aqouta
No bio...
Friends:
User ID: 75
aqouta
11mo ago
HBD believers aren't a homogenous constituency, much like those who believe that earth is not flat there are all sorts of reasons to recognize the truth.
Some HBDer will make some comment about how we could reduce criminality if we deported all the blacks, and I'll comeback with "What if we just deported all the convicted felons instead"
My last comment before reading this one was responding to someone making quite a similar appeal and I agreed that there was no reason for it to be racial and yet I believe in HBD. I resent being shoved into a misfitting box by your theories.
aqouta
11mo ago
We should do nothing about it. Well, we should stop doing some things as well probably, but primarily we should treat it the same as if we found out that blondes really are dumber on average and just collectively not care. Anything but constantly trying to make sure every board rooms has a blonde in it and hounding organizations that happen to hire too few blondes as discriminatory. I'm so tired of hearing about race. I never wanted to know these things and I'd gladly forget them if it wasn't constantly needed as an alternate explanation for blood libel.
aqouta
11mo ago
Can you define exactly what you believe the term "HBDer" includes and excludes?
aqouta
11mo ago
This is just ceding yet another rung on the euphemism treadmill. The group you're describing as "political" HBD will latch onto any phrase that describes the observation. We can't just always give them the control over it or the only two stable positions anyone will be able to refer to will be occupied by people who are wrong.
aqouta
11mo ago
This sounds much more epic and reasonable until you realize kids will regularly get into this level of game of chicken over liker Katy Perry tickets and the weaker willed parents will cave. You really really don't want to set standards that encourage brinksmanship like this.
aqouta
11mo ago
I do not want "the truth" hidden, I have not aligned myself with liars, and I do not (knowingly) repeat lies.
Ok but what do you think the end result of your current insistence of linguistically erasing the non-identitarian HBD crowd by collapsing the term "HBDer" into just the identarian HBD crowd results in? This may not be outright hostility to the truth but it's certainty acting in a way that makes it more difficult for the truth to be spread.
aqouta
11mo ago
So there are at least three parties at play here.
-
people like me, and I think some of the other individuals named, who recognize that HBD is unfortunately accurate and oppose racial identitarianism.
-
Racial identitarians who may or more not believe in HBD. A.K.A. The dissident right
-
People who do not believe in HBD and oppose racial identitarianism.
-
People who do believe in HBD and believe in racial identitarianism. A.K.A. Progressives
I can see why people might want to collapse 2 and 4 into one category based on their belief in identitarianism but when you call the HBDers or some other term that implies HBD is the actual core and their belief follows naturally from it you're throwing us, your potential allied against the identitarians under the bus for no discernable reason. You're ceding grounds on our behalf to our common enemy.
aqouta
11mo ago
Ours is somewhat similar, almost entirely opt-in. One thing that low key kind of annoys me is how useful it is as a way to rub shoulders with executives though. A new person on my team who barely does their job is on a first name basis with my departments executive director because they worked on some dei presentation. There are greater injustices of course and it's better than it could be but it sits wrong with me.
aqouta
11mo ago
If we're going the evo-psycho route I'd posit women prefer low risk above all else. Women have a pretty natural cap on how many offspring they can have and it's pretty easy for them to have at least some so long as some resources come their way no matter from where so things like egalitarian redistribution and strong stable states both make this more likely. While men have much more to gain from risk and much more to lose from not embracing some risk. The range outcomes for women on surviving offspring historically have been something like zero to ten while for men it's a huge amount at zero and a scale that goes all the way to Genghis Khan.
aqouta
11mo ago
'Women have always been the primary victims of war' was a fair statement because most war discourse draws a difference between 'victim' and 'combatant'.
Feel free to ignore as you said you weren't interested but it's difficult no to bite at this. If you are distinguishing one group, which is roughly half the popular, from the other and the other half is dying as combatants and thus aren't victims then the whole statement becomes devoid of meaning. It's like saying the apples left in the crate have always been the primary apples left in the crate. It is a fair assumption that statements are not supposed to be entirely devoid of meaning.
aqouta
11mo ago
Technology will soon arrive to obsolete what little productive role capital has in the same way technology obsoleted labor 100 years ago,
Technology is capital, it's the most central possible example of capital.
aqouta
11mo ago
Still, as a daily browser-not-poster, I feel as if I see a lot of posts that make what I would consider wild, self-assured generalizations without pushback.
I always find these critiques strange. Those things are the ripe low hanging fruit to respond to that makes this place fun as a frequent poster. One thing that I think more people need to internalize because it's not easy or obvious is that just because a point was made and not responded to does not really mean that there is consensus on its correctness. This place is not ground to be won or lost, it's the opportunity to take part or watch arguments about the culture war that would be hard to have elsewhere. An undressed argument is at worst a lost opportunity.
aqouta
11mo ago
I mean, any modal read literally cannot do anything but describe a circlejerk. I genuinely have no idea what you expected to demonstrate with that. A 100% random sample would be exactly as specific on whatever the plurality of the population sampled is.
aqouta
11mo ago
We perhaps have the problem understanding each other that men and women have with the amount of opposite sex attention women get. I would be thrilled to get a response on more than ~15% of my comments although I can intellectually understand the discomfort with a dogpile. The places I'd be dogpiled on have banned me.
aqouta
11mo ago
Considering this, I've always kind of wondered about how many paleocons and paleolibertarians in the USA seem to combine nostalgia and admiration for the South as a region with a firm noninterventionist or even pacifist policy. It would certainly seem strange to admire and nostalgize by far the most constantly belligerent region in the United States and similarly advocate noninterventionism, without seemingly even feeling the slightest desire to explain this seeming contradiction.
This doesn't seem so hard to me, the south has an honor culture, much of libertarianism thought is intuitive as a kind of retributive honor code.
aqouta
11mo ago
Is it not different from the early factory laborers buildings the machines that would replace them? Or maybe more aptly the carriage companies that supplied the ford factories. They were paid for the production fairly enough. That was the narrow agreement, not that no one else could be inspired by it or build an inspiration machine. To be replaced by people who were inspired by your works is the fate of every artist in history, at least those that didn't wallow in obscurity.
aqouta
11mo ago
have stated elsewhere, that I'm personally disposed toward supporting some kind of expansion of copyright-adjacent rights that includes training rights.
Yes, and those training rights should be called universal basic income. Every voice in culture contributes to training these AIs just like the voices given the largest audience. They funnel the culture we all produce into media and are supported by us. If the ultimate storytelling machine is going to be produced from our culture it belongs to us all, the specific creatives who used to do this labor were fairly compensated.
aqouta
11mo ago
They produced the media, which is being consumed and paid for under the current payment model. They are being compensated for it regularly and under all the fair and proper agreements. The AI is trained off of the general inspiration in the air, which is also where they artists pulled their own works for. It's a common resource emitted by everyone in the culture to some degree. The Disney corporation did not invent their stories from whole cloth, they took latent myths and old traditional tales from us and packaged it for us and the ideas return to us. Now we're going to have a tool that can also tap this common vein and more equitably? This is democratization. This is equality. This is progress.
Last week I not so popularly defended copyright, and I still believe it's the best compromise available to us. But it doesn't exist because of a fundamental right, it exists because it solves a problem we have with incentivizing the upfront cost of creating media. If these costs can be removed from the equation then the balance shifts.
aqouta
11mo ago
I think such a regime could be set up, but it would not be justified in the way that current copyright is.
aqouta
11mo ago
are will look like? On how chips that are optimized for running it will be structured?
They did this, they're called he A/H100 and ai chip architecture is super-moores law. I went to an NVidia data science thing semi-recently, that this isn't already being debated in congress tells me we're not going to be anywhere near fast enough.
aqouta
11mo ago
One of the problems with answering this question is that there are so many plausible scenarios that naming any individual one makes it seem like a bounded threat. How about when we hook one up to the stock market and it learns some trick to fuck with other algos and decides the best method to make infinite money is to short a stock and then use this exploit to crash it? multiply that by every other possible stock market exploit. Maybe it makes engineering bio-weapons as easy as asking a consumer model how to end the human race with household items and all it takes is one lunatic to find this out. Maybe it's some variation of paper clipping. The limit really is just your creativity.
aqouta
11mo ago
Then the market crashes, which is not apocalyptic, and the replacement markets resort to different trusted actor systems.
It is one of thousands of contributing failure modes but I will note that having trouble creating an equities market itself is no small deal. The sway a couple numbers in spreadsheets make on our lives is not to be forgotten, in theory we could wipe them all away and do some year zero stuff but I can't actually imagine that you're really grappling with that when dismiss things like this as merely immiserating rather than the death of all people.
Why would household items have the constituent elements to make engineering bio-weapons at scale sufficient to end the human race... but not be detected or countered by the consumer models asked to ensure perpetual growth by the perpetual survival of the human species countering them?
Why wouldn't they? Are you implying if a combination of household cleaners could be used to create a biological weapon and the white hat ai team figured that out they'd go door to door and remove them? Does this seem significantly different to what you and @DaseindustriesLtd fear from the yuddites?(of which I don't count myself among, my contention is with people who seem baffled by why someone might things AIs could be unbelievably dangerous which seems so obvious to me)
Why does the paper-clip maximizer, after achieving AI self-changing, continue to maximize paperclips rather than other investments?
Have we stopped fucking entirely despite all of our intelligence? It would continue maximizing paperclips because that's what its goal is. And this kind of thing isn't the clumsy efforts the mad blind god of evolution had at its disposal, it will be more monomaniacally focused on that goal than event he most depraved rapist among us is on executing their biological imperative above all other considerations.
Why does the paper-clipping AI, whose priority is paper-clipping, have the military-industrial ability to overcoming the military-industrial AI, whose priority is the military-industrial advantage?
Does it not trouble you at all how carefully the ordering of all of these difference control systems needs to be handled when they come online? All it takes is for one of them to take off first and preemptively prevent the others, or subvert their development. Yes, I could see some very fortunate already in balance ecosystem of interlocking AIs working but I very much don't fancy our chances of that going off without major problems, and frankly the only realistic pathway to that kind of situation is probably through the guidance of some kind of yuddian tyranny.
Creativity is not the same as plausibility, and the more you rest on creativity, the more you have to disregard other people's creativity and the limitations of the system.
These are some force mutliplied dice we're rolling here, past heuristics may or may not apply. As much hangs in the balance I would advocate strongly for not just shrugging it off. This is unlike any previous advancement.
huh? This was not present in the hypothetical.
More options
Context Copy link