aqouta
Friends:
User ID: 75
aqouta
8hr ago
Like I said, I prefer the strong argument. But on this point, I don't need to analyze old people's labor, I can just analyze labor right now. I'm convinced most of the economy is just a circus and is pretty far removed from serious natural laws. The economy should be in service to improving the human race but 95% of economic activity is not that. That means a lot of people make a lot of money producing no value, since I only count value as human race improvement. This point meets a brick wall with most people though because you can't make a man understand what his salary depends on him not understanding.
You're basically a communist, you think there is some way that we could organize the economy to produce more abundance and progress. Yet all attempts besides nibbling around the edges have failed just giving people property rights with some ground rules and letting it rip, which produces all these things you complain about. Doesn't apply to like government mandated redistribution but that's not the central case. Nothing stops you from trying to create a business that competes with the unfair and negative sum discrimination you claim is endemic, if you're right you should be able to quickly crush those institutions and take from the boomers what they didn't earn.
aqouta
9hr ago
Nope, I remember a lot of nights spent studying and doing my homework for my CS degree. There was also a lot of time to trying and go pro in gaming though. I suspect non-stem people had more free time.
aqouta
9hr ago
Did you ever get around to trying my suggestion for setting up a code harness and predigesting your code base?
So I'm asking @self_made_human and others who seem more on-board with the AI hype train: does this report from a knowledgeable and experienced developer change your opinions on the future trajectory of AI at all?
I don't really have any strong opinions on what one dude has to say about about a model I can't otherwise evaluate myself, but in your own article the guy you're apparently claiming is skewering ai and that should put us in shambles also said:
We also see a high volume of high quality security reports flooding in: security researchers now use AI extensively and effectively.
Like, I dunno, man. Do you not feel like the goal posts are shifting here? It's useful but one report from mythos on one repo where the guy said he was disappointed that there weren't more bugs found because other AI tools had found more(Which were already patched and thus not available for mythos to find)? This is your justification for the whole of AI being slop and hype?
I guess I update slightly in favor of mythos being closer to the current public sota rather than a league ahead of it. Perhaps the Curl codebase is just actually so tight that the whatever IQ equivalent level security expert that mythos represents wasn't about to find much, I promise you that other projects are not so tight.
curl is one of the most fuzzed and audited C codebases in existence (OSS-Fuzz, Coverity, CodeQL, multiple paid audits). Finding anything in the hot paths (HTTP/1, TLS, URL parsing core) is unlikely.
aqouta
7d ago
hygiene issues
Alright, this is a little off topic, but is this actually like seriously a widespread issue? I might be a bubble, but even among the nerdy guys I've hung around with hygiene is not an issue unless they're like the highest tier of still functioning autistic.
aqouta
8d ago
It's kind of funny that superman's position basically can be used to justify the evil government plots of the Xman series.
aqouta
8d ago
you will either 1-box or 2-box, based on the movements of the clock. We can also compute from axioms regarding the clock's movements that 1-boxers will possess more money
This seems more or less yud's position.
You're in this hypothetical situation where you need to think about the rational way to proceed optimally, and here is why you should choose to act in the following way.
This seems basically identical. What you decide to do is determined but all of the reasoning is part of how it happens anyways. From the first moment time one boxers were always going to follow this game theory reasoning and none the less, like how a domino still does cause the next domino to fall, the reasoning is still relevant. I just don't really see what the game theory problem here is, choices are relevant to the reasoning that individuals do, free will or not that's how the meat computer in or head picks which muscles to contract.
aqouta
9d ago
You can also just model it as omega knowing whether or not you're smart or lucky enough to come up with the right answer to get the $1m. If you pick the right answer you get $1m if you don't then you don't. It's a bit of a brain twister but it works out.
aqouta
9d ago
Your choice reveals what kind of person you are, which omega already knew. If you didn't know what you were going to choose ahead of time that's a mark of your ignorance, not omega's.
aqouta
10d ago
If you choose to one box after the decision period by reasoning it out then you are in fact the kind of person who would one box. If you say fuck it, it's too late then you're in fact the kind of person to two box. Thus it still hinges on your decision, albeit the concept of libertarian free will is questionable.
aqouta
10d ago
This is only possible if you model people as deterministic mechanisms and not as rational game theory agents
These are not in tension. In some game theory scenarios adding randomness, if such a thing is actually possible, is useful to some agent. But Newcome's problem is not such a scenario. Adding any chance of walking away without the $1 million is not worth going for the extra $1k and to the best of my knowledge the best you could do by adding randomness would be to make your expected value $500,500. Whereas your expected value if you cooperate is $1m
As for the rest of the post, yeah just seems like you're demanding the hypothetical grant you libertarian free will and say something different than it says. It's very "But I did eat breakfast this morning" fighting of the hypothetical. If you want to demand that actually you can't be predicted, even hypothetically then you're just not willing to engage with the question.
aqouta
11d ago
The problem with Newcomb's problem is that it basically involves time travel, and generally underspecifies how that time travel works. Consider a similar problem:
Not time travel, just perfect prediction. If you're actually a perfect predictor then you can in essence see the future. If you had a perfect model of physics and initial conditions then you could predict a coin flip with 100% accuracy. The kind of reason a human does when presented with the boxes is no different unless you a proposing some spooky non-material stuff in the reasoning. The formulation I'm familiar with is perfect prediction in which case there are four theoretical cases.
-
You one box and Omega correctly predicted you would one box thus you get $1m
-
You one box and omega incorrectly predicted you would 2 box so you get zero. This is impossible by construction, omega cannot predict wrongly.
-
You two box and Omega incorrectly assumed you would one box, you get $1m + $1k. This is impossible by construction, Omega cannot be wrong.
-
You two box and Omega correctly guesses you'll two box. You get $1k.
There are only two actually possible options with the given constraints and you get to make a choice which of them is the case. This is not a paradox unless predicting future events is impossible.
Your whole reasoning relies on there being something intrinsically impossible about predicting your decisions, even as you lay out the reasoning for them. Is it so hard to imagine that someone could read you well enough to know which outcome you'll ultimately reach?
aqouta
11d ago
All good, I was really confused because it feels like being a two boxer would have super conflicted with everything he believes in.
aqouta
11d ago
I didn't notice the first link was yud himself but unless I'm reading the post wrong he seems like a one boxer? does he take a definitive side elsewhere?
aqouta
11d ago
Where's yud's 2 box argument? I'm not sure what the very smart 2 boxers believe but one of the most common two box explanations boils down to a disbelief that their actions can be predicted at all because they imagine some kind of free will break after the boxes are set.
aqouta
15d ago
Did you grow up with sisters? Nail polish itself has always been a pretty neutral concept to me, like wearing hats. Now certain types of nails, and hats, certainly can signal things. Long false acrylics have a reputation for low class, black is a signal of either goth or bisexual but just a subtle gloss is pretty common in my fortune 100 company.
aqouta
22d ago
Courtship isn't exactly a modern invention in the last 70 years. It happens in observed and studied hunter gathering tribes and we have records of it in every civilization. It happens in other closely related species and we have many of the sexual dimorphic characteristics, concealed ovulation and year-round female receptivity, classic to pair bonding species.
The actual makeup of the social roles certainly change but I think they broadly almost always fit the model I proposed above. Especially for men who in practically every society I've heard of are expected to prove themselves worthy through successfully demonstrating merit in some way. Which hunter gathering societies exactly do you observe male sexual success decouple from the ability to navigate the sexual market place? Of which being impressive to a girl's parents would certainly be an example. What do you even think status is? If what it took to get paired with a high status and attractive woman was very legible do you not think men would endeavor to game whatever the system was?
aqouta
22d ago
Legibility mostly doesn't serve women that much on the dating scene. By keeping things vague they both increase their optionality by not getting rules lawyered into "actually by your own stated values I'm a catch so you should date me!" and select out from their dating pool men who can't navigate vague and ambiguous social dynamics. At least at the individual level there really isn't any compelling reason for women to be particularly candid. Going further I doubt many women themselves have really interrogated what actually attracts them to a partner. Sexually successful women mostly lay bait and filter. They are concerned with the quality of the bait, their appearance and social position, and their degrees of freedom to quickly and efficiently filter out undesirable suiters. Neither of these is particularly served by legibility.
Legibility in the dating market is something men crave, maybe on a biological level. Navigating the sexual marketplace is one of the most centrally selected evolutionary drives. So it makes sense that men would be frustrated with illegibility in the same way women would be frustrated by men who figure out their strategies and find ways to extract sex without responsibility.
Another factor to consider is that there isn't really any kind of coordination here. women aren't conspiring to keep things illegible. This is actually broadly helped by women not strongly introspecting in a way to surface hard rules. If they did then men could more easily read their communications and exploit them. Women are much better served by going off vibes that are maximally hard to decompile.
aqouta
24d ago
Seems reasonable at first pass but I think you end up with a coordination problem. How do you decide who gets to have the male child and thus have their genes highly represented in the next generation?
aqouta
28d ago
A similar transition is happening now as labour gets less valuable, this is just masked by our wealthier modern societies.
As you add automation and increase production labor gets more, not less valuable as an hour of labor can produce more goods and services. Even with fully automated factories you end up with more goods which then needs to be exchanged, we usually describe these are costs going down but another way to look at it is that the owners of the factories have a glut of goods to distribute for whatever it is they want. You see this in the consumption data, people have more goods than ever before, although a lot of this is eaten by things that are difficult or impossible to automate like housing, which has both a static land component and labor component where the laborer's demand ever more "stuff" for their time, or healthcare which also has static monopolies in the form of drug patents and consumes a tremendous amount of labor. The people supplying that labor have indeed seen their wages and thus bids for the output of the factories increase a lot over the last few decades.
There are of course switching costs that we should take seriously. Learn to code was never a serious remedy to someone who spent 20-30 years doing rote labor and we need a way to help those people, I favor UBI but there are other options.
Knowledge work is disappearing too
Not really, although I take this possibility seriously if AI ends up as good as it seems likely to become, that's a much more total form of automation. We're definitely not there yet at this moment though.
HBD is a belief about an is, not an ought. It says nothing about collectivism vs individualism and in actual practical use is almost always used to counter a collective guilt blood libel.
More options
Context Copy link