@desolation's banner p

desolation

Eat At JR's Donut Castle!

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 12 12:41:49 UTC

				

User ID: 1157

desolation

Eat At JR's Donut Castle!

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 12 12:41:49 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1157

What a perverse cycle of history: the West turned away Jews, Holocaust, West feels guilty and sets up asylum laws Never Again etc, those asylum laws ultimately end the "guilty West," becomes anti-Semitic again, Jews get turned away.

And I wouldn't count on most of Europe being too safe for jews in the future.

Bring back the Slattery Report.

In the rate case where the inferential distance can not be bridged, you should at least try to make your arguments as factually close as possible.

Yes, this is the smarter way of describing my concern.

I do get the arguments as soldiers concern, but my concern is that a lot of x-risk messaging falls into a trap of being too absurd to be believed, too sci-fi to be taken seriously, especially when there's lower-level harms that could be described, are more likely to occur, and would be easier to communicate. Like... if GPT 3 is useful, GPT 5 is dangerous but going badly would still be recoverable, and GPT 10 is extinction-level threat, I'm not suggesting to completely ignore or stay quiet about GPT-10 concerns, just that GPT 5 concerns should be easier to communicate and provide a better base to build on.

It doesn't help that I suspect most people would refuse to take Altman and Andreessen style accelerationists seriously or literally, that they don't really want to create a machine god, that no one is that insane. So effective messaging efforts get hemmed in from both sides, in a sense.

I think you have a disagreement about what aspects of AI are most likely to cause problems/x-risk with other doomers.

Possibly. But I still think it's a prioritization/timeliness concern. I am concerned about x-risk, I just think that the current capabilities are theoretically dangerous (though not existentially so) and way more legible to normies. SocialAI comes to mind, Replika, that sort of thing. Maybe there's enough techo-optimist-libertarianism among other doomers to think this stuff is okay?

Plausible, yes. I am unconvinced that concerns about those are the most effective messaging devices for actually nipping the problem in the bud.

"No danger yet" is not remotely my point; I think that (whatever stupid name GPT has now) has quite a lot of potential to be dangerous, hopefully in manageable ways, just not extinction-level dangerous.

My concern is that Terminator and paperclipping style messaging leads to boy who cried wolf issues or other desensitization problems. Unfortunately I don't have any good alternatives nor have I spent my entire life optimizing to address them.

I remain unconvinced that morally or practically the distinction matters, though in tone-policing forums such as this it may be worth distinguishing.

There is no “crime is good” crowd.

Criminals are a "crime is good" crowd, including Seth Rogan and Chesea Boudin's entire extended family.

There’s a “crime is better than this” crowd, which is disgusted with the state of policing.

I do have a hard time accepting the positions of people who are thoroughly insulated from the consequences of their beliefs or immune to the logical conclusions of their beliefs.

The "crime is good" crowd makes an exception for self-defense, which is only valid when used against cops.

I'm sure the Neanderthals' last thoughts included "so what, those skinny folks with the funny heads will survive even after they've wiped us out. We shall go gently into that good night."

We're homo sapiens. If we take AI true believers seriously, this isn't hundreds of years in someone else's lifetime; it could be less than ten years before an amoral sociopath unleashes something beyond our control. I plan on being alive in ten years.

I do not happen to think AI (from the LLM model) is likely to be an extinction-level threat (that's a specific phrasing). I do think Sam Altman is a skilled amoral sociopath who shouldn't be trusted with so much as kiddy scissors, and it should haunt Paul Graham that he didn't smother Altman's career when he had a chance.

What is the relation of child-having to being more spiritual grounded and invested in the human race (the human race, not just their children)'s long-term wellbeing?

Note, of course, that parents can also fall into stupid mental traps and failure modes. The position is they are just somewhat less so, as being invested in abstractions is not the same as being invested in something concrete. High-minded ideals can lead one down ridiculous paths- see EA's concern for shrimp.

In my experience, such positions tend to themselves be cope, that one finds excuses for being a selfish hedonist ("Oh, I'm not having kids for the environment," totally has nothing to do with being a perpetual adolescent who can barely take care of themselves and have no interest in the world at large). People of every stripe and position will find reasons to justify that their choices are Good and Right, and will work to reshape reality to ensure that.

The risks of current models are underrated, and the doomerism focusing on future ones (especially to the paperclip degree) is bad for overall messaging.

Reminds me of a popcorn-scifi novel Nano, by John Marlow in which the greater Bay Area gets vaporized by space lasers to stave off a grey goo apocalypse. Always kinda felt having an excuse to vaporize the Bay was part of the desire behind the plot.

And the notion that because he's gay, he doesn't care about anything is ridiculous

The better argument IMO is that psychedelic use (which he's admitted to, perhaps multiple times?) can absolutely fry certain important parts of your brain, including things like risk aversion. Especially if he started with a less-than-healthy amount of risk aversion.

Absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when qualified, competent people make good-faith efforts and are met with good-faith assistance. It may be too cynical but I think any investigation into the 2020 election fails every qualifier: the investigators were not competent nor good-faith, and they would be met with resistance at every possible step anyways.

To be slightly conspiratorial, I'll throat-clear saying the 2020 election was not stolen (though whatever propagandist came up with "most secure election ever" should've been fired and sent to Siberia), but I think there is an awareness that it is not really in anyone's best interest to find that evidence even if it exists (which it almost certainly doesn't). As much as Trace has come to be a disappointment, he's not wrong that right-wing media is even more disappointing and doesn't really care to find evidence (that in this case doesn't exist) so much as grift from the idea of it.

I also don’t think Democrats are categorically against security measures.

Is there any good reason ballot harvesting shouldn't be banned and treated as a grave offense against the private ballot and the democratic process?

For a few additional comments, a now-deleted account that reported (positively) on performing ballot harvesting in California back at the old abode, a few of my reasons why ballot harvesting is so open to abuse yet wouldn't get reported, and some other guy you might recognize makes offers on what to trade for banning ballot harvesting.

**An alternative interpretation is that Silver is engaging in Hidden Power Levels, utilizing what is largely ripped from Yarvin or SA, but not acknowledging their influence to avoid being stoned by association with them.

Entirely possible, even likely, but don't underestimate the likelihood that it's a branding exercise. You've got to make the idea your own to sell a book on it. Good artists borrow, great artists steal, as the saying goes.

Yascha Mounk and Wesley Yang come to mind too. The local memory banks, superior in recall to my own, can probably come up with a half or full dozen more.

Guess I'm still in that 90s mindset where watching anime other than Dragonball Z or Sailor Moon marks you as weird, and reading manga marks you as unacceptably weird and probably not very hygienic. My perception of youth culture has not kept up enough with just how mainstream manga is.

my local Barnes and Noble (I live in a 65% Biden voting area in a purple metro in a purple state, for what that's worth... very Karen territory)... That entire store at this point gives off serious anti-straight-male vibes

My local B&N is also in a ~65% Biden area, blueish-purple metro in a purple state, at a declining suburban mall with a majority-minority attendance and I tend to be a little surprised at how... normal it is? Like exceedingly well-balanced, here's the rack of Biden books and here's the rack of Trump books, here's the Christian section and here's the astrology section, etc. The staff pick notes lean more Internet Progressive or Karen-y, but less so than some of the libraries. Also the manga section keeps growing. I'm not surprised that American comics seem less popular than ever, but I am a little surprised at the manga growth.

The indie bookstores in the wildly more expensive and whiter neighborhoods, those are the ones that exude "you do not belong here."

It’s not hard to see where this would go in the absence of constraints.

Nationwide riots and a guy getting burned to death in his shop? A neighborhood declaring itself an independent territory, resulting in several unsolved murders?

My goodness, we can imagine almost anything could happen at all!

Edit: 'Pet discourse' is incredibly stupid. Vagueing about where it might go in the absence of constraints is only somewhat less so, since anything happening requires much more than mere absence of constraints.

The game isn't fair and the points are made up. When you have to be twice as good to get half as far, a lot hinges on that "twice as good" bit.

I don't see any concerted push by conservatives to bring back Prohibition, but yet when it comes to cannabis legalization, they immediately push back.

Non-overlapping social spheres contributes to this IMO. Functional weed users may be more common than they used to be, but I would be many perhaps most conservatives have never met a truly functional weed user of the sort that's going to be somewhat overrepresented among rationalists. The people they know that use weed are the grungy ones that stink to high heaven even at the grocery store or the neighbor's failson, nice kid but never really grew up and can't keep a job.

On the alcohol side, they know functional alcohol users because they are functional alcohol users, and most civilizations have been alcohol-civilizations for thousands of years.

Also the common trait that users on both sides underrate the risks and overestimate the benefits of their preferred intoxicants, same as any policy or preference.

So goes the Trace of today; the Trace of yesteryear that we appreciated has been lost to the sands of time.

And it's been a dead letter for 60 years. Sadly we did not have Switzerland's foresight to allow people to deny citizenship to their literal neighbors.

I'm quite sure the ole' American assimilation process (which continues largely the same way it always has despite protests to the contrary)

Prior to the last few decades, assimilation resistance came from the minority.

Now it comes from the majority (or whatever we want to call the media blob that approximates the "majority" opinion regardless of what most people actually want), which is why people expect the process to not function like it did prior to Western liberalism's suicidal turn.

because they're more likely to show up to do the job and not fail a drug test than the righteous pure American's currently living there.

Are you going to campaign on some Mega-Singapore ticket to remove birthright citizenship and deport anyone that fails a drug test? I could be convinced pretty easily.

In my state getting a hunting/fishing license for $1 is a low-income benefit that's available and seems to be popular, so the idea of people ignoring the middleman because they don't expect any enforcement does not strike me as inherently absurd.

Reminds me of a story from a former coworker, who grew up eating the "free chicken" at the store. It wasn't until she started shopping on her own she realized what was actually happening was her dad picked up a rotisserie chicken, family ate it while shopping, and disposed of the rest before checkout. The store workers were apparently too polite to complain.

It was front-page news when it was found, and now it's (local, mostly) front-page news again. Suppression ensured there would be at least two front-page events instead of one.

Grief does not generally lead people to wisdom, definitely not in the short-term, but I think it would be pretty obvious that suppressing the document would ensure that it gained more attention and extending the misery. If they'd just let the stupid thing be released, people would've stopped caring ages ago.

The only way to prevent the "CW jerkoff game" that would be a full media blackout starting at the same time as the shooting. Once you're thrust into the public eye, you no longer have any ability to stop that, and anything you do in public regarding the tragedy ultimately plays to one side or the other.