cjet79
Anarcho Capitalist on moral grounds
Libertarian Minarchist on economic grounds
User ID: 124
cjet79
2yr ago
I feel like Amadan answered most of your questions in that thread. But I'll re-answer with my own thoughts.
Something like "Trump is a venal, fascist clown" as an isolated comment is bad because it is low effort. If it is buried in an otherwise effortful comment, it seems fine to me to ignore.
Something like "Trump is a venal, fascist clown, and the people that support him are idiots" is bad because it is boo outgroup and antagonistic. Even if it is buried in an otherwise decent comment it might get some mod action.
In general, I interpret the rules against insults to apply to people that might be on this forum. The more likely it is that the person is using this forum, the worse it is from a rules standpoint. Insulting a specific user being a clearcut case of 'that is bad'. And insulting a public figure with zero chance of using the forum being something I don't care about at all.
Also as election season slowly starts to ramp up, I do not think the moderators should be in a position where we need to defend politicians from insults. People need to be able to have a civil discussion with the other people on this forum, that is the most important thing.
Something like this is generally ok, but not a great start to a discussion:
user_A: "Trump is a fascist clown"
user_B: "I think he is playing 4d chess and is a genius"
user_A: "He made mistakes X, Y, and Z, how is that 4d chess?"
user_B: "Well [longer discussion about those items]"
Something like this is not ok:
user_A: "Trump is a fascist clown"
user_B: "I think he is playing 4d chess and is a genius"
user_A: "You think that because you are an idiot and a racist"
user_B: "get out of here with your woke bullshit!"
cjet79
2yr ago
Big question: What makes it a "worse neighborhood"?
I'd personally pay a lot of money to avoid running into petty crime, petty theft, etc.
If its things like 'people are rednecks and a little trashy' by leaving beater cars on blocks, trailers on the street having crappy lawn decorations, no HOA etc. I'd say sign me up.
cjet79
2yr ago
I agree that part should probably be left out. But it is a sentiment I feel and agree with.
I do have a wife and two kids that love and care about me. I have family and friends that care about me, and have been there for me when I've been hit with health or social issues.
There is a definite sense that the only unconditional love I've ever received has been from my mother. And I feel that unconditional love back towards her. I love and respect my father, but it absolutely does not feel unconditional. I feel like if he had seriously fucked up in some way I'd hate him. My mother did fuck up in one or two major ways, but its not even a blip on my feelings towards her.
But that unconditional motherly love feels almost like a birthright to being human. Even though I know some unlucky people never had it.
So in familial relationships men only ever get the one opportunity for mutual unconditional love, and at some point even that goes away when our mothers die.
A when we have our own families, men can feel like a replaceable cog in the machine. I think most people are better off with a father figure in their lives. But that's the thing its a father figure, not necessarily the father. As a man you can have the job as long as you qualify for it. Which can sometimes be a very low bar of qualification (just show up). But at other times can be an impossible hurdle (the mother of the children hates you, but you need to convince her to let you stay around the kids).
In general society, you've definitely picked out the ways in which men are at the bottom of the list when it comes to caring about strangers.
I think it is mostly a sense that being a man affords you no special privileges that are not earned through blood, sweat, and quickly dried eyes. Yes, men tend to earn more on average. They also tend to take dangerous and unfulfilling jobs that only have on redeeming characteristic: higher pay. Yes, men tend to be in higher positions at companies. Do women think that men are nice to each other on the way up the corporate ladder? God no, the ones at the top are there through some form of merit, even if that merit is just the ability to backstab earliest.
cjet79
2yr ago
Its ze germans. They had a whole thing that if the common person could understand your theory, then your theory was bad.
The other main problem is that we are reading translations. I feel like many of the translations would have been well served by bracketing special terms. Just reading it I know certain terms are bastardizations within the translation, and even if it was technically a perfect translation there is still a bunch of linguistic context missing.
This is a light that breaks forth on [spiritual substance], and shows absolute content and absolute form to be identical; - [substance] is in itself identical with knowledge. Self-consciousness thus, in the third place, recognizes its positive relation as its negative, and its negative as its positive, - or, in other words, recognizes these opposite activities as the same i.e. it recognizes [pure Thought] or [Being] as self-identity, and this again as [separation]. This is [intellectual perception]; but it is requisite in order that it should be in truth [intellectual], that it should not be that merely [immediate perception] of the [eternal and the divine] which we hear of, but should be [absolute knowledge]. This intuitive perception which does not recognize itself is taken as starting-point as if it were absolutely presupposed; it has in itself [intuitive perception] only as [immediate knowledge], and what it perceives it does not really know, - for, taken at its best, it consists of beautiful thoughts, but not knowledge.
I've bracketed all the things that I'm guessing have special meaning. Context for philosophers of the time that are absolutely lost in any form of translation. Just like today, we can have words, or short phrases that contain a multitude of meanings and context. Any translation short of an entire understanding of the english language and the current cultural context would fail to convey a lot of the meaning. For example, a term like "social justice" is laden with cultural context. Same with straightforward definitions for something like "transphobic". Or exaggerated definitions like "genocide".
cjet79
2yr ago
It is a very odd incentive structure. Show us you can produce lots of research, and we will reward you with a position where you ... don't have to produce anything. The lazy ones that need tenue shouldn't get it. The high producers that should get it, don't need it. The other case where you might want it controversy. But you just pointed out that this isn't a concern for most professors.
cjet79
2yr ago
Tenure is a bit of a strange institution, and honestly seems a bit useless in today's world. Why bother firing a professor when you can just allow students/activists to harass them in the classroom, at their houses, or in all online spaces? Some professors probably wish the university would fire them just so their would be a valid target for a lawsuit. Unless you have Robin Hanson levels of not giving a fuck (he has survived at least three attempted cancellations that I know of), tenure isn't much of a protection.
I actually think all the various leftist dominated fields are the source of the problem. I don't think banning them all will fix the problem. The activists already exist in large numbers in fields that wont get banned, like English departments. And the power of these departments comes through Gen-Ed requirements. That is the only way they can plausibly justify the size of their departments.
I would like to see state legislatures take a more interesting approach to handicapping university activists:
Destroy the traditional 4 year degree. Force universities to offer a-la-carte options for education. A "general education" degree for gen eds. None of which can be required to take classes in a specific college within the university. Allow testing out of entry level classes. Make it possible to speedrun an engineering degree in a year or two.
Many universities have switched from relying on endowments to relying on tuition and housing payments from existing students.
Politically make it about protecting students from predatory practices by universities. After all, its a business model that relies on getting gullible teenagers to buy a product via peer pressure, and then makes them spend a decade of their life (one of the best decades of their life) paying it off.
cjet79
2yr ago
This is either an inflammatory claim that should have been backed up with evidence, or a joke that doesn't really belong on this type of discussion board. Less of this please.
cjet79
2yr ago
sad and overly political nerds
This comment is too boo outgroup and antagonistic.
I wish you luck in the boycott, only because I want culture war issues to be seen the same way companies treat religious issues. There should be a giant blaring neon sign in the mind of any exec saying "TOXIC! STAY AWAY! BEWARE!" Where the only winning move is not to play.
I didn't watch the ad, I don't watch ads in general. I don't watch controversial things just for the sake of being aware of the controversy.
I won't be joining the boycott, I purchase Michelob Ultra pretty regularly because its one of the lowest carb beers, and I'm on a low carb diet.
The marketing exec that started this campaign did it as an effort to expand the brand to younger audiences. I do generally hate marketing departments. They are often filled with a certain type of person. They typically despise their customers, rarely use their own product, and only seem behind HR in terms of signing up for the latest woke craze. If anything good comes out of this it will be a tighter leash on marketing departments.
cjet79
2yr ago
As a youth interested in sci-fi and fantasy, Transhumanism always sounded so cool. I can't help but feel that now that it is actually happening, people have made it so lame.
Some of it must be a definition problem. The "trans" part can mean two things: Transition or Transcend. The modern lexicon seems to always have it meaning Transition. You transition from one standard human role to another standard human role. This to me is the lame form of transhumanism. The cool form of transhumanism would have that baby being born in a medical pod. You are railing against role players, actors, fakes. Hollywood seems to have permeated all of society, where the best thing people can do is just play a different role. So boring. I wish you had the real transhumanism to be angry about.
Pod babies, semi-immortal brains in vats, machine enhanced human bodies (more than just a couple of medically necessary interventions like pace-makers), nervous systems transfers, rampant human cloning, etc. None of it exists, none of it is even that close to existing. Transcendent humanism seems deader than ever. Where I once had a hope for it to come about, I'm now more certain than ever that the future belongs to the machines. Not even machines simulating human brains, or building an afterlife for biologically dead humans. Just boring machines running algorithms.
Unless AI turns out to be a real bust, none of this will matter, because biology is just too slow. I tell you this as someone who doesn't see some versions of the "borg" as a bad outcome: the borg ain't happening. There are a couple larpers out there, but they'll all either be dead or swept into the zoo exhibit with the rest of us before any cool Transhumanism comes to pass.
cjet79
2yr ago
boo -- parent was also antagonistic and condescending. I don't personally care for bans in this situation, but if you're going to mod that comment you should be doing the whole chain while you're at it.
Good point. In isolation the comment looked not good, but not bad. But the followup comment made it clear they were trying to throw an insult.
Pumped storage has been a thing for almost a century now. I leaned about it in science class as a child.
@Hyperion this comment of yours was not very good. The first sentence seems fine, but maybe lacking context for why you are bringing up the point. The second sentence could come across as antagonistic.
You do understand that energy demands fluctuate throughout the day and spending energy when it's available and cheap to have it when it is in demand and expensive is important? I was taught that as a child.
Your followup comment made it clear you comparing greyenlightenment's knowledge to that of a child. Which is antagonistic. One day ban for you as well, since you have also been here long enough to know better.
cjet79
2yr ago
This was low effort and antagonistic. If you were a new user it would just be a warning, but you have been around long enough to know the rules. 1 day ban.
cjet79
2yr ago
Reading any lawyer's take on the court system seem to be a quick path to depression and dark thoughts for me.
I did have my own thoughts on political law-fare last month.
As an outsider the whole system seems broken. I don't trust it to have good outcomes for me, regardless of why of I entered. I'm not even sure I can go in and be a juror without getting held in some form of contempt. If it happens to be a law I don't think is right, then I am not going to send someone to jail, regardless of the evidence. That viewpoint also conveniently sounds like lying to get out of jury duty.
I'm sure for people who work in the court system my fears probably seem overblown. I know in my rational mind I'm likely to have boring and uneventful interactions with a court of law, if any. But my heart screams in terror at the level of routine injustice carried out by the courts. Its a game rigged by them to always win. They only seem to lose by their own sheer incompetence (accidentally handing over exonerating evidence that they meant to with-hold).
I think at a minimum that if evidence was found to be withheld that later exonerates someone it should be grounds for immediate disbarment. And my hope, though I doubt it would happen, is that once disbarred they no longer should enjoy absolute immunity. So a single major fuckup means they lose their job. Two major fuckups and they can be held accountable. But I'd happily settle for them just losing their jobs.
All of this talk coming from the prosecutor in New York that no one should be above the law is just disgusting coming from someone who has absolute immunity.
cjet79
2yr ago
I feel like focus groups in theory could be amazing, but in practice are complete garbage.
Problem one is the randomness. You don't want random. You want tastemakers, and obsessive critics. And you need to make sure you are only selecting tastemakers for niches you want to appeal to. Rings of Power should have gone and found ten people from YouTube that have made videos about the simarillion. Or that have reviewed the Lord of the Rings movies.
Problem two is the temporary nature. You should want them to stay on for a long time and track if you are doing better with them.
cjet79
2yr ago
Social media sites tend to all imitate whichever site is most popular at the time. I remember all the Twitter imitation trends 5ish years ago.
I feel some sense of cosmic justice that the websites that try and hook people into following pointless online trends are themselves doomed to follow pointless online trends.
cjet79
2yr ago
Well there are also two reasons why peak oil might happen. One is a demand side drop the other is a supply side drop. 2020 saw the first decline in oil production, but it was obviously a demand side drop.
And eventually oil production will drop off if some better energy technology replaces it.
So the weak version of peak oil is guaranteed to happen. But the reason why it happens matters a lot. And I think an eventual supply side drop is far less likely than an eventual demand side drop.
cjet79
2yr ago
Has peak oil come about yet? Its like 20 years overdue at this point. There is only so many times you can claim a doomsday scenario is approaching before people start to doubt it.
I have a very loose loose understanding of all this stuff, because experts on "peak oil" have consistently been able to talk circles around me for two decades, and yet have also been consistently wrong. This makes me unwilling to wade into their scientific papers.
These are my loose understandings:
-
We don't really need to discover new oil fields. There are large known reserves of marginal and harder to harvest fields of oil. Same situation as fracking two decades ago. Until the price of oil goes up enough, no technology will be developed to harvest these fields. As long as no technology is developed to harvest these fields they will appear to have a negative EROI.
-
Solar, Tidal, and Hydro could cover a huge chunk of energy needs. But they are expensive relative to oil, so why bother? Especially if the price will get undercut as soon as new oil extraction tech comes along. Governments and massive corporations can afford to invest in these energy options as a hedge against the price of oil.
-
We have a moonshot option in the form of fusion energy. Its moving along at a snails pace, but decent chance of getting it before 2050.
-
Thorium reactors are also a mostly underutilized form of nuclear energy. Also doesn't really have the same fuel limitations as other nuclear options. Same problem as everything else though, why bother when oil is so cheap?
-
Most of the hate directed towards oil is due to climate concerns. Scientists that work in this field either don't care about these concerns and go make bank in the private oil sector, and never write many papers or communicate with the public. The scientists that do care about climate a bunch stay in academia and think tanks and write all the papers. Fundamental imbalance in the field. Same thing happens in other academic fields, Economics is littered with unemployable Marxist cranks, while the pro-free-market types can go make bank on wall street.
-
Energy density of hydrocarbons means they will still be used for a long time. Especially in things like jet fuel. But hydrocarbons can be synthesized. It is expensive to synthesize at current energy prices. If price of oil goes up that changes.
-
Prices have adjusted in the past, new technologies have come about as oil prices increased. The shift will be gradual if it ever needs to actually happen. There will be no collapse of civilization from a lack of oil.
-
The scientists/activists that hate oil for climate change reasons would LOVE for the economy to collapse from oil related problems. And they strive to make it happen by making oil as expensive as possible to extract, and trying to tax and regulate us back into the stone age.
TL;DR: Oil is still too cheap for any meaningful change to happen in the energy sector. Certainly not change on the level of 'civilization collapse'.
cjet79
2yr ago
Like, if you want to pay taxes on all the revenue your company earns or all your personal income or whatever then you don't have to care about how your money is labelled. But the reason people label things as business expenses is because the government gives certain kinds of tax advantage for those expenditures. The government is, I think understandably, upset when people lie to them and claim expenditures were for things that give tax benefits when they actually were not.
Administrative state crap. I'd prefer it if they stop creating thousands of different laws that reward different micro categories of spending with tiny tax incentives. I don't doubt that whatever silly rule is violated has some reason for existing within the bureaucracy. I just don't care about the system in general. Burn it all down I say.
I don't understand how you can possibly think a legal system that operated this way would be perceived as more just than the current system. "We're going to throw you in jail, not because you broke any law but because fuck you." "Yea, you broke a bunch of laws other people are in jail for, but we aren't gonna punish you because we like you." Very just!
Because a sufficiently complex set of rules just eventually wraps back around to that outcome anyways. When everyone is violating the rules and the only thing that saves them is prosecutor discretion, then it's just some prosecutor deciding who they want to make guilty and innocent. Why not skip the step of having a super complex legal system that wastes a bunch of resources? And why not select the judges and prosecutors based entirely on their wisdom to make good judgements, rather than their ability to manipulate a stupidly complex legal system?
cjet79
2yr ago
Partial Mod-Hat: If I had seen this first it would have been at least a one day ban. Intentionally violating a rule and not being punished for it makes the rule meaningless. I would have preferred to make an example of a post like this, rather than just allowing it with a light warning. For anyone thinking of pulling this in the future, please take note that OP's lack of a ban is from Luck rather than official policy. End of partial mod-hat
Thoughts on some things:
The Crime of living under an Administrative State
The underlying "crime" seems dumb. It is a result of an overactive administrative state. Its exactly the type of reason why overactive administrative states are evil. There are hundreds of thousands of rules, and a single mistake is enough justification to wage a legal war. Two mistakes in close enough proximity can get mashed together to more than double the consequences. The question we should ask is, can someone pay off their mistress to keep quiet? If yes, end of story. If no, then Hollywood watch out. All the complaints about how the money might have been mislabeled are administrative state bullshit. Why should I need to label how my money (or my businesses' money) is spent for the administrative state? If Trump had labelled the expense "payoff to stormy Daniels" do we have any expectation that the administrative state would be happy, and wouldn't do something like conveniently "leaking" that detail to the press?
John Edwards, Campaign Finance
One of the "rebuttals" to this administrative state unfairness, is that the unfairness was pointed the other direction a decade ago. John Edwards got in trouble for using donations to cover up an affair. Here is the problem, Campaign Finance laws are blatantly unconstitutional. They clearly violate the First Amendment. Campaign finance survives the court system because judges are smart enough to realize that those laws are in place to give legitimacy to the US government. And the actual job of every judge is to hold up the legitimacy of the government, ruling on court cases is merely their means of accomplishing that goal. Campaign finance laws are also always doomed to failure. You can't take money out of politics when politics is so wrapped up in the economy. Anyways, a decade ago when the Obama administration was still getting its legs under itself, parts of the administrative state were still controlled by Neo-Con types. Its not a surprise they used some lawfare to go after a Democratic politician. People here either seem to have short memories, or they've lived shorter lives than me. The post-9/11 period of government, up until about 2010 was absolutely filled with shady things being done by the government that seemed to benefit the Neo-Con agenda. In the exact same way that the opposite is happening today.
State vs State Lawfare
The DeSantis refusal to assist in arrest is interesting. It speaks to a coming problem facing the American legal system. If it hasn't happened already, it soon will happen that there things that are crimes in one state, and in other states NOT doing that thing will be a crime. Trans issues for kids are already splitting that way. The NY attorney is currently going after Trump. Meanwhile Missouri and some other states are going after Fauci. I happen to hate Fauci, and I'm cheering on Missouri, but I'm part of the 'problem' of expanding lawfare. States with entrenched political interests can afford to wage lawfare on the national stage against their political opponents. No one else really has the resources to wage lawfare on the national stage, which Elites probably saw as a feature rather than a bug.
There are also cases of states weaponizing the constitution against the federal government. It might have been Missouri as well, but they passed a law a while back saying that it was Illegal for any state law enforcement agents to enforce unconstitutional federal gun bans. There were a lot of details to the law that made it look like it was basically a setup for a perfect legal challenge against a federal gun law. Coincidentally gun laws have not been getting passed as often lately, so I guess this law hasn't been tripped up yet.
There are "sanctuary" cities. Of various types of sanctuary. Initially for immigration. Now other things that cities don't want to enforce just aren't enforced.
The next Civil (court) War
It is worth thinking about what the end state of all this lawfare will look like. I don't think it actually leads to a hot war with bullets flying. Most of the court cases and topics end up being so dumb and boring that people can barely grab onto what is happening. Instead I think it ends in gridlock. Federal and State courts clogged with cases of lawfare that drag on for many many years. The Supreme Court unable to break the gridlock, because they are a part of the lawfare as well, and their reputation as non-partisan has been damaged too badly. Bureaucratic agencies unable to enforce any of their edicts on suddenly unwilling and uncooperative states. A president would have to call in the troops to start enforcing federal bureaucratic mandates, otherwise state LE just plays a game of arrest and release of any bureaucrats that step on their territory. But even the troops aren't too effective ... after all the issue is going to go to a local court with a local judge presiding, and a favorable local jury of peers.
The way out
Courts have a letter of the law vs spirit of the law problem. We have tried a system of enforcing the letter of the law for the past century. I think it ends in the gridlock scenario outlined above. Laws aren't mathematical enough to all coexist nice and peacefully with one another. There are conflicts, discrepancies, and gaping holes all over. The court system has been papering over those problems for as long as they can. But everyone is starting to see the problems. Trump, as always, is just a catalyst. No one has even bothered asking what spirit of the law Trump has broken. They went straight to finding the tiny letters that he might have broken.
I think the way out will require a great reset of court systems. Possibly with everyone getting their own AI lawyers. Or possibly a system that doesn't require any lawyers. Courts will need to re-establish themselves as bastions of fairness and justice. Rather than just as battlefield locations for lawfare. The longer the period of gridlock or legal failure, the more likely it will be that "Courts" come out looking/feeling/being named something completely different. Courts will have to focus on spirit of the law. Where people that don't violate a single law might still get prosecuted, because they so obviously violated the spirit. Or where people that broke a million tiny elements of the law get off completely free, because they weren't doing anything that actually violated the purpose of the laws.
cjet79
2yr ago
We also didn't really know anything about how the human brain worked a hundred years ago. But we managed to build stable-ish societies despite that lack of understanding. I don't feel this problem is insurmountable. I do like the idea of slowing the hell down. It does seem that with our current technology that we are more capable of understanding LLMs than we are of understanding the human brain.
cjet79
2yr ago
To start I think there are two categories of safety mechanisms for AI. Tool safety, and (General AI) GAI safety. The first two suggestions I have are tool safety. Its when AI is still categorically a tool that we are using, rather than an intelligent, independent, and potentially adversarial actor. Tool safety is still important, even if it all completely fails against GAI.
Delete the program that you just trained for hundreds of millions of dollars (or more), that's generating you revenue, that can be studied and produce many papers? What if there's just one more extension to the task? The hard part is making these things, the expense is incurred mostly in training rather than in use.
The first iteration of anything is often the most difficult and expensive to produce. Once you have successfully produced the thing, you can usually do it better, faster, and cheaper a second time. The very first iPhone was probably not made with planned obsolescence in mind, I can guarantee it was part of the discussions for more recent versions though. At some point AIs will be cheaper and easier to build. (If they continue to be exactly as difficult to build in the future as they are today, then I think we might have avoided the worst scenarios of AI apocalypse). What matters in the world of business is not necessarily where all the expense is occurred, but how much they can charge for the marginal product. The first model T to roll off an assembly line costs the entire factory to produce, the second one only costs the additional inputs, but they sell for the same price.
Finally, if we could conceive of it, so could the AI. Our primary advantage is having all these resources available to us, all these weapons and organizations. The AI's primary advantage is intelligence, which it has to use to create bodies. Only something smarter than us can threaten us. But how can we outwit something smarter than we are?
Information asymmetries or raw resources. Think about the problem in reverse. How could someone dumber than you beat you? Someone very dumb could have access to raw physical strength (its own kind of resource) and literally beat me up. Some kid with knowledge that they want to ambush me (and me being none the wiser) could sucker punch me in the groin and take advantage. Some rival for a job position might know a person at the company that can coach them through the interview, while I stumble through it, even if I'd know how to do the actual job better. The natural world is filled with relatively stupid animals. Intelligence certainly conveys some advantage, almost all large animals have brains. But there are plenty of animals like Alligators that are dumb as hell and yet very successful.
There are certain levels of intelligence and AI takeoff that this whole discussion becomes meaningless. Eliezer talks about AI's spontaneously figuring out nanobots. Lets call that a >1000x human intelligence. We are fucked if that happens. I don't really have any delusions about beating something that much smarter.
But there are potentially lower levels of intelligence where an AI might max out. What if AI's only get as smart as humans, but can just think faster. I could envisage that causing lots of societal issues, but I don't see it being an existential threat.
An AI that is smarter than any human, but not by a whole bunch. Maybe not really capable of advancing past our own scientific breakthroughs, but fully capable of using our own stuff against us. I think we already have examples of this in the real world. A terrorist organization can be smarter and more capable than any one individual, but it still has very limited capability against the resources aligned against it.
At some point there is probably a crossover, where an AI is smart enough to get enough scientific breakthroughs that if we were telling a story people would just call it "sci-fi bullshit", and it can use that "sci-fi bullshit" to easily win. We have eventually reached that point with animals. We can use a gun or explosives, which are basically incomprehensible to all other animals, and we can obliterate them. It is worth remembering that it actually took us a long time to get to that point though. We have been smarter than crocodiles for probably about as long as our evolutionary paths have diverged (a billion years?). But it is only in the last few hundreds of years that we have a clear and overwhelming technological advantage (and also people still occasionally die to these very dumb animals).
Intelligence is a way to leverage resources more efficiently. It was the first tool, and it may be the last. But the efficiency of that leverage will matter a lot.
cjet79
2yr ago
I see lots of meta discussion of AI safety. I feel likes it been years since I've seen object level discussion of AI safety. Back then it was all the rage to talk about the AI box experiment. And I'm convinced that all that box experiment did was pump up Eliezer's ego.
I'm interested in the theoretical and actual approaches to AI safety that are being taken. I'd always had a few in mind, but maybe other people know whats wrong with these.
-
One off AIs. Long running AIs are probably more capable but they are also probably more dangerous. It is likely safer to spin off single AIs for specific tasks, and the reward for them completing the task is deletion of the AI. Kind of like Rick and Morty's Mr. Meeseeks. The built in safety feature is that if the AI figures out a way to screw with the reward parameters and "cheat" to reach its goal in an easy and unexpected fashion, then it just safely deletes itself.
-
Compartmentalized AIs. Right now AIs are black boxes. You can make them a little more visible by requiring that one set of operations is carried out by one AI, and another set of operations is carried out by a second AI. Then they have to communicate, and you can observe the communication. For example, no AI that can write code and also make service calls on the internet. One AI writes the code, another AI requests the code with the reasons it wants it, and how it is going to be used, etc. This concept also works well with one-off AIs.
-
AI honeypots. Sprinkle these around the internet. Caches of bitcoin that are explicitly hackable by an advanced AI. Or hints of hackable military or biological warfare labs. Monitor them, get at least some early warning of troublesome AIs online.
One of the only meta problems with security is almost everything that makes AI safer also tends to make it less capable. But capability isn't everything. Businesses also want to make money. And guess what, the first two security measures are also ways to make AI a better business. Planned obsolescence in the first one, and gating abilities behind a paywall for the second one.
cjet79
2yr ago
With how tax brackets work, I wouldn't be surprised if the "low" earners in these sports might actually have more expected value from a longer insured contract than a shorter uninsured one. $1m/year for four years is easily better than $4m for 1 year if you think that is the only contract you'll ever get.
I almost wonder if teams and players would be better off negotiating pension style deals rather than big single year payouts. I guess the rules on how many "players" you are allowed to pay probably prevent something like that. But I don't know why teams can't offer something like "team ambassador" or nonsense coaching positions for retired players.
That does seem worrying, you can check crime maps for the area. The calls that police get to a location are usually publicly available.
More options
Context Copy link