confuciuscorndog
No bio...
User ID: 669
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
White
*Jewish
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?
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?
a fine of at least 100% of your net worth
When did Alex Jones become the first trillionaire? I'm pretty sure he's not even a billionaire. Including him in the class of "rich people" even is questionable. Even before this judgment it wouldn't surprise me if he had debt up to his elbows that he continuously avoids through sovereign citizen-esque shenanigans (though I don't know how much public transparency there is about his finances to be fair).
I mean I know you're saying "at least", but isn't that still kind of misleading when it ends up being more like "at least 100% of your net worth, but actually more like 6000000%"?
Even then I don't see how anyone who cares about freedom of discourse at all, like a moderator of this previously de facto deplatformed community (though that's debatable given this place's moderation history), can endorse a fine anywhere close to 100% of someone's net worth for hurting people's feelings. (Everyone on this site will be begging on the streets in a day if that becomes a universal standard.)
"Promoting a harassment campaign against people who had their children murdered, all for the sake of selling merchandise" is a weakman against this site's rules too (or it least it would be if it were neutrally moderated; wishing I could put on a red hat right now to give you a cutesy warning over it). It's not like he just picked the random parents of a selection of wholly obscure child murder victims that week and decided to make them his target. He had a heterodox opinion about a highly-politicized event, child murder or not, that many of the parents most criticized chose to actively and enthusiastically participate in the politicization of, and you have absolutely no proof that he did it "all for the sake of selling merchandise". (I've not seen much evidence he encouraged any direct harassment of anyone either.) That is allowed in free societies without going broke. Obviously a free society is not what we have anymore.
After all, children died on 9/11, have died in Ukraine, have died in Syria, etc. Why not fine those with heterodox opinions about those matters billions too? If we allow the parents of muh murdered children to set the standards of discourse, then say goodbye to discourse beyond "thoughts and prayers! <3" entirely.
and maybe announces he's looking for his brothers.
And if he is doing this, how much do you want to bet it did not sound something like "Excuse me sir, I am expecting to be at address X and..." and instead was more like "Ay! Darnell! DeAndre! Get yo' asses out here! It's time to go! Ay, who you is? Where my brothers at? Where dey at? Ay! Yo, I'm talkin' to you nigga!", likely in a loud tone of voice that could easily be misinterpreted as aggressive before he's even properly reached the door? (Edit on 4/25: Of course I could be wrong here and Ralph Yarl could be a young Carlton (Yarlton?) Banks but statistically that's less likely.)
It's not even the ebonics necessarily, but just the fact that blacks tend to communicate anything they want in a more direct, loud, demanding, and repetitive fashion than other races, even when they have no ill intentions, can make other races uneasy even during actually fairly neutral interactions with them, much less an 84 year old man.
I've had plenty of interactions with blacks where they've wrongfully assumed that they needed/wanted something from me or vice versa based on various mistakes of fact, and while many of these have ended in a non-threatening "Oh, my bad" (though sometimes they also just like to immediately disengage and walk away without comment, almost like weird primitive AI agents, once they realize you're not the droid they're looking for), getting there is usually still an uneasy process as they just do not seem to practice the habits of clearly confirming and socially negotiating their presence and intent nearly as much as Whites, Asians, etc. do.
This of course is not malicious behavior in their book. They have no problems yelling at each other repetitively until one side's shouting wins. But if you aren't used to it I can see why it might seem hostile.
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.
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.
AI will snuff out the destinies of the vast majority of humanity or the entirety.
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.
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
My understanding is that while the trillions are only a request at this point, a judgment of nearly a billion has been fully finalized and ordered by a judge already. To me, there's not much of a difference in this case between "essentially impossible, would require him to be like 10x richer than the richest billionaire ever recorded" and "well, maybe if he somehow manages to start the next Amazon or TikTok or something despite being one of the most ostracized men in existence". It's the difference between execution via guillotine and execution via lingchi. Life is still not an option for you in either case.
The point you could make in its favor is that it's not a real punishment, at least not to the degree ordered, because there's no way they're getting that amount of money from him, but that all comes with its own problems.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
If we truly had a borderline extinction event where we were up to the knife's edge of getting snuffed out as a species you would have the will to enforce a ban, up to and including the elite.
Okay, but then if you believe this then you shouldn't actually support restrictionism yet, because in your own reckoning we need the borderline extinction event as a prerequisite to make true restrictionism actually likely. (Though I'm going to bet the new elite would still just say "Wow that sucks for that previous elite that destroyed even themselves but we'll do better this time." The seduction of infinite power is far beyond any amount of risk to nullify.)
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
Fair then. My mistake. Though I still think in this case that a billion dollar judgment having any degree of finality, such as the degree of being ordered by a judge at all, is insane.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
So we need to argue for banning X now, even though if X really caused a problem people would be in favor of banning it anyway and banning X now would only be an incomplete ban of X that would likely make the problems it causes even worse?
This is like advocating for a unilateral ceasefire among the soldiers on your own side even though you know the enemy won't stop shooting in order to "prep" them for a possibly actually universal ceasefire that the enemy might be willing to agree to later after a really bad battle. (Except if you stop shooting at them preemptively, that bad battle to make them want to actually stop shooting themselves will never happen.)
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
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
That's not what I'm reading from the statute, and in any case I'm not seeing it in action yet. And even if the final result turns out to be more reasonable, there's still the old problem of "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride." Nothing in this case indicates a system or society that is "designed to obtain exactly the outcome for which [I am] advocating", which is a general tolerance for a wide range of opinions.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
Yeah I don't see it. Unless you're specifying the conditions under which you want the ban/think it would occur, then you're just creating fertile ground for the wrong interpretation of your own words. And saying "just look at OpenAI's API access" changes nothing. OpenAI is specifically the locked down, regime-backed enemy AI that people are worried about. Some decent amount of OpenAI API access is exactly compatible with the selective restrictionism that would serve only to empower existing players.
Instead of arguing naive restrictionism that could easily be turned against any sensible interpretation of itself, why not just be fully honest about exactly what you want and expect, so that it doesn't take someone like me multiple back-and-forth posts to even find out what that is?
PS: For anything that genuinely kills millions or billions of people, there won't need to be any existing "scaffolding and intellectual infrastructure" to argue for a complete ban of it. Humans are pretty good at coming up with that on the fly when something is that dangerous. Campaigns against far lesser evils have sprung up in a matter of weeks. You're making the wrong argument for the wrong time period.
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
You were advocating for a lower verdict, not for none at all.
No? I can prefer a lower verdict to a higher verdict, and none at all to a lower verdict.
Anyhow, you think are not seeing it action yet because you aren't familiar with how these things work; judges reduce excessive verdicts every day of the week.
That's great. Considering how ridiculous the jury's verdict is, the judge has a long way to go here.
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
I do know that Putin is to a degree evil (or at least partly a self-serving sociopathic careerist at best, which is essentially the same thing), but I also am nearly 100% sure that he still doesn't intrinsically despise my skin color, my natural expression of my secondary sex characteristics and masculinity itself, etc. and also probably doesn't hate or want to eradicate my heritage, culture, and traditions too much (minus the parts of it that have been hijacked by globohomo to destroy his).
Putin is just banally evil, a simple, corrupt apparatchik qua autocrat of the Russian security state who just wants to be free to LARP as Diet Stalin, take his share of the illicit cut off the top, and restore a bit of the Russian national pride he's made himself a venerated mascot of (and he probably genuinely, as genuinely as he can anyway, believes in it all some decent amount too, which is a majorly redeemable quality). Perhaps the world would be better overall if such people didn't exist (which they might not if globohomo didn't constantly put heterodox cultures under siege, causing them to desperately turn to perceived strongmen in self-defense), but they hardly ruin the planet.
Some 13 year old Iranian girl out there isn't twerking to vulgar and nonsensical dindu rap on TikTok and causing her anguished father to question every life decision he's ever made and contemplate suicide because of Putin. Some 10 year old boy in Venezuela isn't wearing women's clothing and dreaming of his future lifetime paid subscription to the proper functioning of his own endocrine system via synthetic pharmaceutical hormones because of Putin. Some decent enough 27 year old British lad wasn't guilt-tripped and shamed into having a heart attack leading to death from "SADS" sponsored by Pfizer™ because of Putin. Whatever problems Putin causes, he at least has the courtesy to almost always keep them in Russia (or in the case of a certain recent special operation, Russia Jr.). His flaws don't spread like a virus.
I still don't believe the WEF etc. is literally Satanic, because I don't believe in a literal Satan, but they do match most descriptions of the classic nefarious tempter archetype. With that being said, the whole hating my basic demographic characteristics stuff and constantly spreading society-eroding degeneracy stuff weighs more heavily on my mind, so I would say that either I'm heterodox among my fellows here or you're either strawmanning a bit or interpreting hyperbole (I've made a few "I HATE THE ANTICHRIST" posts in my day in response to the latest globohomo affront, but it's just a meme.) a bit too literally.
Though you're right about Jews ruining society, especially the gay ones! (Or should I want them not to breed?)
confuciuscorndog
1yr ago
Anyways, the core thesis was that restrictionism-to-outright-banning is an (if not the) sensible option for the teeming masses
But even if you believe that, then you must acknowledge that fake, selective restrictionism is perhaps their worst option. Advocating for restrictionism naively without acknowledging that is not threading the needle appropriately.
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.
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.
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
I don't see how it makes "no sense" that the order of outcomes which best achieves a general tolerance for a wide range of opinions here is quite obviously none at all > lower verdict > higher verdict. Seems like pretty basic logic to me.
? 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.
More options
Context Copy link