ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
15hr ago
I'm mostly thinking of the GIUK gap here (though to be fair that's a bit far north to be particularly concerned about a new vector for submarine warfare, rather than the one that already existed) and of the Northwest Passage; now the US formally controls both entrance and exit from any Atlantic port, real or imagined (re: Churchill).
So at that point it really wouldn't matter what policy we set; the US can just override it- not that they couldn't do that before, it's just more blatant now that they (more or less) have actual territory there that isn't able to be meaningfully contested by either Russia or China (yes, Alaska exists, but the naval bases there are in missile range; Greenland, not so much).
Maximum trolling would have been Canada striking a military protection deal with Greenland first (it's not like they're not already using our small arms) but to be honest Denmark probably has the more capable military already.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
15hr ago
What’s up with Carney? It’s a good bit though.
Nominative determinism.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
15hr ago
The native communist eskimos might invite Russia or China in just out of fit of pique, or in a corrupt bargain.
Yeah, but I thought we were discussing Greenland.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
16hr ago
So basically, Greenland/Denmark has decided that they will accept (or rather, not resist) military occupation by the US, it's just that the "who runs the government" part is still Denmark's problem (or Greenland's, should they so decide).
Provided the text of the deal backs up that interpretation, Greenland is now de facto conquered American territory. (It sounds like a very Chinese way to run a conquest, honestly.)
One wonders what the implications for the other Arctic-holding State to the US' immediate north is, as this agreement inherently (and formally) threatens all Canadian trade capacity with non-US countries.
I do suspect that Canada will be next simply to ditch the boat anchor of military obligations and accept a similar deal as reality, because I don't believe for a second that any recent move on our part to try and desperately appear as a real country is at all genuine. Indeed, the only re-investment being made is to the navy... in that they actually bothered to buy some U-boats submarines, and I can honestly see a trade made for American foreign investment actively invited towards Atlantic Canadian facilities when it comes to the US' navy (in a way that benefits the only voters keeping the current government in power, of course- the auto workers were always fucked, but there will be zero immediate electoral consequence to that).
If anything in that "negotiation" survives it's going to be a similar type of US occupation. Should have bought the jets when we had the chance.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
17hr ago
Of the job categories listed in the 1960 US Census, supposedly only one has disappeared completely: elevator operator.
"Computer" is also no longer a job category thanks primarily to the machine named after said profession.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
20hr ago
I have no idea how or why women “handing back the wheel”
Women need to co-operate with men for this one to actually fix the problem about which they complain. Right now they're just bitching to bitch.
Women would like peace in Palestine because they value peace over war. And fine. Peace is good. But women don't make war[1], so how much are they willing to pay for it?
Normally, women will give up some of what they want- a society that honors exclusively them and not men, and imposes their fundamental desires of safety, equality, and consent- so that men will go and accomplish some of their other goals. Men will risk their lives if it comes with some benefit beyond that which women currently permit them in society, like "allowed to own a house" [and/or a bunch of ludicrously expensive things most people spend their lives working for and never get, which attract women by proxy], "free pass to the upper-middle class" (would need some updating, college degrees are dime-a-dozen these days), "lots of sex and being considered a hero forever [re: 'I love a man in uniform' and 'thank you for your service']", etc.
But right now they are not willing to pay what it costs for men to go to war to enforce that goal (and make token efforts instead; like "impose sanctions", "excommunicate Israeli politicians and prosecute them in religious court[2]", "Queers for Palestine" [which is the same thing- an instinctual attempt to provide social cachet to the men who want Israel checked by conflating Palestinians with themselves -> implying those who defend them will be rewarded in the above ways, and if they actually had bodies that were more attractive than the average PornHub woman they might have a point], etc.).
If they actually wanted to pay this cost, much as Britain and France once did (to spread their cultural values throughout the world), they'd arm an expeditionary force and send them in (much like Ukrainian ethnic groups currently do for their allies) with those rewards bestowed upon return.
But they don't want that. They want to crybully (which does give them some control to the extent powerful men are willing to listen to it) and otherwise run the "poor me" routine typical of little girls. They no longer want a set of men who are attractive to them because they met the goals women/the culture set. And young women could spend their current power to incentivize the creation of men attractive to them, but they do not.
The Clancy case is the exact same on a much smaller scale- society's civil war against one woman. If young women wanted justice (in a way that's fair to men, meaning "women [who kill their children] are punished for that evil action" [this harms mostly men, as the authority to produce children is something men inherently lack]), they'd start calling for her head and eventually they'd get it.
They're willing to throw loads of money around to get this done, as the GoFundMe pages prove; a man who did this would result in a million dollars paid to his family at the cost of rolling the dice with his life in front of a jury.
But they don't, and they won't do this themselves (again, because of [1]), so the evil persists.
[1] Outside of very specific circumstances where losing means inescapable genocide; WW2 Russia, Israel (all the time), Palestine (also all the time, but abstract as their military and soldiers are all irregular).
[2] The ICC is basically just the Inquisition, meant to legitimize how righteous Europeans are in killing the losers of wars Europe has some stake in. (Which is the purpose for which it was created in '45, to legitimize killing rival elites from the defeated German state.)
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
21hr ago
· Edited 21hr ago
Yeah, imagine having a model that does what you tell it, how horrible.
Did you know that this existed in other forms called "books" for the last hundred years? And what was the maximum we actually got in terms of terrorism? Arguably the scariest it got was Aum Shinrikyo, who had a bunch of people intelligent enough, and driven enough, to wage chemical and (if they actually had the materials) nuclear civil war. The secrets behind those mechanisms were at the time widely-published; everyone knew how the Hiroshima device (and sarin gas) worked maybe 20 years after it was used.
The only really dangerous thing I could think of would be biology, and perhaps after the inevitable novel biological attack (which will likely be least-effort) we'll see agar become a controlled substance. But the models aren't ready for that yet and it still requires a researcher with their head on straight, which is selected against when we look at the average (for example) mass shooter or mass car-driver; even Aum's highly sophisticated attack in one of the most crowded places in the world only managed half the death toll of an angry retard attacking an office with a gallon of gas).
Then again, I kind of believe in the American way where "having every tool necessary to destroy your neighbor should they piss you off, and every day of your existence is a choice to deal within the rules" is probably more stable than highly authoritarian regimes simply because the existence of the veto helps ensure those rules remain fair. If the State is otherwise capable of complete totalitarian control, which with the coming tools they will, then individuals under it must have some power to check it or there's no reason, from a realpolitik perspective, not to go full 1984 and enslave them.
Even then, political violence (which the more intelligent types prefer) tends to be targeted; the prototypical example perhaps being an autonomous turret set up in northern Ireland trained on pictures of Oranges, set up as non-lethal simply to make a point, or otherwise depending on how angry they are.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
1d ago
What's more, it comes across as a highly emotional approach, driven more by dominance seeking and sense of grievance than material benefit.
Yes, that's exactly how said allies are behaving. I honestly don't get this impression from the US, but then again, I'm the one who has to pay the bill for Boomer cultural posturing and said Boomers have made me poorer in the first place because of that posturing, so my perspective is slanted in that way.
There isn't a damn thing Commonwealth countries are going to get from Europe outside of "more resource extraction from an even less competent ally". Canada pretends it'll just make gear for war to maintain its industrial supply chain, but it has no need for it and Germans would quite rather those jobs be made in Germany (to preserve its industrial supply chain). These deals are merely cope.
German industry is already idle, so agreements these countries make will be contingent on their winding down their own manufacturing capacity to keep European capacity (and hence political power) alive. The same wouldn't be true for Britain, but their supply chains packed it in in the Thatcher years, so they have no use for any former imperial possessions.
What now remains is the resolution of the teething pains of countries that permitted themselves to be hollowed out (and sold their ability to maintain a national identity to keep their real estate prices high) collapsing under the weight of their own bureaucratic-welfare complex. If Canada can't resist economic destruction on its own, and realistically it can't, the others have no hope either.
Nobody has any clue what the fuck to do, nobody has any idea of what the next 5 years are going to look like let alone the next 20, and depression of this type is a happiness-rationing system designed to protect you from this type of circumstance (mostly so that you don't blow your entire stockpile of resources on something really risky trying to get back to that state).
And really, that's just the way it is now. Welcome to the post '90s Japanese economy, I guess.
Maybe once the data centers get built out there'll be enough room in the economy to fund software again (as in, "now we need people to do the thing the data centers were for"), but who knows? Industry in particular has been missing its 'smarter than the average bear'-types for a while, especially those that are smarter than the automation.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
2d ago
Rigid adherence to something that they read somewhere while not really understanding the reasons, I guess?
Ok, so they simulate a human being perfectly then.
Like, we are sending some questions and getting back answers; "the answers keep getting better!" seems like an awfully lazy excuse for not making the tools also get better!
It's because we don't fucking know how to make the tools better. Half of it is because we have tunnel vision on just how hard the models can go, and the other half of it is because we don't even know if we should bother making the tools better because the current approach seems to be working pretty well so far (and to pitch that in a way that doesn't just sound like you're advocating for faster horses) and the entire industry (and certain companies, and their workers) have come down with a case of clinical depression because of it.
At this point I'd rather just switch to the WIS side of software development, rather than the INT side, because that to me seems like a losing battle. But maybe that's the wrong approach. I dunno.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
2d ago
I still don't fully understand that meme. I get that it's the most spaghetti/rigid-definition Java code that was popular in the late '90s but I've never seen it quite that bad before.
If anything else C# is even worse, since you look at the docs to try and figure out how to use something... and the minute you do, you see
public static IQueryable<TResult> SelectMany<TSource,TCollection,TResult>(
this IQueryable<TSource> source,
Expression<Func<TSource,int,IEnumerable<TCollection>>> collectionSelector,
Expression<Func<TSource,TCollection,TResult>> resultSelector);
which is fucking awful in a way the worst natural-language sentence doesn't seem to be. Though maybe it's a better Rorschach test for programmers; if even the insane people give up when they see that shit maybe it's time for an ADHD diagnosis.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
2d ago
But Israel/Palestine is mostly just a proxy for
But it is, to me, disgusting and evil when people reward the use of killing children with sympathy
which is what modern feminists do, so you can generalize your statement to
The crybully tactics of modern feminism need to be punished like they would have been by the men of the 19th century.
and we'll note that it's not the 19th century any more. In fact, it's been over 100 years since it was the 19th century.
This is a problem with women, and women will have to hand over the wheel back to men on this one.
You, as a man, cannot force this to happen; you have no more military or organizational power in this matter than modern Britain or France do under US hegemony.
I detest cooking and the resulting food too.
However, I will cook for others who don't have that problem, and by their judgment I know I am at least passably competent.
The industrial kitchens do this better (more variety, more consistency, specifically engineered to be a tasty and relatively well-balanced product, drastically less time) and cost the same as it would for me to do it; the ingredients and the waste thereof are the reason why (I can't buy portions small enough for this to be cost-effective). At last count, it cost about a half hour's wage to do that.
Modern ingredients are generally completely tasteless outside of specialty stores, so I'd rather buy from people whose recipes are built around overcoming that fact. (And they are successful; I don't know how, I've yet to fixate on flavor chemistry.)
If I was married or had kids I'd cook more simply because that economic calculus would no longer hold in the "you can just use the whole bag" sense. Until such time, I'm going to McDonalds because that's still a nutritionally-complete meal (I'm not Big Smoke but I'm also not magically repelled from fast food places and don't understand why anyone would be outside of "it's low class").
For a relatively sedentary lifestyle a breakfast (or dinner, if I do decide to cook it myself), that, and some snacks/drinks throughout the day results in roughly 1,000 calories as surplus per month. I'm as thankful for the supply chain that makes this possible as I am for the food itself in terms of being able to survive the day, and would prefer to move to an area where a wider variety of these places existed.
I am one of those people who will eat the same thing for a literal year, then get tired of it and never eat it again (and am thankful that I haven't hit that point with hamburgers; truly the Platonic ideal of foods, perhaps appropriately named after a city bearing some of the most autistic peoples on the planet). I have some intellectual appreciation for people who eat nothing but chicken nuggets, it's just that I don't have any reason to resist situations where I can't do that and won't explode if I can't do it. (Comfort isn't actually that much of an end.)
But I have trouble finding any sort of consistent principles in modern progressivism that don't boil down to "who, whom".
This is true of all ideologies, including classical liberalism, where the who is "people who can handle it and get along" and the whom is "people who can't". Abel on the who side, Cain on the whom. (There's an attitude I get from that story that Abel is the first liberal and Cain the first socialist- it's very difficult to explain, more of a 'whose heart is where and why' thing.)
The reason I prefer this is that "people who can handle it" are incredibly productive in ways "people who can't" just aren't. Which is also the claim progressives make about their grouping, and given that we (and especially they) live in conditions that are to a degree post-reality (where raw productivity isn't as much of a factor), there actually is some observable truth to progressive statements, which is why progressives are that way.
Of course, I disagree with progressives because they take the post-reality state (that liberalism has given them) for granted and use that as license to re-impose all the evils that were destroyed (by liberalism). But I also understand it's easy to tolerate that which is not an injury to you, and I'm not injured by iniquity, weirdness, or moralfaggotry so long as it doesn't get itself on me beyond its otherwise productive value (which I feel inherently puts me above rules imposed to control those things, and my claim to that is "look upon all the things that were designed and implemented by people who share my values"- perhaps because they all migrated to the only place that wasn't actively trying to murder those people, but still, a win's a win).
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
2d ago
Do we not have, uh like, modular software design? Encapsulation?
Nah, we just let the AI care about that now.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
2d ago
The people who will age into being beneficiaries of feminist power are the ones that need to deal with it.
Men were that way in the beginning of the 20th. It's Her Turn.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
2d ago
it would be necessary to frame it as "we are keeping men out" not "we are keeping women in."
Which would be trivial were Clancy's husband to give his wife the pedophile treatment of shooting her dead while leaving the trial (even better if he's acquitted by a mostly-male jury- imagine if he raised the insanity defense). Cities of refuge are justified in the same way (though importantly, they don't extend to first-degree murder).
And besides, the bleeding hearts love exposing themselves to risk from mental health patients. They can tell themselves they're saving them.
This creates a problem because then women would try to get into the gulag.
No more than they commit crimes to try to go to female prison more generally, I don't think. Sure, you'd have some men trying to do that, but they already do that by dressing up as women.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
3d ago
That paints an even worse picture, though.
they're imagining that they are themselves in a situation where they have just killed their kids, which they know would have been impossible for them to do in their right mind
Ah yes, the "it just... happened" defense. We already have laws that distinguish between the two: first-degree and second-degree (and to a point manslaughter).
thus it would be unjust to expect them to take responsibility for the actions
Yet they still assert they deserve rights without that corresponding responsibility (which is related to it being All Men's Fault, reflected by these same people claiming the husband [or men in general] should have done more).
In this framing, the insanity defense (mentally incapable of taking responsibility for their actions) and the feminist defense/assertion about themselves, are one and the same. But insane people are locked up and stripped of most of their rights because they are incapable of taking responsibility for their actions (and are thus too dangerous to exercise those rights).
Persons that are capable of taking that responsibility are trivially correct when they assert this same treatment should apply to those who are not.
and generalizes in such a way that everyone would be forgiven for every crime
Then they can compromise with everyone else and create a system of exile (that, because the aristocracy are designing their own prison, isn't going to become a gulag even though that's basically what this creates). It's problematic to sentence life in prison/death for aristocracy (women, pet demographics), so just put them there. If they leave before their term is up, then the death sentence is immediate.
The "not guilty because I'm insane" defense is not contesting the fact they did the thing. It's fine to not be responsible (the female view), but it's also fine for that to have system-level consequences (the male view).
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
3d ago
Is it actually possible to align a being that is more intelligent than you in every single way?
The existence of competent Soviet and Chinese science programs, and [my political outgroup] tending to find itself developing AI, suggests the answer is yes.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
3d ago
but in plenty of societies it’s reverence for motherhood.
The irony being that the women in question are, statistically, not mothers.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
3d ago
How much more will it take for people to start recognizing feminism as a real problem?
That's not really the question. Everyone knows. Even the feminists.
The actual question is "how much more will it take for non-state actors to organize and physically block expressions of feminist power". And that's a much more difficult question to answer; the last generation that had any real reason to has died and they were the ones that created this problem in the first place.
If she is acquitted, it would bias expectations in future conflicts towards "women can get away with anything"; if she is convicted, it would bias expectations towards "all the efforts of women activists can't get one woman acquitted".
Which is the exact reason the pro-choice/pro-life debate exists in its current form in the first place. It's really not about killing kids- Palestinian women are more than happy to send them on suicide missions every day. Why would Western women be any different?
The only places that don't have this issue take the posture that both men and women are subordinate to the State- the more subordinate, the more even-handed and pro-social the restrictions (it's still not going to stop the State from killing kids who have disabilities incompatible with life, but that honors men more in the sense that it acknowledges they have to pay for it).
Meanwhile, in the Anglosphere, women are the State.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
3d ago
The number 1 rule of AI safety is don’t build the AI that takes over the world
No, the number 1 rule of AI safety is "don't build an AI that leads to my enemies putting an end to my politics".
It's laundered through "takes over the world".
How many software engineers [or others directly threatened by AI] are not Blue-no-matter-who, though? Those are the people mostly worried about this (and partially because capex on data centers kind of ate the market's appetite for software, though one notes that once those data centers are available there still needs to be software engineers capable of using them)... but from what I can tell most of them (except for perhaps Dallas/Fort Worth) do not vote Red so why cater to them?
If nothing else, Red really needs AI to be too cheap to meter [and very cheap to develop] because control of it (and therefore access) is currently in the hands of
misaligned intelligencestheir political opponents. So their tactic is going to be about maintaining the existing "you want your men in government to make sure that your enemy can't use AI to explode your world" threat and not a more general/civic-responsibility "AI will explode the world" message from Blue (and indeed they are in fact guilty of lying about this- stamping their culture war views into their models, claiming that's "safety", then letting development in the real X-based directions rip). Techno-luddism is kind of a Red stereotype in the first place anyway.The strategy from Blue should arguably be more of what they're already good at: credentialism. You need humans to check that the output is correct, so why not seek some legal protections for that should that change overnight? (That way, even if the highly credentialed [= average Blue voter] are reduced to universal-basic-jobs, it's not going to upend the social order; they'll still be well-paid simply for being the kind of person who is better than average at computers. The fact the Blue side is full of Progressives may significantly degrade their ability to make this point precisely because they were the ones who entangled "safety" with "can't do a wrongthink" in the first place.)
Until it comes time to actually interact with a human being or check its work, of course; if work X isn't done properly and something screws up the superintelligence is still not accountable.
More options
Context Copy link