faceh
18hr ago
Yeah when you put it like that, this might be the full dam breaking where anyone who was sympathetic to human artists and hostile to AI art are now in a preference cascade where the AI is just 'better', let alone faster.
And so any more sympathy the artists could pull on to justify charging money for their digital work is just now gone. They get on board or they get run over.
I'd guess it takes a bit longer for the porn AIs to catch up to the state of the art, so there's some room left, but only just.
faceh
18hr ago
Similar feelings on my end except I went into law which is definitely more vulnerable to AI takeover but also has a ton of political clout and might throw up a lot of barriers to full AI Automation.
Yet, I too presume that inside of 5 years my career won't exist its current form.
Hindsight says that CS would have been a WAY better move, but I didn't have the information to know that when I made the decision.
faceh
18hr ago
We don’t even have self driving cars yet!
We absolutely, 100% have self driving cars that are accessible to consumers.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Go6Syv8xNMA?si=esnCdfNdiVCH1OCv
https://youtube.com/watch?v=92aBMTpeQB8?si=sj4QHy8uDLDLLitW
Just not everywhere just yet. Maybe you can even say the technology isn't "mature," but it is absolutely here.
I despise the apps with a passion, and ALL online dating sites have gone the tinder route of endless swiping with the occasional dopamine hit.
I'd tolerate it if there was a clone of Old OkCupid where you can actually zero in on the ones that are likely to be compatible. That's where I found the most recent Ex, but its clear they're no longer in the business of giving users control of who they see.
one of those was a coffee shop cold approach which involved me waiting 4 months for her "tAlKiNg sTaGe" to disappoint her
Aaaaand that's WHY I despise the apps. Even if you manage to make a connection IRL, they will still have dozens of digital suitors in line ahead of you, and absolutely ZERO pressure to pick one quickly, especially if they 'catch feelings' for someone in particular and now judge all others by that person's idealized standard.
Also I despise the terminology that's sprung up around the current dating discourse to mask how dysfunctional/unhealthy it is. "Talking stage" aka one of you is probably stringing the other along to maintain optionality (not always, I grant). "Situationship" i.e. you're [something] with benefits but neither side wants to be the first to admit their true motives. "Hard Launch" aka you can't actually be a real couple until its been explicitly announced via social media (yes, I remember the term "Facebook Official," hated it then too). Until then, you're a "Sneaky Link" a/k/a someone they're unwilling to even admit to seeing, often because it'd lower their social status if it were known. Or you give someone "the ick" and they drop you out of nowhere.
Blech. Don't normalize dysfunction with cutesy terms please.
"Rebound" is actually a decent description how that dynamic works, but its still an unhealthy practice imho.
Part of this is me getting older, but I'm also trying, against all cultural pressure, to treat everyone I get 'involved' with as if they're an actual human (until proven otherwise), and try NOT to poison the well for everyone.
faceh
3d ago
Actually sound advice in any event.
You want to be the closer, not the warm-up before they get really sloshed.
faceh
3d ago
I did go to a speed dating event last year.
Bit of a dud.
Some of the women flaked, so they delayed the start time to call in some pinch hitters.
Even after that the ratio came out to (as I recall) 8 women to 11 men.
3 of the women were single mothers.
Although I can say that the locale was a good spot, I actually liked it enough that I invited a girl I met through the apps out to that spot later on. Date was also a dud, the apps suck.
I appreciate that speed dating events are 'trying' to create a space where it is appropriate to interact with ladies with very open intent, but I still lament the dearth of 'organic' meeting opportunities that are available.
In my experience young (and especially young and attractive) women rarely come to the bar alone, usually with a friend/spouse or in a group of friends who are having their own conversation and don't want an outsider butting in.
This has been my primary observation. Any woman who is out is always accompanied. Sometimes its by a less attractive friend who can police the men, other times its a gang of girlies who are just out to get some instagrammable moments.
Last night there was a squad of stereotypical 'bros' (zoomer edition) sitting at a table near us. And one (1) lone woman who I assume was one of the GFs.
There was a squadron of girlies wearing matching outfits that were all attractive but very inward facing, and you could read the signs of 'self policing' where none of them were 'allowed' to go talk to a guy even if they had the inkling.
And the one thing you NEVER see is a lone woman, at least not one who stays still for very long.
As a male, you begin to realize is that for the amount of money you'd spend on a night out swinging futilely for a date, you could subscribe to a handful of girls' onlyfans accounts and be GUARANTEED a positive interaction, you'll get to see boobs and cooch if you want, and she'll at least pretend to find you attractive.
The older guys have the money to buy her drinks and are sexually non-threatening, and thus will win most of her attention.
I could do a whole screed on older (and I'm starting to count myself in that number) guys who can just burn wealth and leverage their experience to monopolize a woman's attention, even if he doesn't really want to take her home. The boomers who were raised on "keep women happy and safe" will sometime lavish their oodles of money on women just because she's there.
Which makes the young upstart, with his entry level job and studio apartment (if he's lucky) seem like a loser by default.
And Mr. Boomer will probably blame the guy for lacking confidence or failing to close the deal without noticing how his own presence has changed the very nature of the game.
faceh
4d ago
Thats been my assumption, any girl out doing nightlife stuff has a guaranteed 12+ guys in her phone via dating apps and thus maximum optionality.
If you are male model quality or can flash ridiculous levels of wealth you have an in.
Otherwise, you exist in her life only for the exact amount of time her attention is on you.
You can extend that time a few minutes by buying a drink or whatever, but I suspect there's no magic set of words you can utter in that time that will change anything about her opinion of you she formed in the first 10 seconds.
And of course buying drinks CAN signal you're a mark which the more predatory types of women would simply milk as long as possible.
I am amazed how we've seemingly let the behavior or the "bottom" 20% of social actors poison every single interaction the rest of us have.
I went out with some male friends last night, hit up several (PRICEY!) bars in our downtown area.
Saw some small groups of ladies out. A few times I watched a random guy approach and engage in conversation, but they usually disengaged and left after a couple minutes, with no apparent exchange of numbers or anything. So not an obvious or dramatic rejection, but not a success either.
Question: Is "buy those ladies a drink" even a viable tactic anymore?
And if drinks are super fucking expensive ($14+ for a cocktail these days, so buying 3 would run you $50) how could you possibly justify the cost unless you had a legitimately decent odds of success?
In short, white identitarianism is not a sustainable strategy for Republicans going forward.
It sure is if the Dems do an even worse job by catering to females, african americans (also females), and various LGBT parties whilst alienating everyone else.
Which is exactly what their own polling seems to be revealing.
Can't assume what will or won't work for the GOP without considering the actions of its sole competitor.
faceh
8d ago
The post as I recall it was that Trump and Co. taking steps to punish universities for allowing anti-israel/pro-palestine protestors to occupy buildings and harass students, and the deportation of the one guy who was here on a green card.
It had a lot of other details in there but the gist was trying to make it seem like some massive assault on first amendment rights was occurring.
faceh
8d ago
I think its also been revealed that there's a big grift inherent to most foreign aid where it is used to pay off the same people who are implementing the payments.
Money gets sent overseas and some percentage of it gets laundered right back into the pockets of existing politicians and bureaucrats and other political actors.
Hunter Biden by all appearances was a bagman for this sort of dealing.
So Trump is aiming to cut off a funding source for his enemies. Whether he will redirect it to his friends might be the question.
faceh
9d ago
You can't even ask, is the thing.
Because the people doing the hiring probably don't even know, or would rather not explain "the computer told us no."
faceh
9d ago
Of course, but it doesn't leave those getting rejected with much insight into what they could do better.
faceh
9d ago
I suspect that training an AI that can do this is far simpler than you'd assume on the face of it.
And it doesn't have to be THAT good to beat the current system as described.
I'd be a tad more worried about how people might try to aggressively 'jailbreak' the thing to improve their chances.
faceh
9d ago
Why not just release a list of all of the men and the evidence you have of their membership in TdA?
Because you'd rather not keep such men around in your country when you could move them somewhere else, since in general you wanted none of them in the country in the first place.
I'm afraid that in this particular instance, non-TdA members may have been caught up in the raids or other sources of arrest of these men (for example, by overworked immigration officials and police officers misidentifying tattoos or arresting people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time) and this will undermine the ability of the administration to deport large groups of people under the Alien Enemies Act or other statutes going forward.
If there are no actual U.S. citizens among them, in what possible way could this actually turn people against further deportations?
faceh
9d ago
What this means in practice is unclear, because no previous President has rented space in a foreign prison to house people detained under US law. If the President tried to do this type of deal to house US citizen criminals in a foreign prison without explicit permission from Congress, I would expect him to lose 9-0 at SCOTUS.
There is a bare distinction between simply leasing the land on which you build a prison, and just leasing prison space or paying for detention directly.
The Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, is, of course, built on land leased from the Cuban Government.
The government is explicitly not claiming this - that is why they are using the Alien Enemies Act (which doesn't require probably cause of a crime). The affidavit linked by @Quantumfreakonomics says that the government has probably cause that the detainees are "members" of TdA, but that isn't in itself a crime. The affidavit conspicuously fails to allege that all the detainees provided material support to TdA (which would be a crime because TdA is a designated foreign terrorist organisation), only that some of them did.
If there's no probable cause then holding them AT ALL is the violation of their rights, regardless of where they're held.
So I'm doubtful that there's a complete lack of probable cause, because there's a 90% chance some Judge has already made a ruling that there was.
Detention without due process based on the use of emergency war powers during peacetime is a break glass moment if you care about the rule of law.
We haven't been at 'peacetime' for over twenty years. That's what the AUMF that allows continued detention of prisoners in Gitmo says.
The only distinction is that this particular act, which has existed for centuries and has been used on various occasions, and may allow the President to unilaterally remove foreign nationals effectively as he sees fit sans an act of Congress.
I say this as someone who vociferously despises the Patriot Act (I voted for Obama in '08 and explicitly dropped support for him for Renewing said Act), its still likely to pass Constitutional muster under the line of precedent that currently exists and the current makeup of the Supreme Court.
THE GLASS HAS ALREADY BEEN BROKEN AND EVERYONE ELSE IS JUST LATE TO THE PARTY.
Here I go feeling smug again. I keep saying 'maybe reign in these powers that are clearly prone to abuse and set bad precedent, because someone you don't like might use them." Free Speech is important. Due process is important. Gun rights are important. the Right to Privacy is important. But for the last 4 administrations everybody has looked the other way in most cases when it came time to defend them.
And here we are.
faceh
9d ago
If they are held on probable cause for a first offense, does that count as not having a criminal record?
Correct.
Although the term: "criminal records in the United States" introduces some ambiguity.
Also, I haven't dug deep but I'd assume there's some RICO-type laws invoked as well, to wrap up gang members who aren't directly caught in the act.
The FedGov is, if nothing else EXTREMELY GOOD at rolling up large scale criminal conspiracies all at once. So I'm guessing they've got a pretty strong case to the extent they can prove the gang ties exist.
Its a point I've made before.
Power law distributions rule EVERYTHING around you if you're younger and haven't had decades of time to cement your status and build a pile of wealth. And yes, this has almost always been true, but now its simply a known fact of life for the Zoomers. Its the air they breathe, the water they swim in. Every activity they could possibly participate in is subject to a panopticon of algorithms that will rank their performance and often publish it for easy observation, and they are surrounded by peers who are competing as hard as possible to not be left behind.
Algorithms have ruled everything the Gen Zers have done since they were young, from Video Games to Dating to School to Jobs.
And this means they're pretty much attuned to the Molochian incentives over their entire lives, and this thus sets their expectations for how the rest of their lives will turn out (spoiler: not great unless they get rich enough to just opt out of the race).
Yes, Algorithms have always been there, but now its more legible than ever. Or, ironically, less legible since most places keep their algos as black boxes. Its not like you can just ask "Why didn't you hire me?" "Oh, I don't like your tattoos/lack of experience/general attitude." Its always a nonspecific dismissal that even they can't explain.
So they're told to suck it up and try harder, keep going until they get a yes, etc. etc., but they're missing the 'feedback' part that might help them zero in on why they're failing and getting rejected. And I think the hard truth is just that everyone is TRYING to capture the top 20% performers across the board, so anyone not in the top 20% performance bracket for any given category is going to be left out, and very confused as to what their real options are.
One hopeful use case for AI if it does not end all our problems at once (we're all dead, or its utopia) is it should be extremely good at helping match people with positions that work best for them given their preferences and the other party's needs. An effective 'job hunt' AI could check all available jobs against all available applicants and sort out which are best suited to which, AND given constructive feedback as to why certain applicants aren't suitable or what they can do to improve. Same for dating, in theory, although the thought of AI mediated dating/mating disgusts me on a visceral level. Hmm.
I'm not convinced by either side that this action is or is not a clear violation of anyone's Constitutional rights. But I'm pretty sure the Trump admin will get away with everything in this particular instance.
The facts on the ground are very much isomorphic to the situation involving "indefinite detention" of "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo Bay pursuant to the Patriot Act and AUMF. Those sorts of detentions have been tested and mostly held up for over twenty years at this point. And that was with a somewhat less favorable Supreme Court. Thus the legality, if not the morality, has stood the test of time.
A few things I haven't seen anyone actually contest:
A) All of the individuals subject to the deportation here were in fact foreign nationals.
B) Likewise, they were all being held on at least probable cause for a crime.
C) The President is 100% allowed to enter deals with foreign states for, among other things, detention of criminals.
If the Alien Enemies Act actually creates/supports the authority that the Trump Administration claims it does (in this case, the authority to 'relocate' foreign nationals pursuant to the President's decree), and these powers fall under the President's Military Authority/Wartime powers, then it is pretty cut-and-dried that these actions aren't subject to Judicial review by mere Federal Judges.
Which is different from saying that the prisoners/detainees aren't entitled to due process and access to Federal Courts. The impact of Boumediene v. Bush is that they can file Habeus Petitions... from their current location. Which actually solves for the due process problem. If the Judge wants to review the validity of their detention he can do so! But if the detention is invalid, as it was for Boumediene himself, then the remedy isn't "take him back to the U.S. and start over." Its, "release him to his country of origin/any country that will take him."
Which, uh, is pretty much what Trump wants.
The wins for Trump seem to be threefold:
-
Getting 'dangerous' immigrants off of U.S. Soil ASAP. The odds of these guys ever being returned to the U.S. are EXTREMELY slim.
-
Kicking open a door for expansion of the President's powers to deport illegals over the Judiciary's objections.
-
"Forcing" Democrats to very vocally stick up for some extremely unsavory people.
And the Judge has already racked up 2 L's.
-
Trying and failing to force the planes to turn around once they were already in the air, with zero method to enforce it.
-
Directly undermining the appearance of Court legitimacy by doing so, which undermines the Judiciary going forward.
If I were the Judge, I'd probably have ordered instead that Prisoners so transported should get expedited Habeas reviews, and then ordering the return of any that had their Petitions granted, at which point, if the Admin refused, now I've got some juice to claim unconstitutional overreach.
Indeed, I'm not sure how the Judge wins this. When I game it out in my head, even if he starts throwing out contempt orders to try to gain compliance, Trump can just promise pardons to anyone who gets convicted of contempt, so nobody will feel a need to comply.
Oh, and thanks to Joe Biden, Trump can plausibly offer pre-emptive blanket pardons, as well. WHOOPS.
The Judge CAN win if SCOTUS either strikes down the entire Alien Enemies Act (unlikely) OR severely limits its scope enough to make these actions beyond the pale.
But even then, Congress can Amend the act (which it has before) to extend it to cover the exact powers Trump claims now.
However, if these deportees were improperly vetted and a US citizen was deported, or the media can credibly establish that one or more of the men were not Tren de Aragua members, then these kinds of deportations become more politically volatile going forward.
lol. If there were any truly innocent parties swept up in this particular action, the Admin can say "Whoops, here's a flight home, our treat" and its forgotten in a week.
The only way I see the admin taking a serious popularity/approval hit is if they snagged some U.S. citizens and one or more of said U.S. citizens ends up killed or tortured or otherwise gets very badly harmed in this process.
Its an outside possibility.
Anyway, some guy on Twitter challenged me on this exact point, with a claim that SCOTUS would affirm the Judge's ruling unanimously, so at his suggestion I created a Manifold Markets Prediction market on this point:
https://manifold.markets/WMathieu/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-to
At which point he apparently bought shares of no so, lol.
faceh
10d ago
Yes, exactly.
And then we're living in a world where even our own motivations for taking a given action could be the result of an upstream manipulation.
faceh
11d ago
I mean, I ignored that the AI would have a plethora of ways to kill a person directly.
Fly a drone in through a window and spray any given toxin in their face, then fly it out.
Hijack their car's software, disable the brakes at an opportune time.
I'm sort of gesturing at the fact that a superintelligent AI can probably carry out Rube-Goldberg-esque plans with enough precision to hit multiple targets at once, with the aim of achieving multiple goals at once, all without immediately tipping any observers off as to their ultimate plans.
So assuming their ultimate plan isn't to just kill humanity as a whole, there is an 'interesting' world that emerges that ultimately bends towards the AI's preferences but doesn't necessarily require omniscience and 'solving' the game. The AI still has to adjust the plan in progress, might miss some of its targets, and unforeseen events can still surprise it, but nonetheless, the state of the world ticks inexorably towards the outcome it wants.
And its moves can occur on such a high dimension that no single human, even given access to all the necessary information, could see what its doing or even hope to outsmart it.
faceh
11d ago
I mean, even in the book almost every Wallfacer fails. Not just that, but most of the Wallfacers' plans are unraveled by their opposite "wallbreaker."
The one plan that worked out was due to the guy acting incredibly erratically for like a couple decades (because he had no intention of actually doing anything) then getting blackmailed into actually trying to succeed at his task, then managing to obtain an insight that would allow him to win but was also achievable without making any moves that would make his plan obvious. AND THEN, he was only able to beat the trisolarans because he was suicidally committed to said plan when the moment came.
Oh, and he almost got killed by the Trisolarans several times but happened to have a supremely competent and aware bodyguard around at the right time.
Yeah. Trying to figure out why the classic Rationalist maxim "I notice I am confused" didn't kick in.
Just, y'know, LOOK at the athletes, up close if you can. Notice the size difference. Consider other animal species that show such size differences. And extrapolate a bit and say "why are males generally larger than females if their physical abilities are roughly the same? That's confusing."
More options
Context Copy link