faceh
17d ago
Holy cow THIS.
Cluely's very clueless ad was the Reductio ad absurdum of this particular message.
"Use AI to cut corners on tasks you are ostensibly supposed to enjoy in order to gain, I guess social credit among people who will somehow not mind that you used AI?
No, can you show me the AI directly enriching my life? Making me wealthier? Cutting out tasks that I don't enjoy and nobody else relies on me to perform?
Perhaps the actual goal of the ad is what you suggest. "All your friends are going to cheat with these tools, don't be the sucker who is left out!"
Look, I don't even mind the concept of using LLMs as the enhanced Google replacement. I just hate that 'hype' is built around use cases that are not actually improving my general day-to-day experience, and if EVERYONE ELSE stats using it that way, might degrade my experience!
faceh
17d ago
It does feel like a release of pressure even if the overall uncertainty remains.
That's an extra 5 years wherein I can die before the Godlike AI comes in and tortures me forever.
Exciting things can still happen in those 5 years with just the current capabilities. I'm still holding hope for anti-aging to be the next sincere frontier and AI to speed up research and produce new solutions.
I'm actually hopeful that self driving cars, autonomous drones, and humanoid robots will be available as consumer grade products by 2030.
Drug discovery and Math and physics research and ultimately biohacking being unleashed would allow for manmade horrors AND manmade delights that are within our comprehension.
And if VIDEO production by AI keeps improving, I might be able to make that custom anime series I've had ideas for.
There might be a "Golden Path" available where AI plateaus right at the level where it can exponentially boost productivity while never quite nosing into true super-intelligence for reasons that may or may not be understood.
I don't think that's our trajectory, but managing to solve our most pressing issues without creating existential risk would be a miracle and proof that God loves us. Expert Systems everywhere would be pretty cool.
faceh
17d ago
It is pretty interesting on the meta level that the shooting was a good enough scissor that it generated much more discussion, vs. the abduction of a sitting (if not quite legitimate) head of state by the U.S. and the ongoing revolution fomenting in a country of 90 million people, and a major regional power.
Something something near mode vs. far mode.
faceh
17d ago
Incentives running both ways is not a good reason to amplify and encourage them.
I'm just saying, in binary outcome markets... if your complaint is "This creates an incentive to do X!" it necessarily ALSO creates an incentive to do NOT X, since there's people on both sides of the bet who stand to win if the event does or doesn't occur.
This is why the concept of 'Futarchy' (if Prediction markets REALLY gain acceptance) would function.
faceh
17d ago
State and local law enforcement do not have the jurisdiction to enforce federal law
Nah, just execute an arrest pursuant to a federal warrant in cooperation with a Federal Agency.
feds can get away with ignoring local political sentiments in ways that local police cannot,
That is the actual, explicit goal.
Hence, giving up the game.
And since immigration enforcement is FOR SURE squarely, unquestionably within the purview of the Federal Government, the resistance to it on the part of state officials is blatantly insurrectiony in nature.
faceh
17d ago
He also got married, which is quite a checkpoint achievement compared to others in his age group.
It looks like he has a shot at getting his life together after a realllly sucky couple years.
I guess I'm just saying he should never want for a job for the next 10 years, and should only have to appear in public because he wants to.
faceh
19d ago
It appears that Daniel Penny got hired by Andreessen Horowitz.
Good point, although I'd guess he actually had some merit to warrant the position.
faceh
19d ago
Hell, the right's problem seems to be that they won't come to the aid of their 'heroes' once they've been expunged of all their usefulness and 15 minutes of fame.
As a purely strategic matter, Kyle Rittenhouse, after his not-guilty, should have been given an easy, decently paying job at a think tank or some state-level political office, keep him generally out of public eye but also comfortable enough standard of living. Instead he's working at a gun store in the Florida Panhandle.
Nobody expects that becoming a sacrifice for the right's cause will get them any material rewards or posthumous accolades. I would point out that people have already sort of forgotten Iryna.
Vance at least is making all the right signals for backing the foot soldiers. I doubt they throw their people under the bus anymore. One of the biggest signs of the changing times came when an ICE prosecutor with a blatantly racist Twitter account didn't get fired when it came out.
Leftists always double down has been a known thing for a while now.
The irony i'm seeing is the tacit admission that this video makes the victim look like a hostile interloper while the ICE Officer was calmly filming the interaction... and some are claiming her 'bravely' confronting him is why he wanted to shoot her.
As proof of this, they point out he called her a 'bitch' under his breath after the incident. Y'know, after she drove the car at him.
Dropped all pretense of "just some random passerby".
On twitter I was just accused of lacking empathy for simply pointing out that this video makes her look very aware of her actions and very much not a pure victim of circumstance.
I don't think the right should be holding the dude up as a hero or anything, either, but the lefty impulse to make martyrs out of their people seems to be irresistible to them.
faceh
19d ago
Not what I said. Firing into a fleeing vehicle is one thing. But if the criminal is aware they can run down an officer without being fired upon...
Its a very perverse incentive, to say the least. "Why not add vehicular manslaughter to my array of charges in exchange for a 2% chance of escaping for a few more hours."
faceh
19d ago
Yes. Unfortunately "Police Officers are not allowed to shoot people driving vehicles at them" is an untenable position since it basically makes it open season for any given criminal who wants to blast their way out of a traffic stop or chase.
faceh
19d ago
I mostly see lefties sliding goalposts.
Which is to say, they are 'changing' their minds, but only exactly as much as needed to maintain the outrage.
And if I were the Defendant's attorney I wouldn't want you on my jury panel (nothing personal, of course, lol).
If you care about such things, here's a video I watched recently about self defense law in the context of shootings (based on Florida law) for my continuing legal education credits.
Tons of different circumstances came into it. Both the alleged victim and the Defendant were intoxicated, there was a group of guys against the Defendant, Defendant had bad eyesight, his glassed got knocked off, he was not legally allowed to be carrying a gun into the bar he entered...
Aaaand the decedent had a couple holes in his back. And there was a community outrage against the Defendant, complete with vigils/protests. Bunch of witnesses painted a very negative picture for the guy that was later disproven with video footage.
The Defense in that case go to the trouble of syncing up multiple video angles with sound, annotating it, recreating the scene digitally, and pulling in literal neurological experts to explain reaction times and panic reactions. Hundreds of thousands of dollars expended to give the jury a 'complete' understanding of the situation.
Except it never made it to a Jury because the Judge ruled it was justified and thus granted immunity for the homicide charges. Not the gun charges, incidentally.
So if I did my job right, the case wouldn't even make it to you, the juror.
I'm just raising the possibility.
And assuming it was the first shot that actually killed her, from a murder investigation perspective, the intentionality behind the killing shot is the only one that truly matters.
Anyway, firing off three shots reflexively is not that odd, its very possible its trained specifically that way.
Training to fire one shot and then stop would be very bad habit.
(I was out on the range this weekend actually, and the topic came up whether 3 vs. 4 shots per opponent is the better policy.)
faceh
19d ago
Nah, he doesn't 'go down,' clearly stumbled heavily then re-orients.
This also raises in my mind the possibility that the first shot was an ACCIDENTAL trigger pull.
You said it. It pays to hold off on strong comments when you know damn well that more reliable evidence is coming down the pike.
I can still believe she might have thought she was about to get black bagged and disappeared because of all the rhetoric about these guys, but we're clearly not dealing with a passive bystander.
All that taunting and indignant commentary shows she was revelling in being a main character in the drama for a minute or two (no, that doesn't justify shooting her).
Really unclear what her goal would have been in the moment, she didn't even let the spouse get back in the car, was she going to leave her behind???
EDIT: WAIT WAIT THE other lady is literally shouting "Drive baby, drive drive!" what the hell.
Anyway, at least I know who to feel bad for in this scenario: the poor stressed out dog in the backseat.
IMO this basically exonerates him 100%
My initial opinion on legality doesn't change, I did believe he was justified in the shooting even if it was ill-advised... but this would probably be enough for a Judge to toss any criminal case.
It is worse than that, given that in one case the killer pulled the trigger after a LONG deliberation period, planning, and full awareness of the act they were committing.
The other, regardless of intent in the moment, did a real spur-of-the-moment thing.
If you're okay with someone committing cold blooded murder one and being let go to walk the streets, but asking to drop the entire book on the ICE guy, I can't do much to help reason you from that position.
I am perfectly capable of forming my conclusions without their input, and I can judge that their input will have a negative epistemic value because they are not reasoning from anything like objective, neutral standards. They will not move me or anyone closer to truth or mutual agreement.
i.e. they clearly do not believe their own arguments are 'correct' either, they just want to achieve some political outcome, and as long as their side 'wins' truth, accuracy, validity of arguments, etc. etc. are not even considered.
No point in having the argument at all, other than to make their contradictions clear.
These are people who consider political violence de facto justifiable if it is advancing their political goals. They consider 'making arguments I don't like' as grounds for violence. I don't want to share a country with them.
My most emotional response to seeing the event, before I thought through the evidence and implications was basically "Charlie Kirk was gunned down in far colder blood for far, far lesser provocation than this."
I do not think I will accept any arguments against the 'justification' of this shooting from any person who dismissed, justified, or celebrated Kirk's death.
Accepting that the 'optimal' number of police-involved shootings is not zero, this is an edge case. You can be critical of ICE and consider this a tragedy but also accept that this is what's going to happen when a significant protest/resistance movement is attempting to obstruct LEOs doing their job.
Problem is the demand will be "ICE out of Minnesota" when there's clearly extant reasons for their presence, and Minnesota law enforcement isn't going to step up to assist.
I mean, surely a decent 'compromise' would be "ICE refers warrants and arrest duties to Minnesota authorities, who bring in the suspects as peacefully as they can, and turns them over to ICE for actual deportation."
If their sole goal is to keep violence to a minimum and Federal authority out of their towns, this solves for the issue.
If the actual goal is to simply not allow the enforcement of immigration law, that gives up the game, don't it?
faceh
21d ago
Yeah, but its even happening with women I have I know from other places too. Drawn out text convos then withdrawal/avoidance when I try to get to the brass tacks.
And I'll go ahead and up the stakes to say "do not use Online Dating, its simply not worth the psychic damage."
It sure feels like whenever you enter a digital conversation with (what appears to be) an attractive woman, there's like 50-50 odds that there'll be a reveal that this is just the top of her sales funnel once you've actually engaged.
No, I will not follow your insta, snap, telegram, join your discord, or subscribe to your Patreon or Substack.
And even the ones that don't... tend to not care that the general goal of such convos used to be meeting up in person. I've heard the term "rain check" too many times in the past few months.
Yes there is the possibility of a big pay out, but it is a very small one, and the in mean time the owners of the prediction market have your money. Money that you could have spent on other things.
...same with a bank.
Incidentally, this is the exact reason Kalshi pays interest on money they hold for you, so you aren't losing out (much) by stashing cash there.
https://news.kalshi.com/p/interest-cash-open-positions
Yes there is the possibility of a big pay out, but it is a very small one,
In this case, the 'chances' of the payout and the size of it are pretty hard to miss, though.
I do not want the Bears defensive line to know what play we're going to run before i run it. Two teams is a trivial example, do we really want to unlock the weirder and more perverse incentives that might come from say allowing Judges to "bet" on which way they are going to rule in a case?
The incentives run both ways, actually.
If there's an outcome you really WANT to make happen because it pays out immensely for you, you can open up an extremely large position against it happening, in hopes that someone with the ability to influence the outcome will see the opportunity and act on it.
This is how 'assassination' markets would work, in practice, speaking of perverse incentives.
"I bet 1 million dollars on a 99% chance that [Victim] will be alive one month from now."
Potential assassin sees this, buys the other side of the bet, then goes and kills the target.
But of course, lets say [Victim] notices the bet, hires on more security (who are compensated with shares of the "Alive" side of the market, they only get paid if he lives), and bets heavily on his own survival.
Who wins the bet? Well, its the skill and motivation of the assassin vs. the skill and motivation of the security team, I guess. An extremely confident security team will buy more contracts heavily in favor of their guy's survival. Which means the prediction market should settle on something like an 'accurate' likelihood of the person being alive when the contract terminates.
But of course we probably DO want to ban these sorts of markets. Question is whether we also want to ban markets that are too close a proxy for them.
Mostly the latter.
But, for example, candidates can collude, a candidate can drop out and endorse another, there's a few ways to nudge outcomes with 'guaranteeing' them.
Hell, a candidate could bet against themselves if they know that their opponent is about to drop some really juicy opposition research but also knows most of it is provably false.
faceh
22d ago
If a standard user spends time and mental energy placing a well-thought investment in a prediction market and some inside trader swoops in and capitalizes, that's going to leave a sour taste and disincentivize them from using the site.
Hopefully that teaches them to expend a bit more mental energy thinking "hmmm, how many people might possess private information that will let them beat me in this market despite all my research?"
Perhaps this is a bit far-out, but eventually these sites could become dominated by inside traders seeking to effectively launder money with minimal involvement from anyone who doesn't insider trade.
To me that's a dream outcome. I'd like to just hook up to an API that pulls prediction market odds in real time (but doesn't TRADE on them) so I have a preternaturally accurate 'Oracle' I can query about uncertain events. Make the insiders work for me, rather than trade against them.
And eventually people will probably build 'insurance' products on top of these markets, which requires them to be more accurate and liquid. "Oh you're worried that your wedding day might be rained out? We'll sell you a contract that pays out 10x if it happens to rain on that day in that location."
Its plain that the MCU as such would not exist if not for Iron Man being as freaking cool as it was, and also allowing the heroes to coalesce around a central figure that wasn't Spiderman. And using him as the catalyst for bringing Spidey into the MCU proper was a natural choice and done well.
And thus, killing him in Endgame made such beautiful thematic sense, it really made it impossible to continue the MCU as a coherent world after that point. Why keep watching if there's no chance a smarmy RDJ might show up and one-liner his way into and out of trouble and reveal new suit designs in the process, with the classic rock blaring all the time. A top 5 fave favorite moment is his entrance in Avengers to confront Loki. The fact that Tony could burst onto the scene at any moment was a huge appeal.
And as you say, he would eventually wear out his welcome since there was nowhere else for the "iron man" concept to go after his magical nanobots mode.
Which was always going to be a problem. I think one of the best parts of Age of Ultron was the introduction of the Hulkbuster armor, showing that he puts a ton of thought into what designs he might need... but also showing this one as not quite up to the task it was built for and thus Stark isn't quite the walking 'counter everything' character that, say, Batman has a reputation as.
I dunno. Cap's my favorite of the main group, but Stark is what keeps me coming back.
More options
Context Copy link