UwU
4d ago
Playing it during the World Cup was smart. Unlike you, the masses wouldn’t think about it deeply. The ad began with the negative possibilities of AI, and gradually moved on to express hope and the positive use of AI. The audience was meant to feel their concerns validated and addressed (even if that didn’t actually happen) and then finish the ad with a positive feeling on AI. The ad was designed to work on an emotional level, and I think it was effective at that.
UwU
4d ago
There’s the scenario in which Anthropic solves alignment and the crazy sci-fi ASI sides with Anthropic in opposition to the US military. Though I agree with you directionally that this is not a likely scenario.
UwU
6d ago
I think this would be an interesting essay for someone already steeped in that subculture, but as someone who lacks context, I have some questions. The chief among them is: who is exactly is this criticism levied against? Who is the poster child of this AI safetyism, advocating for bombing data centers, seizing the means of compute, and already made everything worse (how??)? Are they even the same group of people? e.g. Sam Altman may want to use AI safety as an excuse to eliminate his AGI competitors via regulatory capture but he surely isn't advocating for bombing data centers?
it really is true that if/when AGI is ever eventuated, at very best it is still going to be the end of the world as we know it, and at worst if anyone builds it everyone dies.
If you believe this then it's not the AI safetyists you should be most worried about, but AI research firms in general? Especially firms that explicitly don't care about safety at all? Aren't the guys bombing data centers aligned with your beliefs?
UwU
13d ago
I’m somewhat confused by all this, but especially by the last screenshot, which shows that the plaintiffs are saying no one owns AI generated characters and are seeking a court order saying Momentum does not own them. This seems inconsistent with the narrative that Momentum is being sued because those other companies are saying they own the characters? What is actually happening?
UwU
14d ago
America could have been the best country on Earth but immigrants have stolen it and turned it into a mediocre, and declining, country
I think you mean non-white immigrants. If so, please just have the balls to come out and say that. Otherwise this logic is tortured. America was built by immigrants. The average US citizen is an immigrant or a descendant of an immigrant who came here from late 19th century (start of Ellis Island) onwards, Trump included. But I never hear complaints about the European immigration waves, just Indians, Chinese, Somalis, Muslims, Mexicans.
UwU
20d ago
I find it hilarious that everyone, from mottizens to Supreme Court justices, knows that Trump is going to fuck the US economy if allowed. It put the court in a rather unenviable position where they would tank the economy if they didn’t deliver this self-contradictory verdict.
UwU
1mo ago
Is it that funny? Most people require nothing to believe something that confirms their biases but require iron-clad evidence to believe something which contradicts their worldview. Liberals and progressives included.
UwU
1mo ago
120 is the top 9% which I wouldn’t categorize as “mid” in any way but maybe midwit is just a technical term that I didn’t understand.
UwU
1mo ago
120 IQ is considered midwits now? Is this IQ inflation?
But more seriously, many of my super intelligent friends (I’m talking top 1%, ML researcher at OpenAI and the like) are anti-racist and afflicted with TDS. Maybe they just don’t think about politics all that much. Maybe California is a bubble.
UwU
1mo ago
First of all, thank you for the detailed comment. I appreciate the effort. Consider my priors adjusted.
mkc claims the Nowak scenario is common. I and FtttG separately ask for examples of a specific thing (police arrest victim nonwhite person instead of murderer white person). mkc pretends to have already provided that. We repeatedly point out that no, you haven't provided that. mkc switches to "well actually this thing is rare so there are few examples either way". I ask for a single example, which is never provided.
I agree, though it does seem like he misinterpreted the request as something more general "police arrest victim instead of perp" rather than the more specific request. Later on it might be better to concede on the point before pivoting, but it's on par with online political debates.
mkc tries to cast FtttG as some kind of terminally online forum gremlin ("touch grass" etc). I explain to him that this reflects poorly on mkc. mkc keeps up an act of "what smear? what bad thing did I say? I'm not attacking FtttG, I'm not doing anything wrong :3", while being clearly aware of exactly what he was doing (and doubling down on it).
That's bad for sure. He got deservingly banned for it.
[... ChatGPT stuff ...]
The way I read it was a back and forth discussion where he got challenged on the impartiality and reproducibility of ChatGPT results, and changed because of it (i.e. he started posting prompts). Some parts of it may be sus but it does not go over my bad faith threshold.
Another problem with your policy of "I need specific individual instances of bad faith; I won't read a long thread" is that it allows posters like mkc to fly under the radar. If you're looking for a threshold of (say) 60% bad faith in an individual comment, and someone is consistently operating at 55% bad faith, then any one individual comment isn't going to set off your alarms. But the cumulative effect of 55% bad faith is much worse than a single 60% bad faith comment!
Perhaps, but I'm willing to extend more charity on members in a forum with minority viewpoints. But again, consider my priors adjusted on this one, you may not have convinced me that he exceeded my single-comment-chain bad faith threshold but the cumulative evidence of sus behavior has certainly increased.
I get that vagueness is easier to defend
Very charitable, thanks.
I did not say this to you.
UwU
1mo ago
As I mentioned in my previous comment, I was looking for actual specifics of this supposed intellectual dishonesty rather than a vague gesture to the start of a humungous thread, which I did skim over and did not come to the same conclusion as you.
UwU
1mo ago
I meant they should be more specific as in actual quotes and articulate convincingly how MKC is supposedly intellectually dishonest and trolling rather than simply linking to a particular thread. I get that vagueness is easier to defend, but just by briefly reading over the thread, it seems like he's being dogpiled for adopting a different framing than what is consistent with the Overton window here.
On Reddit, people with right-wing (or even moderate!) opinions often get dogpiled and shouted down and get called intellectually dishonest (and therefore eligible to be banned) even if they are earnest in their beliefs, because they find the left-wing framing, evidence, or arguments unconvincing. I hope this place is still somewhere everyone can speak their mind and disagree, and not right-wing Reddit.
UwU
1mo ago
I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but it would be great for accusers of MKC to post receipts along with their accusations. Right now it just seems like people are ganging up on him for no good reason.
UwU
1mo ago
Meanwhile Ukrainian losses are high while Russian confirmed losses are unusually low.
It seems like you snuck this in so you can compare unconfirmed Ukrainian losses against confirmed Russian losses?
UwU
2mo ago
Getting your dog fixed doesn't stop them from humping. My female dog, even after being spayed, was still super into humping stuff.
UwU
2mo ago
It would be very odd that a white woman was obsessively in love with an Indian male in the first place. Add that it’s a high status white woman.
Elizabeth Holmes
UwU
2mo ago
That is also not the gotcha you think it is. China today is vastly different from when it was undergoing a communist revolution. China, when it was killing tens of millions, didn’t have a fertility problem.
UwU
3mo ago
I don't really see what this is supposed to prove one way or the other. You are still stuck in the timescale framing of the most fervent AI bros. Opus 4.6 came out in February, 2 months ago. So what if Opus 4.7 is not a revolutionary upgrade? If AI were truly stagnant, we won't really find out until someone posts in 2028 that Opus 6.7 is only a marginal upgrade over Opus 4.7.
UwU
3mo ago
However devoid of rigor you think the H-1B selection process was, the Canadian immigration system in the past decade was even more so. At least for H-1B, new approvals are capped at 85k max a year, and you need to have a job for which the median salary is over six figures. For Canada, it was infamously relaxed enough to let in millions of Indian students with nothing but an offer letter to a school.
Even if this is true, there's a few implications to it. One is that no one should even try to compete for immigrants, because they're all going to go to the top country anyway, and then ones you will get, will only cause economic stagnation. Another is that even for America this would probably mean mass deportations are a good idea, as you can just keep the absolute best performence, and get rid of everyone else.
I never said we needed to compete for immigrants -- just to let the talented and skilled ones in. I don't see evidence that skilled immigration causes economic stagnation. There are many immigrants or second generation immigrants here that contributed a lot to our economy. I already think it's a good idea to deport illegals, and economic immigrants who no longer meet the bar. H-1B already has a provision for this. If you are no longer employed at a job that sponsors the H-1B, you're gone.
You could say the question was rhetorical (because I already know the answer to it), but in no way is it sarcastic. It means exactly what it's straightforward, literal interpretation would imply.
So when you described the influx of millions of Indians to Canada as "talented", you were being earnest and not mocking? That's not a word that I would have used to describe them and I would not count them as skilled immigrants. If you were being earnest then I would like you to substantiate your "opposite" claim -- that the Canadian global competitive edge decreased because of the greater immigration, not that it merely didn't increase because of it.
UwU
3mo ago
If you actually disagree with what I posted specifically, please articulate it better instead of posting sarcastic snark so I don't have guess what you mean. But from what I can infer, I reject your premise because it's unrelated to what I was arguing.
- The vast majority of the indian immigrant influx to Canada during the early 2020s went in on study permits and not an H-1B analog that's a lot more rigorous
- The US didn't curb skilled immigration during that time, so at best they were getting second-rate talent even if they had rigorous screening
UwU
3mo ago
"If the US stop skilled immigration then the skilled immigrants will go elsewhere" is a less exciting claim than "the US has magical dirt"
UwU
3mo ago
If the Democratic party in fact succeeded in using the legislature to stop the war, then I'm sure they would have been scapegoated. Which indeed would have made it a bad political maneuver. However, since they didn't, and they couldn't because they lacked the votes in both chambers of congress, it made it a great political maneuver. They managed to publicly disavow the war while forcing their opponents own it and its consequences in their entirety.
UwU
3mo ago
If we stop the brain drain, global talent will eventually cluster elsewhere. Over time, the capital and infrastructure will follow the talent, and the US dirt will become just regular dirt again.
Could it be that the most motivated and skilled Indians are all leaving to first world countries, with the US being the most coveted destination? If we ban Indian immigration to the US, it would still be a poor policy choice if it makes Indians in Toronto, Sydney and London more competitive against us on the global market, even if it doesn't meaningfully change the competitiveness of Indians in Bangalore.
I think it’s implied that the conditional is “Ukraine cares to fight Russia assuming it has the means to do so”
Or, rephrased, “if Ukraine cares to fight Russia but lacks weapons, then I’m fine giving it weapons.”
More options
Context Copy link