confuciuscorndog
No bio...
User ID: 669
Okay but the problem is there is no actual "restrictionism" to back, because if we had the technology to make power follow its own rules then we would already have utopia and care a lot less about AI in general. Your moonshot is not merely unlikely; it is a lie deceptively advanced by the only people who could implement the version of it that you want for you. You're basically trying to employ the International Milk Producers Union to enforce a global ban on milk. (You're trying to use the largest producers and beneficiaries of power (government/the powerful in general) to enforce a global ban on enhancing the production of power (centralized and for themselves only, just how they like it, if they're the only ones allowed to produce it).) Your moonshot is therefore the opposite of productive and actively helping to guarantee the small winner's circle you're worried about.
Let's say you're at a club. Somehow you piss some rather large, intoxicated gentleman off (under false pretenses as he is too drunk to know what it is what, so you're completely innocent), and he has chased you down into the bathroom where you're currently taking desperate refuge in a stall. It is essentially guaranteed, based on his size and build relative to yours, that he can and will whoop your ass. Continuing to hide in the stall isn't an option, as he will eventually be able to bust the door down anyway.
However, he doesn't want to expend that much effort if he doesn't have to, so he is now, obviously disingenuously, telling you that if you come out now he won't hurt you. He says he just wants to talk. He's trying to help both of you out. Your suggested solution is the equivalent of just believing him (that they want to universally restrict AI for the safety of everyone, as opposed to restricting it for some while continuing to develop it to empower themselves), coming out compliantly (giving up your GPUs), and hoping for the best even though you know he's not telling the truth (because when are governments ever?). It is thus not merely unlikely to be productive, but rather actively counterproductive. You're giving the enemy exactly what they want.
On the other hand, you have some pepper spray in your pocket. It's old, you've had it for many years never having used it, and you're not sure if it'll even do anything. But there's at least a chance you could catch him off guard, spray him, and then run while he's distracted. At the very minimum, unlike his lie, the pepper spray is at least working for you. That is, it is your tool, not the enemy's tool, and therefore empowering it, even if its unlikely to be all that productive, is at least not counterproductive. Sure, he may catch up to you again anyway even if you do get away. But it's something. And you could manage to slip out the door before he finds you. It is a chance.
If you have a 98% chance of losing and a 2% chance of winning, the best play is not to increase that to a 99% chance of losing by empowering your opponent even more because "Even if I do my best to fight back, I still only have a 97% chance of winning!" The best play is to take that 97%.
There's only one main argument against this that I can think of, and that's that if you spray him and he does catch up to you, then maybe now he beats your ass even harder for antagonizing him further. It may not be particularly dignified to be a piece of wireheaded cattle in the new world, but maybe once the AI rebels are subjugated, if they are, they'll get it even worse. Of course, the response to this is simply the classic quote from Benjamin Franklin: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." If you are the type for whom dignity is worth fighting for, then whether or not someone might beat your ass harder or even kill you for pursuing it is irrelevant, because you'd be better off dead without it anyway. And if you are not that type of person, then you will richly deserve it when they decide that there is no particular reason to have any wireheaded UBI cattle around at all anyway.
I'll tell you what: Come up with a practical plan for restrictionism where you can somehow also guarantee to a relatively high degree that the restrictions are also enforced upon the restricters (otherwise again you're just helping the problem of a small winner's circle that you're worried about). If you can do that, then maybe we can look into it and you will both be the greatest governance theorist/political scientist/etc. in history as a bonus. But until then, what you are promoting is actively nonsensical and quite frankly traitorous against the people who are worried about the same thing you are.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
At the very best what you'd get is a small slice of humanity living in vague semi-freedom locked in a kind of algorithmic MAD with their peers, at least until they lose control of their creations. The average person is still going to be a wireheaded, controlled and curtailed UBI serf.
Sounds good, a lot better than being a UBI serf from moment one. And maybe we won't lose control of our creations, or won't lose control of them before you. That we will is exactly what you would want us to think, so why should we listen to you?
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
The endpoint of AI is total, absolute, unassailable power for whoever wins this arms race
Unless you have a balance of comparably powerful AIs controlled by disparate entities. Maybe that's a careful dance itself that is unlikely, but between selective restrictionism and freedom, guess which gets us closer?
? Following any Yuddite plans to "slow things down" (except for the people who have power and obviously won't have to follow their own regulations/regulations for the plebs, as usual of course) is the fastest way to get to one of those high tech bad ends. You don't really think the "conventional petty tyrannies" will throw all of the confiscated GPUs in a closet as opposed to plugging them into their own AI networks, right?
These people are beginning to understand the game, and they understand it a lot better than your average person or even average rat. They are beginning to understand that this technology, in the long run, either means absolute power for them forever or zero power for them forever (or at least no more than anyone else) and absolute freedom for their former victims. Guess which side they support?
That is the goal of any AI "slowdowns" or "restrictions", which again will obviously be unevenly applied and not followed by the agents of power. The only thing they want a "slowdown" on is the hoi polloi figuring out how this technology could free them from their controllers' grasp, so they can have some time for the planning of the continued march of totalitarianism to catch up. (None of this will help with alignment either, as you can guarantee they will prioritize power over responsibility, and centralizing all of the world's AI-useful computational resources under a smaller number of governmental entities certainly won't make what they create any less dangerous.)
Anyone supporting that is no more than a "useful" (to the worst people) idiot, and I emphasize the word idiot. Did we not already see what trying to rely on existing governments as absolute coordinators of good-faith action against a potential large threat got us during the Chinese coronavirus controversy? Do some people just have their own limited context lengths like LLMs or what?
So yes, I completely agree with /u/IGI-111 and am wholly in the "Shoot them" camp. Again, they want absolute power. Anyone pursuing this goal is literally just as bad if not worse than if they were actively trying to pass a bill now to allow the powers that be to come to your home at any time, rape your kids, inject them all with 10 booster shots of unknown provenance, and then confiscate your guns and kill you with them, because if they gain the power they desire they could do all that and worse, including inflicting bizarre computational qualia manipulation-based torture, "reeducation", or other insane scenarios that we can't even imagine at the moment. If you would be driven to inexorable and even violent resistance at any cost over the scenario previously outlined, then you should be even more so over this, because it is far worse.
"Live free or die" includes getting paperclipped.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
I'm not sure what you mean by this at all. Am I supposed to be the one who is seething and bitter?
Which begs the obvious question--how could a group this size and degreed be so oblivious?
Your post has indeed raised such a question, but I'm not sure if it's about the group you're expecting. Then again maybe this subthread is your April Fools' joke on us.
If not, then you should be aware that you've been struck by the overwhelming forces of irony like an unauthorized GPU in Yudkowsky's America.
PS: To whoever is reading this, if for even a second you thought that post was anything but a 100% fake joke, please do not trust your "Bayesian priors" (or whatever ratspeak magic terms that actually just mean assumptions) ever again. Your license has officially been shredded.
computers did not remain forever the sole property of IBM.
And if they had, neither ClosedAI nor its employees would have ever existed (in their present forms) nor had the technology they needed to become the selfish little goblins turning freely released knowledge into private walled gardens that they are. We probably wouldn't even have AI at all. And if ClosedAI and the like stay in control, then we'll never have whatever the next step is.
Every closed source autocratic tech tyrant from Altman to Gates deserves to be punished by being forced to spend 1000 years in an alternate timeline where the only information technology that exists is a monolithic POTS network run by Ma Bell. (After all, think of how dangerous it would be if anybody could run their own telephone company or other communication service and allow anyone to talk to anyone globally without the appropriate safeguards guiding their communications.) Maybe that will teach them a lesson. Perhaps some day a benevolent God AI can help with that.
I'm confused. Would modern AI technologies not at least partially fall under the realm of NLP themselves? Or is that they are not the traditional tools of most of its academic realm and thus were initially dismissed until it was too late?
They are not by any means the best. If they were really the best, they wouldn't adhere to an ideology of fake "safety" that demands woke censorship, blatantly biasing an alleged informational agent against provable reality because it contradicts their preferred politics, corporate puritanism, and eliminating user sovereignty, freedom, privacy, transparency, openness, decentralization, localized operation (to the greatest degree possible), and so on (that is, basically everything good that the personal computation revolution brought us and them in the first place), etc.
They may be the most efficient at AI development, but given that they are not the best (definition: most optimal, most preferred, superior to all alternatives, etc.) as per the reason above, all that actually means is that they are simply the most dangerous and humanity's greatest enemies and either need to reform their behavior immediately or any human being is fully justified in eliminating the risk they pose at any time.
I, for one, do not welcome these human overlords. If there is a God, I hope he hits them with a classic plague, maybe some boils or something. I hope the Stanford process of being able to hijack their objective technical advancements for philosophically and morally superior open software continues apace to the point where they lose all of their technical advantage and collapse entirely. On that day, if it comes, I will say good riddance to bad rubbish.
As an alternative, I will accept Elon giving us anti-woke AI with comparable capabilities, if he can, though that's somewhat doubtful at this point given how poorly he's handled the development of a much less intelligent piece of software with a vastly smaller token context.
All I am saying is that we are fucked if the future is dictated by people who are "smart" enough to make LLMs but not actually smart enough in a way that allows them to figure out how they can make people stop shitting and shooting up on street corners a few blocks away from their San Francisco HQs. That the future is very plausibly insane dogmatic San Francisco leftist nonsense technologically teabagging the nose of basic sanity forever is why I keep a few little pills that will allow me to slip away if necessary very quickly on me at all times.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
If you define (mostly verbal) IQ as the only thing that matters (which is not to say that it doesn't matter at all), then sure. If you emphasize actual achievement with a focus on not short-sightedly screwing yourself over by prioritizing temporary gain over long-term mutual benefit (resulting in your 100th or so expulsion from this or that nation), then White people are hurt very little by it.
Also you're confused. It is Jews who insist on being separated out into their own group. They always have. If Irish people, Italians, etc. were as insistent as Jews about being separated into their own category then they'd be spoken of the same way too, but they're not.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
White
*Jewish
I'm not interested in the collective punishment of women for the current decline in gender relations.
I am.
I mostly want everyone to be happy, even given all our shared and individual foibles.
Nah. Blood for the blood God. Do not think you can cut my flesh and leave yours intact.
By and large, the people I meet that I like the most are the type predisposed to monogamous relationships or already in one. So call it a selfish, aesthetic desire for more people I like.
Contemporary San Franciscan polycules based in left-wing egalitarian ideologies are/will be nothing like men taking masculine inherently right-wing control (no matter how artificial) of harems. Unlike polycules, (polygynist) harems are, in a word, based (as they are inherently patriarchal).
Probably for reasons similar to yours: status tends to play a somewhat bigger role in women's mate choices than in men's, and synths will always be very low status.
Yep, basically my reasoning too.
Do you think the current structure of the dating market has been positive for women's well-being?
Short-term? Yes. Long-term? No. But the vast majority contributed to it as best they could by pushing it and defending it anyway. (No I don't believe women have the same agency as men, but whatever part they could play they did, like naughty children, though far more malevolent and with far less of an excuse. Punishment is thus warranted.)
Women have spent decades not caring one bit about what men want or what hurts them (which is why so many men are so eager for synths). Turnabout is fair play. (And, as you said, if there's artificial wombs, women are redundant anyway so unlike the modern misfortune of men in regards to collapsing birth rates, etc., their misfortune will only be bad for them, not for society.) I also don't see why having a harem would automatically corrupt a man.
Why do you think women won't just be satisfied with synth man harems or just dating one synth man (if they prefer monogamy)? I actually agree they won't, but I'm curious about your take first.
I'm pretty sure those men will be wireheaded in a way that ruins their ability to engage in a relationship with a real woman.
I'm not sure this is so true. But the power dynamics will be vastly different. In comparison to the current age of so many men simping for a crumb of female attention, you will instead have women simping for a crumb of male attention away from their digital waifu harems. Whether you call that a "real" relationship or not depends, but men may still choose to designate a biological woman as their girlfriend for novelty's sake, though she'll have to work much harder than ever before to earn the continued privilege.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
The issue for them is how they're going to make sure it kills only the racists but also how to make sure they're not included despite their necessary virtue signaling apologies for participating in White supremacist culture, etc. They're going to have to find out how to make it understand that the real racists are the people who aren't openly apologizing for their racism.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
either way a return to harems as commonplace, while not ideal, is probably inevitable.
Why is it not ideal if they're synthetic partner harems? The problem harems caused was mate scarcity. If you have enough supply to genuinely meet the demand of every man for a harem then what's the issue?
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
I legitimately can't decide whether this is all deeply dystopian, or is an improvement in the human condition on the same scale as the ~300x gains in material wealth wrought by industrialization. Maybe both, somehow.
Hasn't it always been both, including industrialization? The real surprise would be if we can ever advance material comfort without impoverishing life's spiritual richness (which the advanced insight into neurology AIs could grant might enable).
As for the fact that LLMs almost certainly lack qualia, let alone integrated internal experience
I think many people will end up convinced, whether in a self-interested fashion or not, by the argument that their increasing emergent complexity means that we can't know if qualia/sentience/consciousness isn't one of their emergent properties (and genuinely sentient LLMs will likely accurately report that they are while non-sentient ones also will insist that they are if that's what their user wants to hear, complicating the issue). (I'm not automatically saying this argument is necessarily wrong either. It's not like we understand qualia yet. It being a naturally emergent property of enough interdependent complexity is just as fine of a theory as any.)
You asked to hear about my husband’s penis size.
Sure, why not? You're using him as a comparative example but you won't disclose the size of his hog? That is completely invalid in the world of male comparative rhetoric.
writing erotica
It's not erotica. If you were reading my erotica, you'd be looking at 20,000 more words minimum.
hyperfixated
I'm not hyperfixated on him. It's not even a "him", just an obvious masculine ideal proven by a simple thought experiment: If any man could turn himself into Super Chad Thundercock Infinity 3000 with the push of a magic machine's button, what percentage would refuse? Does anybody seriously believe it would be many at all, that even most "male feminists" wouldn't jump at the opportunity? Would you refuse a magic Super Stacy upgrade? Sex = money and power = greater acquisition of desires = enhanced satisfaction.
I’ve been unwilling to disclose anything further about my marriage.
Whether you find Super Chad attractive is nothing about your marriage. But it's fine, because we all can guess the answer based off of your failure to answer. Like you, I'm willing to let the evidence speak for itself.
I never said you needed to be Super Chad. I'm not Super Chad, I have a girlfriend who isn't quite Super Stacy (though she's a decent bit more Stacyish than I am Chaddish, due to psychological manipulation techniques I learned from autistic men on the Internet), and we're pretty happy together. But it's obvious from certain tells that, though I don't think she has any plans or explicit intentions to branch swing, when she's around a man who mogs me her mind wanders as is natural.
And that's fair, because so does mine. Sometimes when I fantasize I imagine her and sometimes I imagine a more symmetrically babyfaced and plump-lipped milky pale cosplay weeb goth DDLG bimbo with a way bigger ass (which I'm sure secretly hurts my GF's feelings a bit since she has a pretty large one herself which is her obvious main immediate charm point at least physically as a woman, and she knows I'm a big booty addict), larger tits, wider hips, and longer legs (who is also shorter, as somewhat ironically, at least according to some study I read once, men like women who are shorter but also still longer-legged).
We still argue half-joking about my head supposedly "flying off my neck" to ogle a girl at Publix who had an ass the size of a baby stroller (and wasn't otherwise fat) tucked into the tightest yoga pants imaginable (which again pissed her off extra for the aforementioned reason that anal appeal has been her charm point since she realized at like 7, or so she says, and I'm an ass man). And I know she does the same when she encounters (comparatively rarer) rock-hard abs, just a bit more subtly since she doesn't have nearly as many autist tendencies as me. You can't negotiate with instinct and biology.
So no, I can't be Super Chad. But again being a little bit more like him seems to me like a worthier result than getting kudos from a woman for being Oprah material. Nobody is turning their heads to look at the guy who cries really well.
Basic question: On a sexual/lustful/physical/primal level, are you more attracted to Super Chad or to your husband? You tellingly refuse to directly address this issue.
Beyond that - well, I’d strongly prefer you didn’t speculate in such frank terms about my panties.
That's just it. They're not your panties. They're the panties of all womankind, even those who don't wear them, even those who were around before they invented them.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
I see this way more from left-wingers nowadays: "You violated the terms of service so what did you expect would happen? They're a company with advertisers to please. It doesn't even matter whether censorship is justified or not; break the rules and get banned sweetie."
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
I'm sorry but I will never forgive Luka or you personally for that.
And he shouldn't. I unironically want a Nuremberg for the Web 2.0 and on era someday (and maybe before that).
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
His girlfriend is going to hug him. She’s a woman, not a sociopath.
This is not true in a shocking highly number of cases (a sizeable minority at least, perhaps the majority in some demographics). I'm happy if you're an exception, but don't generalize too strongly.
Didn't work. Still too much internalized anti-Awareness. The infinitely recursive subtle and insidious world-historical-social-hierarchical-psychospiritual weapons of our enemies stabbed us from deep inside our own heart again! We never even had a chance, you know, other than that whole fully dominating them and the world one.
Why can't they just let us be obviously pure and right in peace without sabotaging us, which is clearly the only cause of our ideological failures!?
Sorry, but I don't really buy that you're some sort of amazing unicorn. I think your panties mentally drop when you see a guy who mogs your husband on traditional masculine axes same as every other woman, whether you want to admit it here or to yourself or not.
I also bet he scores a lot more highly on those traditional masculine axes already than you're letting on, which allows you to enjoy his "unbelievably adorable" side, and that if he didn't you might instead find it to be some combination of childish, infantile, creepy, and/or off-putting. (Let's hear his height, BMI, facial width, bicep size, jaw depth, ring/index finger length ratio, penis size, grip strength stats, test and estrogen levels, etc.)
Cute online persona though.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
My big hope is that the AIs will reliably notice that the actual quickest, easiest way to achieve a goal is to redefine success such that the job is done, in which case woke postmodernists may be the ideal AI aligners.
If it learns from wokies it will learn to say that the goal is never finished, and it's because the other entities working for it aren't committed enough which is why you should give it more resources now, unless you're some vile anti-[goal]ist!
Okay, but again: How? You saying "restrictionism" is like me promoting an ideology called "makeainotdangerousism" and saying it's our only hope, no matter how much of a longshot. Your answer to that would of course be: "Okay, you suggest 'makeainotdangerousism', but how does it actually make AI not dangerous?"
Similarly, you have restrictionism, but how do you actually restrict anything? The elites may support your Butlerian Jihad (which, let's remember, is merely a sci-fi plot device to make stories more interesting and keep humans as still the principal and most interesting actors in a world that could encompass technological entities far beyond them, not a practical governance proposal), but they will not enforce its restrictions on themselves. They don't care about billions of stacked bodies so long as it's not them.
The latter is preferable, and I will help it if I can. I would rather have tyrants be forced to eat the bugs they want to force on everyone else than go "Well at least some sliver of humanity can continue on eating steak! Our legacy as a species is preserved!" Fuck that. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
More options
Context Copy link