biboo-taxation
No bio...
User ID: 3871
biboo-taxation
6d ago
This is similar to how I use AI. I think an underrated use case is asking it to build browser extensions that can make small modifications to existing websites. It's the kind of thing that wouldn't be worth the effort without AI.
biboo-taxation
7d ago
This raises an interesting question: What does it even mean to cheat on someone with AI? Or to put it another way, what exactly is a romantic relationship?
AI has no body, it cannot share resources, it cannot start a family, and it cannot confer status (because AI relationships have no scarcity they will always be neutral status at best). So presumably "cheating" would mean forming a deep emotional connection. But other forms of emotional connection are seen as non-threatening: best friends, close siblings, maybe a therapist.
I see AI relationships becoming ubiquitous in the future. That's because they're not merely a simulacrum of a relationship. They're a super-stimulus. They are always available, never judgemental, fully empathetic, asking for nothing in return. I expect them to be as ubiquitous as junk food and porn.
I also expect it to become normalized that these relationships exist along side human romantic relationships. I predict there won't but much issues with jealousy to the extent that it doesn't compete for sex or resource commitment. I hesitate to even call these AI relationships "romantic" even though there may be clear overlap in the role it plays with a romantic partner.
I think what we'll see is a shift in what we consider to be the role of a romantic partner. I think we will see the role of AI and human in relationships to become increasingly specialized. Modern relationships put a lot of emphasis on emotional connection, but AI may simply out-complete humans in this role. The purpose of a human relationship may emphasize other things like physical attraction, sharing finances, and conferring social status.
biboo-taxation
2mo ago
I think you misunderstood my comment. I'm also a 1-boxer and I don't think you need to believe in backwards-causation to be a 1-boxer. I just think a lot of 1-boxers do.
I'm just trying to explain why I think 2-boxers are 2-boxers. They think "backwards causation is wrong so 1-boxing is wrong". Actually backwards causation is wrong but it doesn't mean 1-boxing is wrong.
biboo-taxation
2mo ago
By pre-commit I just mean that for the general class of newcomb-like problems you decide you will pick the 1-box option. So as long as you are aware there are problems like this you can do it.
And maybe :)
biboo-taxation
2mo ago
In my experience most 1-boxers are 1-boxers because they implicitly believe in backwards causation. 2-boxers are people that realize that backwards causation isn't possible. But then when you realize pre-commitment is an option you should be back at 1-box. If a 2-boxer has heard the argument for pre-commitment and remain 2-boxers then I don't understand that but I think most people just don't even get to that point because they're still stuck on the backwards causation part. To be honest I don't really see that recursion had to do with it. It just comes down to "be the kind of person the oracle predicts would guess 1-box, the oracle is smart and accurate enough that you shouldn't try to trick it".
biboo-taxation
2mo ago
But why can't the problem just be that it's a very good predictor but it's not doing anything supernatural and the way it does the prediction is simply unknown to you? You need a clear specification to know if it's possible to trick the oracle. But even if it's possible, if there's no reasonable way for you to deduce how you would trick the oracle then strategically the solution is still to just be a 1-box pre-committer.
biboo-taxation
3mo ago
Those live therapy sessions fill me with a sense of revulsion and despair that I find hard to put in words. They feel like watching a cult leader brain washing. My first thought is if this is anything like what actual therapy is like then I just have to assume therapy as a whole is just a scam. Then I wonder, maybe this nonsense actually does help people in some way? And then I just don't know what to think about people as a whole.
biboo-taxation
3mo ago
It's pretty clear to me why Clav is compelling. He is the living embodiment of the black pill. Here's a guy who is destroying his body to become physically attractive, pretty much unattractive in every other way, goes out and gets beautiful women to cheat on their boyfriends with him. He lives according to a singular principle: looks matter more than anything else. It prompts people to wonder and debate how true that worldview is.
Masculinity and femininity as general pro-social concepts are only really useful when there is a division of gender roles. Modern society has been mostly trending away from gender roles so I would agree that teaching masculinity or femininity is less relevant than ever. The major exception being, of course, dating and sexual attraction. Which makes this look like yet another example of a woman having a blind spot to what women are attracted to. My only disagreement with OP is that this applies equally to women and I think you're hitting the same blind spot. To the extent that men and women are attracted to different things women also need to learn how to be feminine in order to be attractive. Girl game is real, look at Bezo's new wife for example.
biboo-taxation
6mo ago
I'd like to think I'm more neutral than most on this issue, I don't have strong feelings about ice in general. But I would say if you gave me that prompt I might have responded similarly, but that was definitely not the initial reaction I felt when I watched the video.
In the video I see a woman approach an ice officer with her phone recording him. I'm sure this is annoying but she does not look like a physical threat. The ice officer responds by shoving the woman to the ground. A man sees this and moves between the officer and the woman with his hands up possibly making contact with the officer but not in an obviously aggressive way. He is then immediately pepper sprayed. He falls to the ground, is dog piled, disarmed, and eventually shot.
I think there's two big reasons why the public is reluctant to blame him for what happened. First is the fact that he appears to be trying to defend the women that was shoved. You can argue that what he did was dangerous, but putting yourself in danger in order to protect someone is generally seen as honorable.
Second the situation just escalates so quickly. In the Good case people were arguing it doesn't make any sense to shoot at the driver of a car that is going to run you over since it's going to run you over regardless. The response was that it was a reasonable response in a split second situation where people won't make perfect decisions. Well, this guy made a split second decision to stop a woman from being attacked (from his pov) and almost immediately triggered the chain of events that leads to his death.
To be clear I'm not trying to say which side is responsible for what. I'm just saying I don't think the argument that the man shares the blame for his own death for intervening in police activity is going to be a compelling argument to people who watch the video, and asking chatgpt isn't going to explain why that is.
biboo-taxation
6mo ago
I'm someone who has neither gone to therapy nor confession, but the topic interests me because I'm confident that neither would do anything for me and yet everyone else seems confident in the reverse. The differences you've listed out were interesting to read about, but I would assume that the person who is claiming therapy is the new confession would say those are the superficial differences. The dodo bird verdict suggests that therapeutic methodology doesn't really matter as much as the "therapeutic relationship". My (perhaps flawed) interpretation of this result is that it just makes people feel better to talk about their problems and their feelings and for someone to tell them things are or can be okay. I've never understood this because it doesn't seem to have the same effect on me if I know the underlying problem is likely there unchanged. But this seems to be the fundamental connection between therapy, confession, even AI "therapy".
biboo-taxation
11mo ago
I wonder if this is really true. Let's say you're on your deathbed, everyone you personally care about is dead, you have the option to give yourself a bit of morphine on the way out but it will make everyone currently alive not want to have children and as such humanity will die out in a few generations . Do you press that button? I consider myself rather nihilistic but I wouldn't press the button, so I have to assume I have some preference somewhere for humanity to continue on. This means it's not actually a categorical preference but one based on trade offs.
biboo-taxation
1yr ago
Today, OpenAI released a new update that will put more mental health guardrails on ChatGPT. I'd been hearing about chatbots inducing psychosis and I'm assuming it was a response to that. But looking into the topic more I'm astounded how much of average people's mental health is becoming tied to these chatbots. Not just people with severe mental illness but perhaps even the majority of all people that use chatbots.
A recent survey shows:
-
49% of LLM users who self-report an ongoing mental health condition use LLMs for mental health support.
-
73% use LLMs for anxiety management, 63% for personal advice, 60% for depression support, 58% for emotional insight, 56% for mood improvement, 36% to practice communication skills and 35% to feel less lonely.
A quick browse of reddit down this particular rabbithole quickly makes me realize how many people are already talking to chatbots as a friend/therapist. My impression is that its similar to the early days of online dating. People are sort of embarrassed to admit they has an AI friend, but with numbers increasing rapidly the younger you go. I've seen numbers between 10 and 50(!) percent of young people have used AI for companionship.
In retrospect, it would be shocking if AI therapy didn't take off. Probably the biggest barrier to getting therapy is cost and availability. Chatbots are available 24/7, essentially free, and will never judge you. The rate of mental illness is rising particularly among young people so the demand is there. But it's not just that, the idea of therapy is ingrained into today's culture. There's a sense that everyone should get therapy, who among us is truly mentally healthy, etc. I could easily see it becoming as ubiquitous as online dating is today.
I admit personally I'm relatively skeptical of therapy in general. As I understand it, it doesn't really matter what therapeutic method you use the result are about the same, so probably most of the benefit comes from just having someone you can vent to who is empathetic, and won't judge or get bored. If that's the case then AI therapy is probably as good or better than human therapy for cases that are not severe. On reddit I see a lot of comments that say that AI therapy has helped them more than years of human therapy and I can believe that.
So if AI therapy is helping so many people is that a good thing? I see a lot of parallels between AI therapy and AGI's alignment problem. I believe people when they say they went to therapy and they report feeling better. I'm not really confident that they came out with a more accurate view of reality. Recently I want down another tangentially related rabbithole about an online therapist that goes by the name of Dr. K, who has publicly streamed their therapy sessions (for legal reasons he doesn't actually call them therapy sessions). The thing that struck me is just how vulnerable a state of mind people are in during therapy, and the very subtle way that assumptions about reality can be pushed on them.
So if you consider how impressionable people are when receiving therapy, and how its becoming increasingly common for adults to use chatbots for therapy, and how it's becoming increasingly common for kids to grow up with chatbots as friends, then it really makes the potential impact of subtle value assumptions in these models loom large.
Scarlet Johansson maybe? Roughly same age, A-listers, filmography that is broadly appealing, some higher-brow stuff but not too much so, Oscar nominated but never won, partially famous for being broadly attractive to the opposite sex.
More options
Context Copy link