ebrso
5d ago
I hope this forum preserves the norm of humans writing for humans by humans, even as I know that the overall tide is flowing the other way.
I am constantly trying to communicate something incommunicable, to explain something inexplicable, to tell about something I only feel in my bones and which can only be experienced in those bones. —Kafka
When I engage with a creative work, I accept that the author’s describing what it’s like to inhabit his bones. Without this belief, I doubt I could ever be moved by a piece of art.
ebrso
7d ago
The most obvious threat - that AI could make a breakthrough in prime factoring or discrete logarithms - is somehow absent in the list of AI doomers.
Most important software that implements cryptographic primitives that rely on the hardness of these specific problems (prime factoring & discrete logs) is already in the process of being deprecated / replaced, just because it's known they'll no longer be secure if / when quantum computing hardware scales.
I agree with the major point, though: it's not unlikely that robustly super-human mathematics will destroy many of our cryptographic protocols in the near [1] future (not just particular software implementations of these protocols, but the protocols themselves). At this point, I would not be shocked to see a SHA-512 collision published (probably on Twitter).
[1] I don't know what "near" means exactly.
ebrso
9d ago
Are these actually the full relevant portion of his remarks?
For example, immediately preceding this quoted speech, he said:
I wanted to stand up here on stages and stadiums across America and say two words that are very near and dear to my heart, ‘Free Palestine.’
This introduces the follow-up exclamation, "I said, Free Palestine."
He may have indicated that making this point was a major reason he was on the tour to begin with, i.e., that he was on the tour partly because he "wanted to stand up here on stages and stadiums across America" to speak out about Palestine - but I cannot say this with confidence given that the video I'm referencing gives-off some suggestions of having been misleadingly edited.
Macklemore (everyone's favorite white rapper) got kicked out after (in an earlier concert) saying "Free Palestine", playing a song with pro-Palestine lyrics, and this:
To all of my Jewish brothers and sisters, criticism of Israel, criticism of apartheid, being against genocide, it in no way is criticism of you...This message is for peace, love, for all human beings to be treated with dignity, respect, and equality.
I don't think the fundamental issues change, but the OP's downplaying the scope of Macklemore's statements (youtube), which are significantly more wide-ranging. Among other things, these include a celebration of the recent Columbia University encampment project, a call for a free Cuba (I assume he means free from American attempts to isolate the country?), criticism of ICE (the American immigration enforcement agency), and a declaration that he'd joined the tour partly to support Palestine.
[Edit: I'm concerned that the youtube clip above may have been edited misleadingly to imply that Macklemore had declared that he'd jointed the tour partly to support Palestine. I've removed this part from my comment.]
[Second Edit: After reviewing a transcript of the singer's full remarks, I'm satisfied that what I'd written was accurate, so I've reverted my comment to its original version.]
ebrso
15d ago
perhaps a better way to put it is that "the direction and magnitude of technological changes on human social structures can't be determined ipso facto".
Yeah, strong agree on that point - Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.
ebrso
15d ago
it's possible to set your post history to be private.
Fair point - I hadn't realized that individuals' post histories could be configured as non-visible. (I'm not sure what the merits are of supporting non-visible post histories; my instinct is that prior posts offer some useful context for evaluating current claims, although I guess there can be offsetting privacy concerns.)
In any case, the relevant user's history doesn't appear to be configured this way.
ebrso
16d ago
You don't need an eidetic memory - you can access anyone's posting history by clicking on their username.
ebrso
16d ago
Respectfully, I don’t think I’m following this reasoning. I think (?) you’re expressing several inter-related points with which I broadly agree:
We should view those pronouncing confidently about the future with skepticism (yes). Some aspect of research math has always involved aesthetic considerations (yes). If / when AI achieves manifestly superhuman capabilities in math, we’ll likely continue to see some humans devote attention to some forms of math exploration (yes). Support for modern research math projects is often promoted through reference to supposed diffuse economic contributions that are actually mostly a fiction (yes). Many job roles in modern economies are less directly related to profit-maximization than we may commonly assume, and are instead largely shaped by various traditions and social expectations (yes).
But the suggestion that “technological changes cannot inherently alter anything in a system that is already artificially constructed by humans”? I just don’t know what this means, concretely.
Baseball’s a system that’s artificially constructed by humans. Professional baseball has also struggled notoriously (and perennially) to police the use of disallowed “performance enhancing substances” (particularly steroids), which are a technology change. Now, imagine someone tomorrow develops a drug that makes players much faster & stronger - and its use is substantially impossible to detect. Wouldn’t we expect that development to significantly alter baseball?
ebrso
16d ago
Even if AI becomes strictly superior to humans at proving and disproving conjectures, as is the clear trajectory of the technology, it means nothing for the profession of mathematics in and of itself;
Productivity for research mathematicians today is mostly evaluated as contributions made to resolving “important” open math problems.
If / when AI advances to a point where humans can no longer meaningfully contribute to this process then, at the very least, we'll need to reconsider how we evaluate human research math productivity.
Your statement above reads to me like, even if we get rid of the hoop, it means nothing for the profession of basketball in and of itself.
ebrso
18d ago
Edit: Guess the rumours about Anthropic solving a Millenium problem that circulated a couple of days ago, were not unfounded.
OpenAI (not Anthropic) has announced a solution to the Navier-Stokes problem, one of the 7 Millennium problems.
ebrso
2mo ago
I really thought he was just going to stay in, try to rehabilitate his image while still in the public eye, and then just lose by 5-10 points. He didn't have to actually beat Colins - he just needed to survive another news cycle, so that the very last thing anyone ever heard about him wasn't calling him a rapist. To me, that seemed like his least-bad option.
ebrso
2mo ago
Hilarious. I was thinking that by the time I posted this, he might already have dropped out.
Still, the point was always moot in the sense of lacking practical significance / being purely academic - I wasn't seeking to sway his decision! So I guess I still have a similar question: what could have happened behind the scenes to convince Platner to abandon his campaign?
ebrso
2mo ago
Democrats have plenty of comfortable sinecures that he'll have access to, if he plays nice. Media figure, think tank employee, a professor of feminist studies at the University of Maine. The world is his oyster; just not the Senate.
I guess I just don't see this - I don't see him doing much better than his old oyster farm job if he drops out now.
In any case, what are the mechanics here? Like, how do these conversations actually work? Is someone offering an explicit quid pro quo (Graham, if you drop out now, then next year we'll put you on the payroll at Colby college)? Is that even legal? Either way, how could Platner rely on any such assurance?
Democrats can run a write in campaign, like Mukowski a few years back. Platner's negotiating leverage isn't that great, and since Maine has ranked voting, Democrats can plausibly pull off a win.
It's possible, but it sure seems like a long shot to me. Murkowski was a known entity (she was the incumbent Senator, was reasonably popular, and came from a prominent family), and she hit the ground running (she already had her campaign infrastructure in place for the Republican primary, which she lost). For Maine, it's not even clear who the write-in candidate would be - and that person would only have 4 months to build the campaign. Admittedly, I never thought Murkowski had a chance at winning as a write-in candidate.
ebrso
2mo ago
What are the Democrats’ carrots & sticks for pushing Graham Platner out of the campaign?
If you follow U.S. domestic politics (or if you’ve just read the thread below), then you’ll know who Graham Platner is. He’s the young-ish politician who won the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate from Maine, in the process attracting attention for combining liberal political positions with some elements of a blue collar background. In my view, he received a tremendous amount of scrutiny for being at the intersection of 3 significant stories: (1) the Democrats’ struggles to attract rural male voters; (2) the importance of Maine as a toss-up Senate seat in 2028 for deciding the balance of the U.S. senate; and (3) the adoption of certain leftist political positions by new politicians (broadly economic populism and antagonism towards Israel) that are seen as breaking from norms and potentially as a marker of future political currents.
More recently, Platner has also attracted attention for a series of scandals. First, some of his early, intended-to-be-anonymous internet postings were identified, and they were both unseemly and promoted ideas in conflict with his current public political positions. Then, it was revealed that he had a Nazi-symbol tattoo from his time in the military (Platner denies knowing that the tattoo was Nazi imagery when he got it; some people find this explanation believable and others don’t). Then, it was revealed that he’d recently pursued extra-marital relationships through some kind of seedy dating app. Then, some of his ex-girlfriends came together alleging that Platner was volatile and had been trouble towards them in various ways.
Through all this, the Democratic establishment had mostly defended Platner. Then, a few days ago, one of Platner’s exes came forward alleging treatment by Platner that would seem to satisfy the legal standard for rape (some disagree that the alleged conduct would constitute rape - see the discussion below for details).
Anyway, I’m not really interested in re-litigating any of these items. But what really fascinates me is that the Democratic establishment now seems to have arrived at a consensus that Platner’s campaign needs to end so that another candidate might be selected (Platner has essentially lost all prominent public-backing over the last 48 hours). But ultimately, it seems that procedure requires that Platner himself formally resign his campaign in for this to happen. My question is, how can Platner be influenced to abandon his campaign?
Normally, you influence with carrots (rewards for good behavior) and sticks (punishments for bad behavior). Democrats can appeal to Platner’s sense of dignity (such as it is), patriotism, and desire for the common good. But what other levers do they hold?
I doubt that Democrats would just concede Maine if Platner were to remain in the race. If he drops out now, he’ll always be remembered for this last week. But if he stays in the race, then I assume he'll benefit from 4 months of Democrats campaigning for him, seeking to rehabilitate his image. Even if he ends up losing the Senate race badly, that seems like a better outcome for Platner individually than the alternative of dropping out now.
What am I missing here?
ebrso
2mo ago
[Contains mild spoilers for Lord of the Flies]
Can you expand on this criticism of To Kill a Mockingbird? I consider the novel as offering very powerful lessons about (e.g.) conformity and the nature of the legal system.
Also, what's the criticism of Lord of the Flies? I've always been partial to interpreting it as an anti-war novel - by having the boys rescued by a warship, Golding's emphasizing the parallels between modern and primeval expressions of savagery.
Does anyone have thoughts about the potential link between childhood fluoride exposure and lower IQ? Alternatively, links to reasonable discussion?
In particular, I'm narrowly interested in what the science says about (1) whether fluoride exposure at levels to which Americans were occasionally exposed causes IQ decreases and (2) if so, what kinds of threshold effects might exist.
For what it's worth, I (along with many of my friends) took daily 1 mg fluoride tablets (supplements) as a kid on the recommendation of our pediatrician, and I have mild dental fluorosis to show for it (although I've never had a cavity in my life). The idea that this may also have cost me a few IQ points is distressing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/08/health/fluoride-children-iq.html
ebrso
1yr ago
In 2010, the vibe (to me at least) was that self-driving cars had effectively been developed; by 2025, substantially all the cars on the roads of American cities would be fully autonomous (without requiring a human standing at-the-ready to take over in a crisis).
So what happened? Why, at least outside Silicon Valley, is my Uber cab still driven by a human? Do technical challenges remain in developing autonomous technologies? Is regulation / liability the major obstacle to adoption?
ebrso
1yr ago
Anyone have tips for combatting the green-eyed monster? I often find myself begrudging others’ successes and good fortune. My resentment applies to friends [1], but also extends to people whom I barely know in passing (or even public figures).
[1] Although am I really their friend if I react this way?
ebrso
1yr ago
In my experience (both second-hand and personal), getting pushed-out of a job you don't like is often a very positive thing - essentially a "blessing in disguise."
ebrso
2yr ago
One idea I've seen is having a multiplicity of status hierarchies . . . In practice, we could have that now, but we don't.
My instinct is that we absolutely have a multiplicity of status hierarchies operating today in a largely independent fashion. For example, there are plenty of American sub-groups in which status and money don't seem closely aligned. If you're a full professor of history at a large state university, then your status among colleagues will derive primarily from your research output and its reception. If you're a Hasidic Jew in Brooklyn, then your status in the synagogue will derive from your knowledge of Torah. If you're a Texas adolescent boy, then your status at school will derive from how many touchdowns you throw. These qualities are not closely related to earnings (if they're even related at all).
ebrso
2yr ago
ebrso
2yr ago
I lost my beloved younger brother a few years ago to drug addiction. He was 35. He struggled for years (and I mean really struggled) to stop using heroin, with some periods of success. When he was using drugs, he would lie and steal. But even during those times, he was always a very generous person when he could be. He was very sensitive (in some ways, I think this was actually a burden for him), and he made friends easily. He was funny and smart (which was perhaps another burden). He had very serious depression and anxiety his entire life. I'm sure my parents will never recover from the loss.
My point here is that many of the drug addicts you despise are actually struggling desperately. Most have had difficult lives. Some have loved ones that care deeply about them and want to see them get healthy. Others don't have anyone in the world who cares about them, either because they never had a family, or because their families died, or because they alienated them through their behaviors.
There are important conversations to be had about whether drug addiction is more of a choice or more of a disease. And there are conversations to be had about the balance between community interests and the interests of those with substance abuse disorders, and how community burdens should be fairly distributed. And there are conversations about which policies or actions actually help individuals with substance abuse disorders, versus which policies are counter-productive because they just enable or encourage these disorders.
But calling someone "dysfunctional scum" or "druggie" or "biowaste" isn't the way to start these conversations. That's the kind of language people use to dehumanize others. I think you should be ashamed of yourself.
ebrso
2yr ago
Kamala is not going to win. She's going to say things like "space is neat" and "who doesn't love a big yellow schoolbus" on the debate stage.
These pithy, assured pronouncements are tedious and call to mind the expression often wrong, but never in doubt. The betting market consensus now is that Harris has a nearly 40% chance of winning in November; it's moronic to declare that "Kamala is not going to win."
ebrso
2yr ago
but not really—the robots won’t play trivia and if they do, the questions will be a lot harder
Two robots can play chess with each other right now, but humans still do it because it's fun and challenging for us. I walk in the park even though jets can outpace me.
I think the implication - possibly tongue-in-cheek - was that robots will replace humans within 200 years.
I wish OpenAI would just disclose these results. Even assuming their strategy is benevolent, I’m still uncomfortable with the company keeping such artifacts secret.
If OpenAI has a proof of (e.g.) the Riemann Hypothesis, then that seems like part of our shared human cultural heritage. I’d feel similarly if some private collector discovered a trove of lost Shakespeare plays and declined to share them.
More options
Context Copy link