aqouta
Friends:
User ID: 75
aqouta
1mo ago
the inherent politics of his act is pro-Puerto Rican independence
doesn't' this kind of undercut the whole, he's just as American as everyone else bit from earlier in your post? I think we had a portion of our country declare independence before and I don't quite remember what happened after but I get the impression it wasn't popular amongst the rest of the country.
aqouta
1mo ago
You'd have to pay for the cosmetic surgeries before the dollars had anything to do with children.
Not necessarily. If our only option was to cut people a fully fungible check then sure that wouldn't work. But we could either have accounts that you have to spend on child associated costs, like a healthcare spending account, or more straightforwardly and better give them money if and only if they have a kid. That'd be equivalent to making the car cost $0.
aqouta
1mo ago
Less kids means higher taxes on working aged people to pay for retirements. All one needs to do to properly apportion the costs to those that cause them is to raise taxes and give a tax break to those with kids. If you're footing the bill to bring in someone to pay for your retirement on average then you gotta contribute enough to pay for your own. pretty simple. Someone with a TFR of 0 should be paying roughly twice the redistribution portion of the tax bill(excluding more fixed costs like military spending that don't really figure into the per capita societal upkeep). I wouldn't consider this punitive or coercive, just making people internalize their externalities.
aqouta
1mo ago
I just don't think there is any way this lasts. It's like the guys who learned that playing them + the computer edged on computer alone in chess for a period. Eventually the meat just isn't going to be adding anything and I doubt it's even that long after.
aqouta
1mo ago
Unfalsifiable beliefs are pretty weak sauce. There are very few things more antithetical to the purpose of this place than do this kind of bulverism in the pursuit of defending taboos.
aqouta
1mo ago
If he's here to shit-stir (especially if he's doing it to get juicy quotes to make rationalists look bad
Is this even still a thing? Where do they post their content? I checked sneer club but they seem to be basically exclusive anti-yud posters at this point.
aqouta
1mo ago
This is saying something different I think, one of those as you approach absolute zero things get wonky kind of theoretical effects. A perfectly efficient rational stock market won't come to exist because it would imply knowledge is worthless, but this wouldn't really be a problem for markets for goods or equity which would still clear. I agree that if everyone who participated in prediction markets were omnipotent then the prediction markets wouldn't make any sense, but then we'd be able to get the information we want out of them by just asking the omnipotent people what the probability is. And in any case even very good super predictors are not actually omniscient.
I agree that subsidizing the market will buy you more information, and dumb money can act as a subsidy, but other things can act as a subsidy as well. If I really want to know the answer to some question a prediction market in effect gives me the option to pay for an answer by offering a bunch of 50/50 liquidity. There is also a lot of subsidy available in people rationally buying shares to hedge outside of market positions. If I do a lot of international trading maybe I can buy shares betting Trump will impose tariffs to hedge against that risk.
aqouta
1mo ago
Not necessarily. Zero sum markets can still be mutually beneficial, especially as a hedge mechanism. Hedge funds aren't primarily founded on extracting money from retail traders even if they also do that.
aqouta
1mo ago
I still think prediction markets are good but how about this, you can only gamble with money from special government accounts that you allocate like an IRA. You can spend the money in the accounts anywhere including on gambling sites but you can't spend any money not in one of these accounts on gambling/prediction markets. Cap the Amount you can put into one of these accounts at some percentage of taxable income, say 5-10%. This limits the damage they can do while actually probably accelerating the rate at which the dumb money loses the ability to influence signal possibly improving the usefulness of the results.
aqouta
1mo ago
This seems more to do with how polling stations work rather than something that ought to attache to ICE in particular. Aren't there already laws around what can help in and around polling stations?
aqouta
1mo ago
I have conflicted feelings on what ICE is doing in MN. I think they were basically sent there specifically as an act of punishment against Walz and democrats for opposing Trump, which I find repugnant. I think their actual mandate to arrest criminal illegal aliens is obviously legal and something local governments shouldn't resist. I think the organized nature of the "protesting" is basically taking the form of a conspiracy to impede federal officer and the form it takes is cynically creating as many tense arrest scenarios as possible to farm clips of brutality which in effect is sacrificing human life on the altar of politics which is despicable. Never the less I think both shoots so far have been bad shoots, which I could take on the chin for the previous reasons but the Trump camp outright lying about the deceased is disgraceful.
This whole episode is a depressing spiral into the worst the red and blue tribe have to offer. I instinctively want to look away from it in shame. This is what we will be doing when we lift a machine intelligence to the heavens and all of civilization comes crashing down around us. A truly pathetic ending.
That said evaluating these asks:
- Targeted Enforcement – DHS officers cannot enter private property without a judicial warrant.
Reasonable if and only if the judiciary is cooperative, needs a clause to say if the judicial doesn't cooperate then they get to use some kind of makeshift ICE version.
End indiscriminate arrests and improve warrant procedures and standards.
I don't think indiscriminate arrets are happening because at the very least they're discriminating on some grounds, this is meaningless.
Require verification that a person is not a U.S. citizen before holding them in immigration detention.
Seems practically impossible. In practice this just turns ice vehicles int o immigration detention.
- No Masks – Prohibit ICE and immigration enforcement agents from wearing face coverings.
Seems reasonable. I understand the complaints, but sorry, if you're signing up to carry out the violence of the state your face is on the line. That's the deal.
- Require ID – Require DHS officers conducting immigration enforcement to display their agency, unique ID number and last name. Require them to verbalize their ID number and last name if asked.
Seems basically fine so long as the need to vocalize has some reasonable clause. Honestly though just stamp it on the body cam footage and make sure they're identifiable.
- Protect Sensitive Locations – Prohibit funds from being used to conduct enforcement near sensitive locations, including medical facilities, schools, child-care facilities, churches, polling places, courts, etc.
Na, this isn't the middle ages, no sanctuary, sanctuary is in your home country.
- Stop Racial Profiling – Prohibit DHS officers from conducting stops, questioning and searches based on an individual’s presence at certain locations, their job, their spoken language and accent or their race and ethnicity.
Racial profiling is a scourge and violation of liberalism. also I'm pretty sure a case is already going through to make them stop doing it. Presence in certain locations seems fair game though sorry, it's not to much to ask any citizen not to hang around the guy obviously hiring and paying illegals under the table.
- Uphold Use of Force Standards – Place into law a reasonable use of force policy, expand training and require certification of officers. In the case of an incident, the officer must be removed from the field until an investigation is conducted.
Mostly fine, obviously depends on details. In fact make use of the appropriations negotiation to fund good training for these officers.
- Ensure State and Local Coordination and Oversight – Preserve the ability of State and local jurisdictions to investigate and prosecute potential crimes and use of excessive force incidents. Require that evidence is preserved and shared with jurisdictions.
Sure, feds should share information with locals, if and only if the locals reciprocate. i.e. not if it's a sanctuary city.
Require the consent of States and localities to conduct large-scale operations outside of targeted immigration enforcement.
Na.
- Build Safeguards into the System – Make clear that all buildings where people are detained must abide by the same basic detention standards that require immediate access to a person’s attorney to prevent citizen arrests or detention.
Yeah, that's fair
Allow states to sue DHS for violations of all requirements.
All what violations?
Prohibit limitations on Member visits to ICE facilities regardless of how those facilities are funded.
All limitations? Surely you're want some limitations.
- Body Cameras for Accountability, Not Tracking – Require use of body-worn cameras when interacting with the public and mandate requirements for the storage and access of footage. Prohibit tracking, creating or maintaining databases of individuals participating in First Amendment activities.
Na, release them all. If the state has officer eyes on this why not let the public have eyes on it? Protestors are there to protest, why should not be seen? Completely ridiculous.
- No Paramilitary Police – Regulate and standardize the type of uniforms and equipment DHS officers carry during enforcement operations to bring them in line with civil enforcement.
Is ICE even particularly militarized? In all the videos I've seen they're in like rented SUVs wearing pretty normal kit.
Overall ranges from hard "No"s to reasonable enough stuff. We'll see how hard some of the more extravagant stuff is argued for.
aqouta
1mo ago
I think that GDPR specifically was a step in the right direction of forcing companies to give more than absolutely zero shits about the privacy of their customers
People will say stuff like this but GDPR is actually a gigantic pain in the ass to everyone involved because it means every single database the holds any data about anything has to be manually cleared by engineers to not happen to obliquely contain data the could be viewed as slightly about europe. I'm going to have to get on early morning calls for the next six months to get our US facing entirely internal application dealing in US tax credits cleared because of this stupid law. All while the fly by night company registered in kekistan that will actually do malicious stuff with your data just ignores the law and all the apps that were collecting it on purpose before put up a cookie that 99.98% of people accept immediately with minor annoyance. The legislators behind this should be tried at the Hague for pissing away thousands or millions of lifetimes worth of dev hours for their pure hubris.
aqouta
1mo ago
I don't know how any could possibly prove or disprove this statement. The levels of improvement are difficult to quantify and they keep needing to come up with new benchmarks because the old ones get saturated, meaning all frontier models max them out. I can say from personal experience that they still appear to be rapidly improving but quantifying the rate is impossible.
aqouta
1mo ago
judging by all the leaked material and reports, does Epstein sound like he would couch such an offer in such carefully-guarded terms that an uninformed, intelligent man genuinely couldn't pick up on the scandalous age of some of the options? Maybe I'm picturing this all wrong, but that's where I'm coming from.
I don't really care to defend Trump but surely any fixer is going to propose what's on offer pretty opaquely if anything so specific as a request is ever even made. Stuff like conversations that come off as just idle curiosity:
Epstein: "What do you like in a woman?"
Trump: "I've always been a big fan of the Russians, great people, wonderful people, and so affectionate"
Epstein: "I knew you were a man of good taste, I have a party I'm throwing for some Russian Oligarchs in a few weeks and they're bringing many girls with, would you like to come?"
Trump: "You always throw the best parties Jeff, I'm always telling the staff you throw the best parties. Of course we'll come, I bet you can get a lot more people coming if they know I'll be there."
Epstein: "I think that's true, I'll make sure to invite some more girls who would love to meet a famous television star like you, are there any particular types of Russian girls you like the best so I know who to invite?"
And if Trump goes on to describe prepubertal Russian gymnasts then Epstein goes down that path, but if he starts talking about mature matriarch types Trump needn't ever have been informed of the other offerings.
aqouta
1mo ago
Literally Dems shouted down a house proposal to honor Kirk (was merely symbolic). Ilhan Omar didn’t condemn — she in so may words said he had it coming.
No they didn't. I remember this controversy. They honored him but rejected doing a prayer afterwards.
aqouta
1mo ago
No, that isn't how negative rights work at all, you're confusing the concept of negative and positive rights with some kind of word game. Negative rights are about non-interference. They require only that, particularly the state but also other people, refrain from doing something to you. A positive right is an entitlement to some provision. A negative right is a right to be left alone, a positive right is an entitlement to some action or treatment.
A negative right would be that any establishment should be allowed to have whatever bathroom policy they see fit and not worry about the state stopping them from doing this. A positive right would be the state interfering to either force establishments to allow or not allow trans people in the bathroom of the preferred gender in furtherance of some positive right females have to exclusive spaces or some positive right transwomen have to those same spaces.
aqouta
1mo ago
He directly advocated for society to do things that would deprive certain people of (negative) rights. Nor is the harm "abstract" - it is a form of harm to not let trans women use the women's locker rooms, prevent them from getting hormones, not letting LGBT people live in a society where no one burns pride flags, etc
None of these are negative rights dude. The last one is the most ridiculous example of a positive right I've ever heard. I could maybe see the hormones thing as a negative right but only in the way that you would be obligated to burn down the FDA if you believed.
aqouta
1mo ago
You can just like, block cookies. In truth no one who doesn't care enough to block them cares enough about being tracked to where the cookie banner is doing any positive work.
aqouta
1mo ago
Simple enough to square. Every four years you get to decide if you want to receive UBI or be eligible to vote in four years.
aqouta
1mo ago
I wonder how gun control advocates have responded to the fact that police have no obligation to protect anyone, if they have even addressed that at all. It's already bad enough that in the best case scenario, the police are only minutes away when seconds matter. But the fact that police can and have done nothing at all? I would be interested in seeing their counterargument for why people shouldn't arm themselves and have the ability to be their own first responder.
I'm not a gun control guy, but my justification for opposing it isn't this particular self defense line. I think a gun control advocate would say that guns don't really protect you either in the sense you're looking for. Both guns and police are post crime tools. They can be used to punish/kill criminals but by the time you're using one you're already in a situation where you've been aggressed upon. Yes, there are high profile weird cases like rittenhouse or the few times a lady shoots her night time assailant, there are definitely some situations where a gun will help, but it's not a talisman and mostly it helps by making possible aggressors afraid on consequences, which is also how the police function.
aqouta
1mo ago
This is where we get into the bad. In diagnosing what was going wrong with the attempted fix, it got allllll into mess that was actually pretty low probability. Suggested permissions issues, suggested problems with registry entries. A couple of them were low risk, and at the time, seemed like they could be plausibly related, and I did mess with a couple things. Others were the ugly. No, Mr. Bot, I am not going to just delete that registry value (especially after I did a little non-LLM side research on what that registry value actually does).1
In the end, when I told it that I was balking on doing what it wanted me to do, it suggested that I could, in the meantime, do one of the standard procedures in a different way. Of course, it thought that doing this would just be a step toward me ultimately having to delete that registry value. But I figured trying this alternate procedure at the very least couldn't hurt, and indeed, it helped by giving me an actual error code!
The LLM thankfully helped me decode it (likely faster than a google search), which allowed me to adjust my fix. This was actually the key step, after which, I was able to understand what I think was going on and manage later hiccups. Unfortunately, the LLM didn't grasp this. It still was set on, "Great! Now you're ready to delete registry values!" Sigh.
There are some LLM fundamentals that aren't taught but maybe should be. one of them is that if you even sniff that the LLM might have strayed an inch in the wrong direction then you need to start a fresh context chat. In fact even if things go well once you've moved through a few steps of the process you ought to start a fresh chat. Always be starting a fresh chat.
aqouta
1mo ago
I guess I don't really understand the general rule you're trying to make. Nuclear is the only real weapon system that has truly had a strongly bounded development ceiling. We're still making better missiles, airplanes, drones, boats, ect. The bounding on those is mostly just hard physical rules. Intelligence scales in a new vector direction. Not only is the intelligence directly usable in warfare through things like cyber where the offence/defense equilibrium seems to favor the attacker, but it also acts as a multiplier for all the other scaling. You get better airplanes, drones, boats and missiles faster because one of the most bottle necked inputs to improvements is intelligence. And then there are all the recursive elements, scaling intelligence scales how well we can scale intelligence, it also allows us to efficiently search design space for other weapons systems to scale. Intelligence scaling is the trick that let humans conquer the planet, increasing our access to it is a whole new game.
aqouta
1mo ago
You are welcome to reject the inevitability of extinction. You are not welcome to use your rejection of extinction to claim divine right to getting everything you want the way you want it. If you need things from other people, resources, cooperation, whatever, you have to actually negotiate for them, not declare that they do what you want or else they're damning all humanity.
I want what everyone without deranged priorities wants, to not have all humans die preventably for no reason. This isn't hyperbole, it's difficult to believe there is any large contingent of people who disagree with this ultimate goal. Intelligent minds can disagree on the assessment of the risk or how best to mitigate it but the actual goal here is very basic and universal.
I am more worried about current power allocation than I am about hypothetical hostile super intelligent AGI.
If you're worried about the current power allocation I think you should at least be skeptical of the people building the most powerful tools/weapons that man have ever forged. Weapons they demonstrably cannot reliably control even if their aims were wholesome.
given that the current AI safety alliance does not see a place in the future for me and mine anyway, it doesn't seem like I've got much of a choice.
What on earth are you even talking about man?
If it's punitive or coercive it's only so in the way all taxes are, and less so because it more fittingly distributes fruits amongst those who planted fruit trees. Society needs a next generation to survive no less than it needs a military to survive. And at war if you're spared the draft you'll still need to pay for the tools our brave soldiers use to maintain your society.
More options
Context Copy link