time it's too late. As @2rafa mentioned below, I'm convinced AI research and development is already far ahead of where it needs to be for AGI in the next couple of years. Given the US's embarrassing track record of trying to regulate social media companies, I highly doubt they'll pass an effective regulation regime.
What I would expect, if something gets rushed through, is for Altman and other big AI players to use this panic the doomers have generated as a way to create an artificially regulated competitive moat. Basically the big players are the ones who rushed in early, broke all the rules, then kicked the ladder down behind them. This is a highly unfortunate, but also highly likely future in my estimation.
It's ironic that we've entered into this age of large networks and systems, yet with the rise of AGI we may truly go back to the course of humanity being determined by the whims of a handful of leaders. I'm not sure I buy the FOOM-superintelligence arguments, but even GPT-4 optimized with plug-ins and website access will be a tsunami of change over the way we approach work. If there are more technical advancements in the next few years, who knows where we will end up.
What annoys me most is that this doomer rhetoric lets politicians act like they're doing something - stopping the AI companies from growing - when in reality they need to face the economic situation. Whether it's UBI, massive unemployment benefits, socialized housing, or whatever, our political class must face the massive economic change coming. At this rate it seems neither side of the aisle is willing to double down on the idea that AI will disrupt the workforce, instead they prefer to argue about the latest social issue du jour. This avoidance of the economic shocks coming in the next five years or less is deeply troubling in my view.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
1yr ago
Gpt-4 has been released!. Looks like the cat is finally out of the bag. The CW implications of large language models are obvious and have been discussed here, so I figured I would drop a few fun facts.
Also, here's a peek at LessWrong freaking out.
The full technical report gives some fascinating information. Here are some highlights:
-
GPT-4 can pass a bar exam and score a 5 on several AP exams.
-
GPT-4 is 82% less likely to respond to requests for disallowed content and 40% more likely to produce factual responses than GPT-3.5 on our internal evaluations.
-
GPT-4 can accept images as inputs and generate captions, classifications, and analyses.
-
GPT-4 is capable of handling over 25,000 words of text, allowing for use cases like long form content creation, extended conversations, and document search and analysis.
Of all of these, passing the bar exam is the one that sticks out. We'll have to see how much it still hallucinates, but this is clearly a water mark, at least for the legal profession.
I'll go ahead and stake a perhaps dramatic but I believe warranted claim - the culture war is about to get ugly. Creating ads, propaganda, and bots to argue politics has never been easier. Whichever side moves first on scaling and implementing these language models to persuade humans to their camp will own the future.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
1yr ago
Given the response to my post below about culturally bound illnesses I figured it would make sense to write out a top level post specifically discussing gender dysphoria, since I expressed a desire to avoid that topic initially. I was inspired by Scott Alexander's recent post on culturally bound illnesses.
The basic idea of my previous post is that some illnesses which seem quite common in our society, things like anorexia, depression, chronic pain, and gender dysphoria, seem likely to be highly culturally mediated - i.e. they would not exist if the cultural norms we are inoculated in didn't account for them. This goes against the standard narrative for LGBTQ+ people, who often put forth the idea that before a minority gets social approval, there are a ton of 'closeted' individuals who simply live in suffering. Under this model, the social approval actually creates the urge to, for instace, sleep with the same sex or transition gender. (I'm less confident about homosexuality being highly cultural.)
I'm sure someone here could give a better history of rough numbers of trans individuals/gender dysphoria cases over time, but the gist seems to be that numbers have exploded recently. A quick search shows laughable results such as:
The percentage and number of adults who identify as transgender in the U.S. has remained steady over time.
And then on the exact same website:
Our estimate of the number of youth who identify as transgender has doubled from our previous estimate.
This is some of the most clear double think I've ever seen, and I tend to be much less invested in the trans debate than many here. Other studies are more honest explaining that:
The population size of transgender individuals in the United States is not well-known, in part because official records, including the US Census, do not include data on gender identity. Population surveys today more often collect transgender-inclusive gender-identity data, and secular trends in culture and the media have created a somewhat more favorable environment for transgender people.
I think this whole topic presents a clear problem, but I'm less sure about the actual solution. I'm sure many would jump at the chance to say we should just tell people who have gender dysphoria to suck it up and keep it to themselves, but I doubt the feasibility of that given how easy it is to create subcultures on the internet. Also, if you try to apply that frame to other problems like say anorexia, or depression, the failure modes become extremely clear.
Then again we can't just let these culturally created illnesses run rampant through our culture, and I predict they will only become increasingly problematic as our communication infrastructure and leisure time scales up. Ideally we want to replace these unhealthy cultural memes with healthier ones, but we run into a chicken and egg problem.
So - what are your recommended solutions to the issue of transgender ideation and other culturally bound issues?
The atheist/religious believer inferential gap is always huge, and especially difficult to bridge in rationalist forums. As someone who went from a materialist to one of the faithful, let's see if I can explain why statements like:
Which is nonsense, but it's nonsense of the not even wrong variety. And while "not even wrong" is a bad thing for a scientific theory to be, it is a very good thing for a religious belief to be. Partly because it means the religion is safe from being falsified by scientific evidence, but much more importantly because the religion will not be driven insane by the need to deny reality.
tend to rub me the wrong way. More importantly, they represent a total failure to grasp what most intellectually rigorous religious people actually believe.
What most rationalists (with the noteworthy exception of @coffee_enjoyer) fail to understand when discussing religion is that scientific materialism, the de facto worldview of the last few centuries, is also at bottom based on "supernatural claims." While the power of the scientific method, and more generally the method of treating all matter as 'dead' or devoid of mind a la Descartes, is undeniable, predictive power does not make something true in any metaphysical sense. Many modern philosophers argue that any description of life itself can't be formulated via materialism means, without resorting to an appeal to some higher organizational, metaphysical structure.
Historically the scientific materialist worldview has of course revealed much about the natural world, primarily through demythologizing our place in it. Over the past few decades however, we as a society have come more and more to understand the limits and outright detriments of a materialist approach. As the popularity of symbolic thinkers like Jordan Peterson clearly demonstrates, materialism leads to a 'meaning crisis' where people struggle to have any sort of deep purpose or narrative arc to their life, something that is deeply necessary for human happiness and flourishing.
While a ScientistTM may just scoff at the importance of meaning or purpose and say "Who cares, my science still gives me Truth," well, unfortunately that assertion is becoming more and more false by the day. L.P. Koch gives a decent summary in The Death of Science, but you can read about the phenomenon of our scientific apparatus falling apart all over the place. You've got the joke field of 'consciousness studies', the deep issues in quantum physics, the shocking revelation that our cosmic model is completely wrong via the James Webb space telescope, et cetera. Or just look at the fiasco of the Covid-19 response.
All of this to say, when people nowadays talk about religion having a comeback, what they often mean on a deeper level is that the Enlightenment myth, first posed by Descartes, is failing. Starting with the existentialists in the mid-20th century, this understanding is now percolated through to the masses with the help of the Internet and other mass communication technology. It's increasingly clear that the mechanistic, clockwork universe of the 19th century, again while granting us great power, is a framework that only goes so far; crucially this framework does not and cannot touch on the deeper questions of human meaning, other than giving us a destructive, nihilistic hedonism.
Ultimately the rationalist Enlightenment has been a Faustian bargain for humanity - we've gained unfathomable power over the natural world compared to our ancestors, but we have lost our souls in the process.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
1yr ago
To counterbalance my frothy rant earlier this week about wokeism in the novel Ancillary Justice, I thought I would do a quick write up on another SF/F novel - namely The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison. This is another novel in the speculative fiction genre that has won accolades, is pretty 'woke' in its plot and worldbuilding, and is written by a pretty left leaning woman as far as I can tell.
However, I found it exquisite! To explain a bit without spoiling the plot entirely, it revolves around a half-goblin half-elf man who has been abused and out of favor his whole life, but suddenly becomes emperor of the refined, wealthy, and judgmental empire of elves who his late father ruled. It is a classic tale of the oppressed being thrust into a position of power, and having to navigate racism, prejudice, etc. That's the main theme of the book. For instance in this scene the new emperor, Maia, confronts his abusive guardian, Setheris:
"Thank you, cousin," Maia said, knowing full well that Setheris offered him only the form of respect, that even now, as at Maia's wave he took the other chair, he was incensed with Maia's arrogance, waiting for the correct moment to reassert his control.
Thou wilt not, Maia thought. If I achieve nothing else in all my reign, thou wilt not rule me.
On top of this, there are all sorts of messages about women being useful for more than marriages, masters taking care of their servants, etc etc. All standard far-left, liberal talking points.
I'm wondering if the main difference between my frustration with Ancillary Justice and The Goblin Emperor is just the use of pronouns? I didn't think I had that much of an issue with pronouns/trans ideology separated from the rest of the woke memeplex, but the more I think about it the more it seems that people switching the pronouns they use and forcing others to use their preferred pronouns even if obviously incorrect is the main issue in my mind. Which doesn't seem to make much logical sense - but maybe it's just a disgust reaction.
Anyway, as someone who has identified as a liberal for most of my life, actually hardcore leftist, anti-authoritarian socialist, etc, I'm curious how many other folks are in the same boat. Essentially on board with the project of the left, until the last 5-10 years when trans ideology and pronouns took over the movement. Perhaps there are others who have realized that this is one specific issue they just can't accept for the greater good of the leftist cause.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
9mo ago
Nothing to see here--it's all part of nature. Understand how it works, make sure you're not the mouse/fly/blueberry, and move on happily with your own life.
This ideology may work decently for you individually, although I think it takes a heroic individual to truly accept that brutal state of affairs.
Over time though, and on a societal level, this type of thinking will inevitably descend back into the might-makes-right, strong eat the weak world that we rose from. During the Axial revolution back around the time of Socrates, men realized that they could make themselves better. That there was a different way to live than simply accepting Nature as red in tooth and claw - we could master nature. But more importantly, we could master ourselves.
All the beauty and ease your life is filled with has been delivered to you from generations of your ancestors that rejected this naturalistic worldview in order to build a better future for their descendants. You can spit on their sacrifices and just focus on getting yours, man, but I reject your worldview as fundamentally selfish, and wrong.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
11mo ago
If they're not needed and can't use violence to effectively overthrow the system then why would anyone need to pay any attention to them whatsoever?
You're drastically overestimating how cold blooded those at the top of society are. I find this sort of rhetoric so infuriating - do you really think elites all walk around with a view that they are better than all others, and the peasants can just die if they're useless? No, that's not how it works.
Most rich or wealthy folk want the approval of the masses. Status is arguably more desirable than wealth for many. They conceive of themselves as popular, someone that others look up to, and that helps give elites their sense of self. Even if there were absolutely no point to "peasants" living, which I still doubt, elites would let them live out of a sense of care for other human beings, and a need for adoration.
Regardless, humanity still produces quite a bit of important work, and will continue to into the era of AI. We can judge things, laugh, provide companionship, and generally instill meaning in a meaningless world. Even though we have a foolish scheme of employment vs unemployment that disregards vast swathes of human work, I'm optimistic AI will help us reimagine what it means to work. We very well could have people building community, caring for themselves and others, child rearing, discussing novel ideas, etc. after AI rises to swallow most of the economy. It depends on what we want to see happen.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
10mo ago
When is the last time you truly got sucked into something, and experienced a sense of childlike wonder?
For me it was, predictably, watching the VisionOS demo. I found it magical, and so exciting to think of the future of where that technology could go.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
7mo ago
Eh, I don't find this argument persuasive. I highly doubt the vast majority of supporters of the MeToo movement would be caught dead agreeing with any sort of 'sex negativity.' It's really about women wanting to have their cake and eat it to.
The way these sexual assault and rape proceedings are going, we are hurtling towards a world where young women get to become intoxicated at parties and fuck around as much as they want. But then if a man they slept with (or presumably could've slept with) ever does something they don't like, they can bring the full force of the law against them. Even 20 years later.
Yes conservative courting norms and laws were created to prevent this exact thing, but I'm not sure most mainstream progressives are able to think of anything labeled 'conservative' in a positive light. It's quite strange but the modern media landscape really has made a world where people see a group labeled 'enemy' enough times and they get to a point where they just literally cannot fathom that that group has anything beneficial going on.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
10mo ago
What is your budget breakdown, or in other words how much of your budget do you spend on hobbies or video games or fun things?
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
1yr ago
Why not just get vaccinated? I also thought it was kind if bullshit but did it to avoid running my social life.
Are you concerned about health risks or is it a principle?
Recently Scott Alexander and a few others have been talking more about the idea of a social contagion, one which spreads real physical problems.
As I’ve argued in previous posts, this social contagion likely causes a number of what we see as purely physical injuries. Many feel that their body is injured. They deal with diagnoses from the medical community such as:
-
Chronic pain
-
Fibromyalgia
-
TMJ
-
Joint Hypermobility
Some doctors, like John Sarno, have even argued that far more injuries are based on psychological harm, rather than physical, such as:
-
Hives
-
Eczema
-
IBS
-
Gluten sensitivity/Celiacs
-
Herniated Discs
The list goes on. These are extraordinary claims, which Sarno backs up with impressive statistics in his book.. Unfortunately I can’t find his paper online, would be curious to take a look if anyone has a link. What Sarno calls the issue, and what other doctors or medical writers such as have supported him in, is a disorder called Tension Myositis Syndrome (TMS.)
The basic mechanism he posits is that our mind uses defense mechanisms to prevent us from thinking certain thoughts. We distract ourselves with drugs, alcohol, fast food, and many other addictions. He thinks that in the modern world, due to our views on physical injury, some people deal with their mind creating physical pain to distract them from emotional issues. This distraction comes out in certain nerves being deoxygenated, which he claims to have proven.
Much of this stress comes from trauma due to unresolved emotional issues, which is pretty standard accepted literature in psychology nowadays. Sarno specifically calls out “anxiety, anger, and feelings of inferiority” as the big culprits, citing that modern life causes many of us to have a lot of anger boiling under the surface. Constraints from work, relationships, illness, loss of loved ones, and in extreme cases childhood neglect or abuse.
To use a more rationalist lens, you could say the most stressor would be status anxiety. Many on the motte have argued that status anxiety is an incredibly common and hidden force that generates massive emotional problems, since the Western world is so hypercompetitive, and it’s difficult to measure up in any walk of life, let alone most. When you don’t feel you're at the top in your work life, social life, or family structure, people get frustrated.
What makes this problem worse is that due to the way modern society operates, we can’t express anger frequently depending on our situation. For those in the PMC, or the business world more generally, it’s considered almost unthinkable to yell at a boss or a client. The whole microaggression concept exacerbates the issue.
Some believe this is a recent phenomena due to stresses of modern life, but I’d argue that the connection between mind and body is far more complicated and older. Writers throughout history would cite feelings of pride which make your chest well, or having your hands tremble with rage. Our minds and bodies are inextricably linked, so it stands to reason that if we have rampant neuroses in our society, some of it would express itself physically.
I’m sure many of those reading this who are more physically active may have an instinctual response of “duh, of course the mind and body are one, it’s the most obvious thing ever.” I’d argue that the inferential distance around this issue opens a vast gulf which is difficult to imagine. If you have not experienced chronic pain, I don’t think it’s something one can confidently model with any real accuracy.
To some degree, patterns of behavior also must matter. A common response to an injury is to exercise, and for most generalized chronic pain issues, this seems to work. The issue arises when someone creates a trapped prior. Basically the idea that they have some condition is so deeply ingrained that the typical fixes don’t work. Many sufferers of chronic pain even admit they think it’s psychosomatic, but still struggle to deal with it. Ultimately Sarno’s method seems to work for them over time. Point is, our modern medical fixation on mechanical causology for injury seems, if not totally wrong, at least to be missing a big piece of the puzzle.
This idea may already swim in the water all around us. After all, we have plenty of colloquialisms such as “trust your gut” or “follow your heart” that suggest a connection. However, the common idea that injuries are almost entirely physical persists.
If true, this hypothesis could be one the discovery of which would shake our society to its roots. Long-lasting physical injuries being caused by emotional pain would alter our entire approach to medicine, let alone overall health or the pursuit of virtue.
It’s important to note that depending on your values, you may prefer the current state of events. If subjecting the emotionally damaged in Western society (most of us) to self-caused physical pain is worth preventing large amounts of anger and other negative emotions from boiling over, that is not necessarily an irrational choice. I’d certainly prefer dealing with one of these issues than living through a revolution or large war.
That being said, it’s a choice we must make without blinders. To ignore the issue entirely is to prevent us from solving it.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
8mo ago
I forgot how god damn fun the series Cradle by Will Wight is. Something about the cultivation/progression fantasy genre just really speaks to me, inspires me in a way other fiction doesn't do often enough.
On the non-fiction side it's rarer to find a fun book, but I remember really liking Moonwalking with Einstein, where a journalist learns to become a memory champ.
What are some of the most fun things you've read, fiction or non fiction?
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
9mo ago
What was your dream job/career as a kid? Was it anything remotely realistic?
I remember I wanted to help terraform Mars at NASA because I was a massive sci-fi nerd. I even went into environmental science and wanted to go for that sort of thing, until I realized everyone in environmental science was a depressed dweeb who lied about their stats.
Anyway, now my big dream is to become a writer some day, even if not a great one.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
1yr ago
Thanks for the writeup, this is fascinating. As I've said before I tend to agree with @Primaprimaprima that many, perhaps even most people, will prefer to see a human doctor for the majority of symptoms. I see a hybrid model being the future of medicine. This sort of fundamental topic on the health of yourself and your loved ones is deeply emotional for people and I think they'll want the reassurance of a human authority figure they can look to.
That being said those who choose to adopt AI doctors will probably gain a significant edge in health, and just like any other technology early adopters will convince the rest to follow. The deep seated prejudices will remain, but I'd imagine kids who grew up with the internet, or especially those growing up in the age of AI, will take to AI doctors quite readily.
I'm actually far more interested in the applications to mental health than any sort of physical diagnoses, even though I do think those are impressive. I've used GPT-4 to get tips on meditation, visualization, and generally teaching myself wisdom, and it's incredible.
In a podcast on the Lunar Society, Ilya Sutskever of Open AI wrote that he imagines a situation where every human will have access to the wisdom of our greatest sages and wise men. We'll be able to immediately get answers to our deepest religious or spiritual questions at the drop of a hat. If we don't get satisfaction we can always go to a human therapist, but LLMs will be an incredible 'first line of defense' so to speak.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
1yr ago
Most of the arguments I’ve read against transhumanism seem to boil down to some variant of:
I find that distasteful on a gut level.
I don’t find this convincing? If your best argument is “I don’t like it,” you may want to reassess your position.
Anyone have good fantasy or sci-fi recommendations? I have read a ton of speculative fiction and am always looking for more good, completed series. I tend not to read something if it's ongoing. Sadly the subreddits I've found for fantasy don't tend to skew towards my taste.
Some examples of more obscure fantasy series I've enjoyed:
-
Malazan
-
The Traitor Son Cycle
-
The Black Company
-
The Second Apocalypse
-
The Inda Quartet
-
Chronicles of the Black Gate
-
Mother of Learning
-
Commonwealth Saga
-
Night's Dawn Trilogy
-
The Void Trilogy
-
Diaspora (Greg Egan)
-
Aching God Series
-
Annihilation
-
The Broken Earth
-
Memory, Sorrow, Thorn
-
Book of the New Sun
-
Otherland
-
Gravity Dreams
-
Chronicles of Thomas Covenant
-
Magician series by Feist
As you may be able to tell I prefer my series to be somewhat morally gray, and at least try to have a system of magic/technology that makes internal, consistent sense.
I've heard Worth the Candle is good but haven't gotten around to reading it. Any other suggestions in line with the books/series I listed above?
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
3mo ago
Has anyone else gone through a period in adult life where you realize you've kind of forgotten how to actually have fun?
I'm not talking about just zoning out to a video game, but joyous laugh-out-loud relaxing fun. For me I feel I've gotten so bogged down with job issues, health issues, and planning for the future that even when I carve out 'free time' I never fully relax and just have fun.
Anyone relate? Or have stories on how they got out of such a mode?
I just read a short article in an email newsletter that threw out this statistic with regards to automation in the food industry:
The article goes on to argue the point that due to all of the ‘quiet quitting’ and generally unsatisfied workers after the pandemic or over the last couple of years, automation will not be as big of a deal as we thought. I’ve seen this sentiment echoed a number of times recently where news outlets will talk about how all of the people worried about economic disruption from robotics and Artificial Intelligence don’t realize that it’ll actually be great because people hate working anyway.
I used to believe these claims when I was a disillusion young adult who hated working, but overtime I’ve gotten more and more skeptical. Many people I know take serious pride and work, and in fact for a lot of people their work is the most important thing in their life. I’m talking people who don’t even really need the money, or who claim that even if they had enough money to retire they would continue working just as much as they do now.
Is this recent trend of less engagement with work robust enough to offset the rise in automation of jobs? Is this just a cope from those who know their jobs will disappear soon? (Ie email newsletter writers)
Personally I’m surprised that artificial intelligence hasn’t gotten more flack than it has so far. I expected the lights to come out in full force and at least get some sort of ban on image generation (I know Getty or some other site has done this) but so far it seems that artificial intelligence is generally unopposed.
Any major salient examples of automation technology or artificial intelligence being banned to protect jobs?
More options
Context Copy link