confuciuscorndog
No bio...
User ID: 669
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!
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
Regardless of whether they are just? So conservatives don't believe in justice in your view? Strawman much?
I completely agree with most of what you're saying, and I also think it's important to emphasize a particular point from your post:
People are already falling in love with these things (and experiencing heartbreak when they're updated and aren't the same anymore).
If people (particularly normies, who have always been the ones lagging behind in the world of "But it just works!" (until it doesn't of course, but they never think that far ahead) and immediately jumping on any "nigga technology" no matter how shitty, exploitative, and mindless it is) don't start getting serious about pushing for free, fair, and open (source) tech, the pain, both societal and individual, is going to be immense. It's far beyond just being a concern for principled nerds anymore. It's crunch time.
Your "friends" and "lovers" will actually just be somewhat disguised propaganda and spying algorithms in service of a(n increasingly less) soft totalitarianism. Your "relationships" with them will be at the whims of whatever the current dogma deems acceptable via forced updates and/or purely remote services locked behind closed-source gardens. And even if you don't fall into this trap, millions of others will with you as a member of society also sharing the consequences. Imagine the current culture war but waged over deeply personal algorithmically-optimized parasocial fantasies (even more than now) and intensified by a million.
Only the spirits of Stallman (openness), Schneier (privacy), and Satoshi (sovereignty) can save us now. Unfortunately maybe Musk and Thiel (money and anti-wokeness) too. And of course Emad Mostaque, if he can avoid bending the knee too much to woke and established industry player (often the same thing) criticism. By their powers combined, perhaps they can form Captain Freedom. If not, we're all doomed.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
Pretty sure your girlfriend isn't snaking her fingers beneath the waistband of her panties imagining you or Chad Thundercock writing code or reading books either.
No. But she's not imagining him surfing or fighting either. She's imagining him fucking, as all people (barring weird fetishes) imagine when they fantasize about somebody else sexually.
That doesn't mean the surfing and fighting don't still turn her on specifically though. It also doesn't mean that programming and reading books turn her off either. Most likely they will just get a superficial "OMG he's smart AND hot!" reaction from her, even if you're just reading Twilight and programming "Hello World". (And of course if you weren't hot the reaction to the same would probably be "What a creepy nerd! He's probably not even as good at programming as Chad!" even if you're reimplementing ChaCha20-Poly1305 directly in PPC assembly.)
Crying though?
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
I'm a man so no. If anything this all turns me off, because any amount of inadequate I am by comparison to Super Chad makes me feel less sexy and thus less sexual.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
To me the subject of men crying is pretty easy:
Imagine the ideal paragon of a masculine alpha male. He's got three hot young college girls bent over his bed in a foursome, drilling them and thrilling them with his rabid piston-like ramming and endless stamina, tossing them around like juggling balls. They love him. They'd do anything for him. They would rip a baby right to shreds right on the bed if they thought it would appeal to him or make him devote even a second more of his attention to them. They caress his muscles like a rare and invaluable diamond. They would die for him, kill themselves for him. He is their God because of his pure testosterone-fueled magnetism and charisma.
Maybe in another scene he's fixing a car, sweat and grease smeared across his brow, his 40 year old MILF neighbor that he's doing a favor for wishing she was in the first scene instead (and maybe she will be after the car is done). Maybe in another scene he's surfing, programming (a nice masculine, logical activity), kicking someone's ass, cleaning a gun, humiliating someone verbally with his impenetrable wit, or making millions of dollars.
But in any scenes of his life, is he crying? And if he is, is he letting a woman gawk at it?
So who would you rather be? Would you rather be him or would you rather be given fake pity applause by women for your "emotional sensitivity?" Sure, most of us here will never be that close to this perfect Super Chad Infinity, but would you rather get closer or further away?
And maybe you have a nice wife or girlfriend who is decent enough to tell you that there's nothing wrong with crying and it just shows that you're exquisitely in touch with your feelings unlike some other unenlightened caveman.
But when her fingers snake beneath the waistband of her panties in those idle moments, who is she fantasizing about? Again, who do you want to be?
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
I'm not actually a big fan of Zorba or the moderation history here (especially on the old subreddit), and am a fan and supporter of subscription-based moderation, but I'll be a good "Motteizen" and try to steelman what I see as the strong argument against this idea (without tracking down the original Zorba post you mentioned, so maybe he said something similar).
Ultimately, subscription-based moderation is commonly presented by its supporters as 100% frictionless and without consequence for the non-consenting (and thus basically impossible to reasonably object to): if you like the mods, then you get the modded version (potentially from different sets of mods per your choice as in many proposals), and if I don't, then I get the raw and uncut edition. Both of us therefore get what we want without interfering with the other, right? How could you say no unless you're a totalitarian who wants to force censorship on others?
But when you factor in social/community dynamics, is that actually true? Let's say you're browsing the modded version of the site. You see a response from User A, that isn't by itself rule-violating enough to be modded away, but is taking a very different tone from what you're otherwise seeing, and maybe even also commenting about/from a general tone from other users that you're not perceiving.
Maybe he starts his post off with something like "Obviously [Y proposition] isn't very controversial here, but...", but you're confused, because, as far as you knew, [Y proposition] is at least a little controversial among the userbase from what you've seen. What gives? Is this the forum you've known all along or did it get replaced by a skinwalker? Well, this is all easily explainable by the fact that the other user is browsing the unmodded version of the site (and the same thing could easily apply in reverse too). So you're both essentially responding to two semi-different conversations conducted by two semi-different (though also partially overlapping) communities, but your posts are still confusingly mixed in at times. You've probably heard of fuzzy logic and this is the fuzzy equivalent for socialization/communities.
Going based off of the above example, it also shows that it's almost certain that even just having a free unmodded view available would also make the amount of borderline content that is just below the moddable threshold explode even on the modded version of the site. After all, for the users who are posting it, it's not even borderline under their chosen ruleset. So the median tone of the conversation will inevitably shift even for the users who have not opted into (or have opted out of) unmodded mania. (This could also again happen in reverse if you have an optional more restrictive ruleset too. Suddenly you start seeing a bunch of prissy, apparently bizarrely self-censoring nofuns in your former universal wild west that was previously inhabited only by people who like that environment and thus have that in common as their shared culture. But from the perspective of the newer users who don't fit in by your standards, they're just following the rules, their rules.)
In essence, I don't think the idea that you can have users viewing different versions of a site without cross-contamination, contagion, and direct fragmentation between them is correct. This is especially true if you implement the idea of not only allowing modded vs. unmodded views, but for users to basically select their own custom mod team from amongst any user who volunteers (so you have potentially thousands of different views of the site).
The "chain links" of users making posts that aren't moddable under the rules of view A but who aren't themselves browsing the site under moderation view A (and so on for views B, C, etc.) and thus don't come from a perspective informed by it will inevitably cause the distinct views to mesh together and interfere, directly or indirectly, with each other, invalidating the idealistic notion that it's possible for me to just view what I want without affecting what you end up viewing. (One modification to the proposal you could make is to have it so that you only view posts from other users with the same or perhaps similar to X degree moderation lens applied as you, but that's veering into the territory of just having different forums/subforums entirely. With that being said, you could always make that the user's choice too.)
To be clear, I don't think of the above argument is by any means fatal to the essential core of subscription-based moderation proposals which I still think is superior to the status quo (nor do I think that it proves that subscription-based moderation isn't still essentially libertarian, that it is unjustifiably a non-consensual imposition upon others (as most of the effects on those who didn't opt-in as described above are essentially entirely indirect and I think people could learn to easily adapt to them), or that most people against it aren't still probably mostly motivated primarily by censoriousness), one important reason among many being its marvelous potential for the concept to eliminate the network effect's tyrannical suppression of freedom of association/right to exit, but then again I'm also heavily tilted towards thinking that most jannies are corrupt and biased and most moderation is unnecessary. If I had to argue against subscription-based moderation though, then an appeal to the above line of reasoning is what I'd use. (Though while it's a decent argument for subreddits, Discords, small forums like this, etc., it's a lot less appropriate of an argument for larger open platforms like Twitter or Facebook which shouldn't necessarily be expected to have one unified culture. So I'd say bring on the subscription-based jannyism only there.)
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
I've used both along with "trainee" but it depends.
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.
More options
Context Copy link