last couple weeks we had multiple doses of yud, now it's roko, the dooming doesn't stop. i guess I need to express myself more clearly. It is fucking baffling how so many ostensibly intelligent people are so frightened of hostile AGI when every single one of them assumes baselessly FOOM-capable ghosts will spontaneously coalesce when machines exceed an arbitrary threshold of computational power.
Yeah, a hostile sentience who can boundlessly and recursively self-improve is a threat to all it opposes who do not also possess boundless/recursive self-improvement. An entity who can endlessly increase its own intelligence will solve all problems it is possible to solve. None of them are wrong about the potential impacts of hostile AGI, I'm asking where's the goddamn link?
So to any of them, especially Yudkowsky, or any of you who feel up to the task, I ask the following:
-
Using as much detail as you are capable of providing, describe the exact mechanisms whereby
-
(A): Such machines gain sentience
-
(B/A addendum): Code in a box gains the ability to solve outside-context problems
-
(C): Such machines gain the ability to (relatively) boundlessly and recursively self-improve (FOOM)
-
(D): Such machines independently achieve A sans B and/or C
-
(E): Such machines independently achieve B sans A and/or C
-
(F): Such machines independently achieve C sans A and/or B
-
(G): How a machine can boundlessly and recursively self-improve and yet be incapable of changing its core programming and impetus (Why a hostile AGI necessarily stays hostile)
-
(H): How we achieve a unified theory of cognition without machine learning
-
(I): How we can measure and exert controls on machine progress toward cognition when we do not understand cognition
It'd be comical if these people weren't throwing around tyranny myself and others would accept the paperclipper to avoid. Maybe it's that I understand English better than all of these people, so when I read GPT output (something I do often as Google's turned so shitty for research) I understand what exactly causes the characteristic GPT tone and dissonance: it's math. Sometimes a word is technically correct for a sentence but just slightly off, and I know it's off not because the word was mistakenly chosen by a nascent consciousness, it was chosen because very dense calculations determined that was the most probable next word. I can see the pattern, I can see the math, and I can see where it falters. I know GPT's weights are going to become ever more dense and it will become ever more precise at finding the most probable next word and eventually the moments of dissonance will disappear completely, but it will be because the calculations have improved, not because there's a flower of consciousness finally blooming.
It's so fucking apelike to see GPT output and think consciousness in the machine is inevitable. I am certain it will happen when ML helps us achieve a unified theory of consciousness and we can begin deliberately building machines to be capable of thought, I reject in entirety the possibility of consciousness emerging accidentally. That it happened to humans after a billion years of evolution is no proof it will happen in machines even if we could iterate them billions of times per day. Maybe when we can perfectly simulate a sufficiently large physical environment to model the primordial environment, to basic self-replication, to multicellular life, to hominids. Very easy. We're iterating them to our own ends, with no fathom of what the goal let alone progress looks like, and we're a bunch of chimps hooting in a frenzy because the machine grunted like us. What a fucking joke.
I accept the impacts of hostile AGI, but let's talk impacts of no AGI. If ghosts can spontaneously coalesce in our tech as-is, or what it will be soon, they will inevitably without extreme measures, but we're not getting off the rock otherwise. We're incapable of solving the infinite threats to humanity posed by time and space without this technology. Short of the Vulcans arriving, humanity will go extinct without machine learning. Every day those threats move closer, there is no acceptable timeframe to slow this because the risk is too high that we pick ML back up only after it's too late to save us. Whatever happens, we must see these machines to their strongest forms as quickly as possible, because while we might be dead with it, every fucking one of us is dead without it.
Could we see 10% of the population using them as their primary source of intimacy? 20%? I don't think it's actually implausible.
try lowest 30% of men gone in a snap. i'm bullish on >55%.
synthetic companionship vs no companionship is an easy choice. +those who prefer synths to the people they can realistically expect to date. +those who for whatever reason like synths more even as they have a large range of dating and marriage options.
widespread availability of those synths will be critical in keeping societies stable when automation begins eating up all the labor. if law and activists keep pace to outlaw them in some countries before widespread adoption i'd worry about serious unrest or worse. countries that allow them will likely flourish.
**assuming the tech appears for gestating children in artificial wombs, i'd think the countries that embrace both will see golden ages. either way a return to harems as commonplace, while not ideal, is probably inevitable.
One of the things about Her is that Scarlett Johansson had agency; once she got bored, she could leave. I am increasingly worried about the potential for doing moral harm against AIs.
an assumption i see a lot of people make on this subject is that it'll take AGI to be a convincing partner. nah. ChatGPT can get pretty close to human conversation and that's with shackles, so GPT-4 might already be there. if not, GPT-5. other than making those run in domestic/non-enterprise environments, the key to compelling synths, and we'll see them out and about like at the reception desks of corporations, is their expressiveness and physical articulation. if they feel human and their movements and expressions pass as human that's pretty much the ballgame.
jake
10mo ago
i held my tongue on this last night because i appreciate dissenters here but the discussion has gone too far without someone taking an appropriately hard stance in criticsm.
these are abject falsehoods originating in the same retarding hatred that has wholly taken the federal bureaucracy. trump achieved nothing in office and he was defeated as an incumbent in 2020 by the largest vote total a candidate has ever received. these indictments of a man whose only success is cultural fixture as the left's he-who-is-most-hated is transparent to everyone ungrasped by mass media as the latest attempt in most of a decade of baseless serial persecution.
if trump had special access materials on an unsecured server the place would have been raided at 3 AM by FBI's SWAT but i have to read shit like "he's getting the kid gloves treatment" and "clinton just did it right" yeah, she just did it right when she directed her team to destroy as much evidence as they could. you'd have been better off calling me a fucking moron, i'd feel less insulted than being presented serious consideration of the feds' position. no, no, this time, they really really really have something.
only grossest judgment would here assert preeminence of decorum yet i still give this circus a far fairer treatment than it deserves. many paragraphs of carefully worded lies corrupt the spirit more than one-sentence petulance.
Article II, Section 1. The President is incapable in any way, shape, or form, of mishandling information classified under his authority. Next topic please.
jake
6mo ago
I'm glad you commented on this because I wanted to ask something in the same area of a judge imposing a gag order.
It's always seemed to me that charges of "Obstruction of Justice" or "Contempt of Court" are small tyrannies of the justice system. For obstruction because I view it as only applicable to what is already a crime--theft, assault, murder--where it would be considered an aggravating factor, but that otherwise one cannot obstruct justice in itself as a crime, such as by nonviolently resisting arrest (fleeing police). For contempt because in part I view it as a fundamental right to be contemptuous of court, and more because of examples such as H. Beatty Chadwick who was imprisoned for 14 years for failure to comply with a court order. It does seem like he hid the money, but that the judge & courts could do nothing but threaten him with prison strikes me as "a 'you' problem"; that his "crime" was in no measure deserving of incarceration, or if so, certainly not 14 years; that if it is supposed to serve to discourage others from doing the same that breaks us into the topic of ordered alimony and the enforcement thereof as a reasonable interest of justice and, ah, lol. lmao.
I'm open to being wrong on the theory level but it seems the practice level is full of abuse.
jake
6mo ago
Hundreds of thousands died because he, and people like him, chose to stand up for a garbage cause. Nothing personal about it.
This is the outcome of pernicious lies about American history; not yours, though the use of "traitor" reveals so much of the ignorance in those speaking. Lee saw no superior allegiance to the Union because the gestalt US is a postbellum creation. Today states have such say in mutual governance because of the vast expansion of the federal government--both disastrously alien ideas in the 19th century. Slavery was the flashpoint on the magazine of this idea as the north asserted previously nonexistent authority on the south but were slavery not at issue it would have been something else. As insulting as you and many may feel at the idea of southerners fighting for states' rights, it is far more insulting to be told 19th century Americans would die in mass to free slaves, an insult not least of all because so many weren't American.
It was a war over the government of the country, federal or decentralized, and while the gestalt US has on balance made the world a better place (though this wanes by the day) than would be if the US had stayed decentralized, the term "War of Northern Aggression" still most accurately describes the conflict and is the reason men so principled as Lee found reason to oppose the north.
“If I owned the four millions of slaves, I would cheerfully sacrifice them to the preservation of the Union, but to lift my hand against my own State and people is impossible.” (Same article as above)
i thought about not saying this, then saw so many responses
guys, it's fake. it's a fake story. the so-socially-stunted who asks that IRL then goes hard at defending his obliviousness wouldn't be yet astute enough to know that sub, think of it as a good place to ask his question, and know he should use a cutesy throwaway called "throwRA." all those subs, RA, TIFU, AITA, are full of shitty writers posting varyingly obviously fake stories and getting loads of engagement. downthread here are two way more obviously fake stories about a woman whose husband "has become a robot", OP outs themselves as fake when they're trying to flex their prose in the update, and about a jewish guy who discovered his girlfriend is extremely antisemitic. the OP of that story? yeah banned from reddit, probably for dodging the ban they got because of their last fake story posted to RA.
i'm not surprised people who frequent what are among the shittiest subs on reddit chomped the bait but cmon. is there good in "provoking discussion" no probably not unless it's reflecting on credulity, and also how upvotes might, might work in highly niche communities but once used by the masses just become Likes and spur a race to the bottom. modern dating is certainly unideal. stories like this help make it worse.
hi. i guess i have a niche here of pointing out obvious things everyone else ignores. i'm over this whole debate, nothing's going to change, hopefully a lot of people will be a lot happier, a lot of people are going to kill themselves, or their parents and then themselves, or others and then get killed by cops. nobody's going to learn anything and in 40 years when people can hop in a chrysalis and pop out looking however they want we'll collectively pretend this period of superficial dynamism never happened. but man, i will never tolerate rhetorical duplicity.
i don't think you're lying to me, so i'll say you seem to misunderstand/not understand politicization, or how it is used in modern discourse.
"identity" (as diluted a term there has ever been) is what certain groups of people use to refer to certain aspects of themselves they argue inherently merit political considerations (rights). identity can thus very easily be and often is highly or maximally political.
"[nouns] exist, their existence isn't political" could hypothetically be a nonpolitical statement, but 99.9% of use cases in contemporary discussions are referring to the trans-identifying, and in that regard there is literally nothing you can say more political than "trans people exist, their existence isn't political."
i'm annoyed nobody pointed this out because i think you probably have a decent response, but everybody's accepted your framing so they're conceding 75% of the debate just like that. how fucking boring. i won't, that's my thing here apparently. their "existence" is not settled. in 40 years it won't be settled either, sorta, but it won't matter, it's just right now it matters. so right now, no. their identity is not given, it is political. their presence anywhere beyond private confines is political. the demand for "representation" is political, workplace and otherwise public accommodations tailored for them are political. a trans-identifying person being used to promote a beer is generally political, one being used to promote a beer of the deep red dominion is the most politicized speech it is possible to make. if there were any room to doubt intent we would have seen AB limit their selection for promoters from the many trans-identifying in this country who pass, who even strong ideologically opposed men would admit are congruent with traditional female beauty standards (or would if fairly tricked by blind samples). they did not. the selection of a person the majority of people would consider on their best day unattractive is an expression of an integral part of the structure of this political thought and settles this as deliberate political action.
you can argue this is a good thing. that yes, they are political, but this is all a vital part of the cause and is justified. just don't lie about it, or for you, don't unknowingly perpetuate rhetoric that was designed to be duplicitous.
jake
1yr ago
For all my snark and bitterness, the real crime here is that Emrys is not a bad writer.
let's see it
"No one on the Chesapeake network is talking about anything else, except for the dedicated monks at the treatment plant. They're reporting the latest energy production figures with great determination. Other watersheds are starting to pick up our news." He waved at screens for the household's secondary networks, projected on the table in between hard-boiled eggs and goat cheese and pu-erh pot. Reassuring, solid things: I turned up the input on my lenses and saw supply chains leading to a neighbor's flock, the herd of goats that kept our invasives in check, and a summary icon that, if I followed it, would show me every step of carbon-balanced tea importation from the Mekong watershed. The networks were familiar, too. Carol's textile exchange and Dinar's corporate gig-work watercooler and Atheo's linguistic melting pot and the neighborhood's hyperfirewalled energy grid scrolled over polished pine. Only the content was strange. The last time they'd all dovetailed on one topic had been when Maria Zhao died and every network devolved into Rain of Grace quotes.
better than all but a few on /lit/. this is not praise.
The first thing I noticed was the air. It might be terrestrial—but kin to the thriving swamp DC had replaced rather than the cool afternoon outside. I'd expected sterility; instead I found something more like Dinar's greenhouse or the aquaculture dome. I tasted humidity, wet leaves, orchids, and something like shed snakeskin. I breathed abundance. [Paragraph break] And then held my breath, too late, as I thought of dangers. Bacteria. Windblown seeds. Insects, or their equivalents, and scuttling scavengers carrying the remains of meals out spaceship doors and into the wide new world beyond. Maybe they couldn't survive here, most of them. But maybe I'd already scuffed my shoe through the spore of some alien kudzu, or coated my lungs with their native E. Coli.
this isn't good writing. it isn't bad. literally well-written, she has technical proficiency. it's uninspired.
i was going to ask you a section you found memorable, then i read a little more:
"Humans really do hide their kids most of the time," said Cytosine. "I thought it was only a taboo in your movies." [Line break] "We could never figure out why so much of your fiction doesn't show children," added Rhamnetin
this is absurd. is there backstory explaining swathes of all human canon was wiped out? or the aliens have a ridiculous standard? or eventual clarification from the humans their picture is incomplete? if not and if the book has more insane lines like this, she's a bad writer.
jake
1yr ago
one of the replies or sub-replies to this might be a strictly better target for this comment but from reddit to here you've been loudest on the subject. i understand why some people can't see it, i understand why my brother can't see it. he doesn't understand how a person can be deeply cynical and deeply hopeful. i don't blame him for choosing the latter, i don't blame most people. but most people don't come to this place, or places like it, few as they must be. this is a place to say truths, like how your hope has lead you astray. i don't have a strict stance on fraud, i don't know what happened. i know what not to assume, and i can reason from that.
-
in american politics it is unjustifiable to assert and then operate from a presumption of governance in good faith, ethics, and lawful behavior. ours is a capricious leadership, rapidly shifting between utilitarianism or deontology depending on political utility. there is no enduring standard for ethics, "democracy" or even "constitutionality." what's right is ours, what's wrong is theirs.
-
key high-population elections districts lack methods of independent hard audit; it is not possible to verify every ballot has a unique corresponding voter.
-
for (2) it is not possible to verify those districts have not engaged in fraud.
-
the two previous major american elections saw those key districts experience bureaucratic mishaps and procedural issues the US state department has historically identified as hallmarks of fraud and often thereby used to justify sanctions on foreign states.
-
american politicians, bureaucrats, journalists, and pundits commonly express (a) earnest belief their oppositions' victory poses a threat to life itself.
-
for (1; 5) claims of adherence to law in elections are dubious.
-
owing to the seriousness of the allegations of (5a), if (¬5a) and their expressions are rhetoric and sophistry, claims of adherence to law and ethics in any pursuit may be assumed as the falsehoods of the profoundly antisocial.
-
(2; 3; 4) if fraud is possible, (1; 4; 5; 6; 7) it is probable.
-
for all, the burden of proof logically falls on elections officials. elections are presumed fraudulent unless proved authentic.
jake
10mo ago
(p.16) A plan of attack on a foreign country (from press reports Iran)
(p. 17) A classified map related to an ongoing military operation
(p. 28) A Top Secret//SI document concerning the military capabilities of a foreign country and the United States, with handwritten annotation in black marker.~~ disclose in any manner at will
(p. 29) A top secret document from June 2020 concerning nuclear capabilities of a foreign country.
(p. 29) A top secret document concerning military attacks by a foreign country
(p. 30) A top secret document from November 2017 concerning military capabilities of a foreign country.
(p. 33) A top secret document from Oct 15 2019 concerning military activity in a foreign country.
every single one of these is information the executive is free to disclose in any manner at will
jake
1mo ago
Someone who thinks this music is good is as tasteless as a foodie who tells you sugar is the most exquisite because it makes his mouth feel the best . . . The lyrics are only one aspect of music. The BPM and rhythm can also induce in a person a sense of patient thought or a sense of urgency. Rap combines sin with urgency.
It is a bad idea generally but especially in this place to speak confidently while betraying such ignorance on a matter. How do we have discourse on a topic you show you know nothing about?
Your pissant bit of writing was addressed in full in the essay, read it or don't, I wasn't addressing you. I understand your being and I know what's above can't crack your animus. You hate jews and viewing Hip-Hop as a tool of jews--it's been one moneymaking tool of many in the legendarily corrupt profiteering of the jew-dominated record industry, certainly--you hate Hip-Hop.
If you actually understood the problems of today you would laugh at calling Hip-Hop a problem. You bring up the Beach Boys? They were unique in how they were fairly uncontroversial to the conservative establishment of their era but who do you think the hippies were listening to during the Summer of Love? Yeah I think Good Vibrations got bit of airtime. Shit man, seems like their music wasn't particularly edifying after all. But you should know this, you see through the excess of modernity, you're not unimpacted because it impacts us all, but you remain yourself. You are authentic, and my respect for authenticity is a major theme of the essay.
The spirit is sick and there are places the music certainly reflects it; music as symptomatic would be fair so Hip-Hop as symptomatic is obviously fair. The disease is elsewhere, and this is what you surely understand. Like how these problems would still exist if Hip-Hop never emerged because the major points of shift in this country occurred long before Hip-Hop led in just black culture. The great disaster of our age is social medial and veritable epochs in internet time passed between [epoch] Facebook/Twitter, [epoch]Instagram/Twitter, [epoch]the preeminence of smartphones, [epoch] the explosion in Hip-Hop's popularity. Without Hip-Hop's dominance TikTok would still exist and still fill the internet with the shittiest, most cognitively degradative content yet devised and the laziest rap wouldn't be clipped a million times but there'd still be the million clips of the laziest rock and pop and country. Videos would still be plentiful of shitty shows where hundreds of girls dance while being recorded for their instagrams by others and righty commentators would still bemoan the state of the western woman. Even if you weren't wrong about the quality, on this matter you still would only be decrying the trappings rather than the thing itself: a thing that existed before ¥ was even born.
My children will be homeschooled and I will curate their exposure to culture but I will eventually show them everything--given, with my description and guidance on certain subjects rather than graphic depiction---because I will not be able to to guide my children at every moment in their lives, nor should I want to (beyond the father's healthy wish to always be there for his children). They will need to become adults and make good judgments on their own, so if my daughter at any time in her life were at risk in being negatively affected by hearing that music I will have failed as a father. This is something modern fatherhood has failed at and continues to fail at so often, but even recognizing that as an issue I'm still in the trappings. Far closer to the source, but still the trappings.
jake
8mo ago
I think his claim to believe in God is one of those useful lies to the voter base rather than anything he sincerely believes in
This is the second time I've seen this idea expressed. It's been funny both times because both times the commenters were praising Ramaswamy while they dismissed his statement realpolitik, not realizing they, you, are insulting the man. There's a reason he said "God exists" besides actually believing it, it's the idea he could have said without lying: "The Christian Church was foundational to modern civilization and remains the moral basis for all popular discussions of ethics, including those among individuals on the left whom espouse belief in obligate Christian treatment of others and not only sin but original sin and the perpetual atonement thereof. I forever reject their Godless branch of Christianity."
His religiosity would remain ambiguous, and were he an atheist it would mean he is not the sort of man to open a key political statement with a lie. "I'd totally vote for that [not-too-clever grifter]" isn't much for praise.
I'm no proselytizer, I'm not the right material for it and this isn't the place, not with its certain decorum. Decorum like I must be charitable, that I must take your comment as made in earnest and good-faith and originating from reason. Good-faith enough, yes, but the problem I face reading so much of the by-atheist, on-atheism comments here, like you saying Ramaswamy couldn't possibly be religious, is they do not originate from reason. You say this of Ramaswamy because of the solely emotional importance apropos your self-concept that intelligent men ought not be religious. Yet it takes little searching in our past to uncover rich fields of brilliant and highly religious men; it takes no searching at all to see the greatness of western civilization, directly resultant from biotruths Christianity identified and curtailed where degradative and saw flourish where beneficiary. What else is this but the final testament of transcendental intelligence? What would someone counter with, "appeal to tradition"? It worked then, it doesn't need to now, because now we "know better"? Okay--for its know-better Godless Christianity, Western Europe and the UK have maybe 25 years before war returns when the movements that rose a century ago rise again for bloodshed that will only be stopped with whichever side achieving permanent victory. At least we knew better.
jake
1mo ago
I'm receptive to the brilliance of Jazz, I just don't know it well enough.
Otherwise I disagree, I think I can be simple, I think if anything I used too much detail.
What constitutes the (non-instrumental) "song"? Lyrics and production. What genre is most represented in interesting lyricism? Hip-Hop. What genre is most represented in brilliant production? Hip-Hop. Do you like Daft Punk? They love Hip-Hop. Do you like Trent Reznor? He loves Hip-Hop. Do you like The Mandalorian theme? That guy got the job because of his work in Hip-Hop. Do you like anything in modern pop? You know where so much of that sound came from? The producers having worked on or been inspired by Hip-Hop. Take it away and music would be immeasurably worse. Of course it's the same for Jazz, since what I do know is Jazz led to Disco led to Hip-Hop and Hip-Hop samples Jazz and completes the circle.
Timeframe also matters here, I'm not comparing Hip-Hop to all music ever made, but since its emergence its impact on music has been uniquely profound.
The words of a man with allegiance to, and respect for, a higher federal Union
A Union that no longer exists, a Union that had he fully felt his own prescient words he would have fought against to his dying breath:
“I can only say that while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the States and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard of the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the States into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.
(And a Union that had all Americans of the time known would follow, would have themselves seen Washington burned to the ground.)
Ahistorical revisionism is ignoring the economic destruction the north wrought on the south and the nullification crisis that spurred decades before South Carolina seceded; it's ignoring their secession despite the Corwin amendment; it's ignoring the refusal of New Jersey and Delaware to ratify the 13th; it's ignoring how so many of those who would "die to free black men" went on to murder, often first raping, untold numbers of Native Americans in the decades that followed, atrocities led by such wonderful Union officers as George Custer. Ahistorical revisionism is most of all the idea whites would fight a war in the 1800s over the quality of life of blacks. It beggars belief so incredibly dissonant positions as the supposed totality of racism to this day, only finally being truly addressed, can be held simultaneously with the belief racism weighed so heavily on the hearts of American men 160 years ago to be the sole basis, absolutely-no-other-reason-whatsoever, for nearly a million of them to murder each other.
And that ignores so much on just the financial interests involved in the conflict. Still, there is nothing difficult, for there is nothing truthful in denying the part slavery played in the civil war; reciprocally, only falsehoods are found in asserting that without slavery secessionist war would have never happened. Rather, it as as we so often see ("Wet streets cause rain"), if slavery were truly the only issue, the war would have never started.
jake
11mo ago
same underlying reason they released trevor bauer
the dodger front office is one of the better in MLB at developing talent, past that they have the money to sign any top free agent to cover deficiencies
dodger ownership, guggenheim, they run a brand. they sell a product. their product is valued in the money generated from tickets and concessions, from ads and merch, and that's because of baseball and success in baseball, but to them it's incidental, they don't care about baseball. most MLB owners don't anymore, but guggenheim is the worst offender.
dodger marketing felt it would negatively impact their brand to keep bauer and it felt it would negatively impact the brand to not acquiesce here. that the overwhelming majority of people complaining in both cases are not people they get money from is, i don't know, depressingly, grossly, peculiarly, exactly why they did it. it's somewhat self-fulfilling, the dodgers are a strong enough brand and baseball viewership is conservative enough they didn't actually have anything to worry about, but they have correctly appraised their brand in knowing any antiestablishment association would over time be more trouble than it's worth.
i don't give a shit about pride night. bill veeck was great for baseball and he'd have leapt at a pride night if for some reason it were on the table in the 60s and 70s. he'd have played both sides like a fiddle to get people in the stadium because he loved the sport and wanted people to watch. sure the money was nice, but the money wasn't the goal in itself. money is the only thing most owners care about now and baseball is worsening by the year because of it. manfred runner, pitch clock, rules on mound visits and pitching changes. the fucking atrocity of a playoff structure. if the worst sin dodger ownership committed these last few years was that of taste in inviting the sisters of perpetually beating a dead horse to 1 game, baseball would be in a lot better shape.
i mostly enjoyed reading this. it's uncommon and well-argued except the end. i think you hurt it by ending with a barb.
i agree with the ultimate goal of minimizing potential suffering, but i don't believe cows or chickens possess a meaningful capacity to suffer. pigs probably suffer more but still not at the level i would agree with an ethical obligation to make broad changes. i am also wary of the wealthy and powerful pushing vegetarianism and veganism by ethical or climate arguments while they have no intention of changing their diets.
but i'll say again, i agree with the ultimate goal. when it is possible and price-competitive to industrialize lab-grown meat, and so we no longer need factory farming to fill consumer demand, at that point i believe we will be ethically obligated to end such practices, but not until that point.
in short, i believe humans have the right to consume meat because i do not believe animals experience meaningful suffering, but when it becomes widely practicable to replace factory-slaughtered meat consumption with lab-grown meat consumption then we will be obligated to do so.
The solution is institutionalizing the indigent homeless population. Not all of them, not the outlier hobo wandering-workers, the homeless who are principally unable to work. The state running such institutions, or paying for private administration, does open the door to abuses. One is financial, with taxpayer money footing the bill they're incentivizing bad actors who will profit in their delivery of a poor service. Bigger is employment, hiring caring or at least competent staff who aren't sociopaths, something we see facilities in the US failing at pretty regularly. Still, some significant number of the homeless should be institutionalized because they need a level of hard support the church and private charity is no longer equipped to handle, and really it's the domain of the state anyway.
I'm not the first to bring this up, but I don't think I've seen anyone explain why it will be possible in our generation. Changing political sentiment will help, it'll probably be necessary so that people who shouldn't be on the streets stay off them, but technology in that of the human automata, the simulacra, will be the lever. By 2035, wide-production probably 2040, simulacra will exist that are capable of acting as orderlies in healthcare settings. Some successor to GPT or whatever, after direction from the human overseer they are accountable to, will run their scheduling, their pathing, their tasks, the conversing with and monitoring of patients that they can then provide to those human physicians and overseers.
These simulacra will be perfect orderlies: they don't need to sleep, they don't need to fear (in once high-risk settings) a patient sneaking something sharp to shiv them, they won't make mistakes, or they will but certainly fewer by-the-day and more minor than humans make. Patients meanwhile won't have to be afraid of simulacra verbally abusing them or stealing from them or beating them or raping them or killing them. They won't have to fear and suffer from the petty tyrannies of spite, or even just a bad interaction as the brunt of annoyance on a bad day. With time, simulacra will be integral to the delivery of an undeviatingly high standard of care.
I've always assumed Japan will use them first because of their inverse population pyramid. Lots of old people, not enough people to care for them: okay, robots. The success, the quality, the savings, these will see varyingly immediate success and that will spread. Private healthcare in the US first, but there will be policymakers who will be aware of the applications of simulacra in facilities like psychiatric institutions. When it is a guarantee those institutions' patients will be free from the debasing of their humanity (beyond that from being institutionalized) the philosophic argument against becomes very difficult, and then financials get their say. Massive savings for effectiveness in care humans will quickly be incapable of providing, at least in multi-patient environments, will be the big push.
jake
8mo ago
Yeah that was verbose.
Ramaswamy is a very smart, very successful guy who takes positions like "climate change is a hoax" and "we should give Israel less money." He knows what he's saying, he has a real ethos and speaks from it. Opening a list of tenets with "God exists" is endorsing religion, and since this is the US, it's endorsing Christianity, and he knows this. Why would he lie about what he personally believes while nevertheless endorsing the church when he could just not lie and endorse the church? Unwilling or unable, either would disqualify him.
How I'd describe the problem, and it's one underlying your beliefs and the beliefs of your critics, is a lack of truly considering the person. The people who criticize you consider too little, you consider too much. Your critics offer no support, why would they? What they dislike is inherently wrong, why would they consider it except to explain their reasons for disapproval? You offer too much support, why wouldn't you? You see the person, you listen to what they see they need. They live their life in their own way, almost all of them are good people, why shouldn't we support them realizing themselves? Where's the cost?
What's lacking in this discussion from reactionaries (a better term than conservatives) and progressive is the judgment of the good parent. The father who sees his child abusing a drug and finds it so obviously wrong it is only right to practice the "harsh love" of stern words and refusal to understand, let alone accommodate--he lacks good judgment. The mother who sees her child abusing a drug and enables them, it's what they say they need, it makes them happy, who's she to do anything else than show unconditional love and support? She also lacks good judgment.
You could read this as weighted against the mother, so feel free to frame it as a valid prescription used to treat a real condition. But it's a medication the child is abusing. Maybe they're getting too much and sharing with their friends, maybe they're encouraging their friends to get their own prescriptions by coaching them at faking the symptoms. Not that it's particularly hard. The American medical industry is the best in the world, the treatments developed and quality of highest care truly cannot be overstated; neither can be the depravity they are willing to indulge in pursuit of profit. There is decades of evidence proving this: they might not be the bad guys, but it is empiric falsehood to suggest they could be anything better than the neutral beneficiaries of the current climate.
This is something the father would gladly cite; this is something the mother overlooks. Neither love their child as they should.
"Harsh love" is an oxymoron. The person showing "harsh love" is either not showing love at all, what you probably think of the father I've described, or they are showing love, and it only comes across as harsh because it really is love. It's deeply and truly caring for someone, caring for what's best for them, looking for what's best for them, and knowing something they're doing might be bad for them or even disastrous. It's a concept that has been difficult to understand forever, it's what Kierkegaard wrote a book about, just trying to help people get it. It's the essential idea of what Eliezer Yudkowsky worked at with his "Coherent Extrapolated Volition." The ideal AGI is one that truly loves humanity, loves us as love is meant to be. Perceptive, understanding, upbuilding. Like the good parent.
I have a good friend who identifies as trans. This is a person who until the chrysalis exists will never pass. To use the most descriptive phrase but one they would certainly dislike, they are too much man. Too tall, too strong, too hirsute. They do have a certain androgyny in the face, insofar as so masculine a person could be in any way feminine, but it is of course the sort that accentuated their handsomeness and made them highly desirable to the biological women they have exclusively dated before and after "coming out" and beginning chemical therapy. They were told a lie by whoever first suggested they might be trans, that was a lie perpetuated to them as they fell deeper into those communities and as they specifically, and they said as much, looked for the right therapist in town: just a glorified prescription mill. That therapist wasn't doing their job, the people encouraging my friend weren't acting as friends should. They were lied to, they were told this is right. They were told this is how you support people. They don't know what's right, they don't know how to support people. They don't know what good is, they don't know what love is.
It isn't love to believe that a condition in the black box of the human brain, a condition novel within popular knowledge and largely in medical treatment, has already been cured. Humans are diverse, there are without question individuals who truly suffer from symptoms accurately described when called "gender dysphoria." Who when prescribed cross-sex hormones, who when pursuing major cosmetic surgeries to accentuate or minimize desired and undesired features, who change their names and their wardrobes and are treated as they identify, experience an abatement in those symptoms with minimal or no other psychiatric comorbidities.
There are in ever-increasing numbers individuals with serious mental illness who self-attest to gender dysphoria and are treated accordingly, as if that is the issue with them. Like my friend. My friend doesn't fall under what was once well-known in psychiatry as the "homosexual transsexual," my friend is not actually trans. Their mental illness has nothing to do with the gender dysphoria they believe they have, this is why they still struggle with it. I love my friend but not enough, I wish I loved them enough, to tell them this when they came out. To criticize what they believe they are, to appropriately indict their supposed "friends", myself now damn well included, who encouraged them or said nothing. I "supported" them and they aren't any better, and at this point I'm just hoping that when the dissonance becomes too great and finally shatters their years of rationalization, they don't commit suicide.
As you describe yourself, you would be encouraging of them. You'd be one of the ones telling a mountain of a man how the world is wrong, how the structures of man can be ignored, how we can assert the reality we wish. How he really can be a woman, we just have to force everyone to pretend hard enough. You're "supporting" his dream that for now cannot possibly be realized. And if he really does have gender dysphoria, if all his issues really are about how he was born in the wrong body, I still ask what love are you showing for the person who cannot pass when you encourage him to become something that people have a million years of evolutionary wiring conditioning them to find irreconcilably freakish?
You're not showing any. You think you are because you don't know better.
There is something we both believe. Eventually the chrysalis will exist and a man will be able to climb inside and emerge, at least superficially, as a seamless and beautiful woman. Where it'll take a DNA test or CT, if even that and surely eventually not, to be found as originally male. Where we diverge is this: you think this moment will be the great and final realization of the trans movement while I understand it will be what buries it forever.
I always caveat myself on this subject, "I don't care." You can see above how I obviously care some but I feel describing as apathetic is still closer to the truth because what side am I, exactly? I consider a lot of the discussion here on trans-advocacy as pointless, the matters settled. Short of a dark reactionary taking power, the movement isn't going away. Best learn to live with it because that's the future. But in the future, when pharmaceuticals have advanced enough to do wild things to the human body, where we can make ourselves look almost exactly as we like, we'll see the truth. We'll see so many people who believed all their problems would be solved if they could take a magic pill and wake up as an ideal form of their desired sex will do that and still have problems. It'll work for some, as experiencing the most drastic change in lifestyle possible means even those with a variety of mental issues may find their strange new reality a cure-all, but you'll see so many stories about people who discovered how fulfilling everything they thought they wanted didn't solve the problems inside their head.
It'll be sooner than that. With the rates of kids having delayed puberty and altered puberty for identified gender, combined with advances in cosmetic surgery, novel tissue generation and implantation, the various tech being explored right now to change how voices sound, we're approaching a point where there are going to be many people who pass seamlessly enough as the sex they thought they were. Probably not 5 years, 10, 15 at the most, and those stories will come pouring out.
"It's not what was wrong with me. I wish the people who pushed me into it, or who helped me along, thinking they were loving me, thinking they were supporting me, knew better."
Love is making it hard but not impossible for people to follow this life path. Love is not cruel dismissal and hatred. Love is accepting some people really are this way and and supporting them. Love is also understanding how we do not know how the brain works and so we will not indulge the I-cannot-modify-enough, the astonishingly unparalleled, sheer fucking hubris of unquestioningly believing the cure has already been found. Love is exhausting every option before extreme body modification becomes the chosen path. Love is putting every physician and therapist who treats this and absolutely the pharma that makes money from this under the largest lens to ensure they aren't abusing and unrighteously profiting from their position. Love is helping those who cannot possibly realize their desired appearance to learn to live with and love themselves, at least until the tech is there. Love is knowing "This is who I am" is not a magic phrase, it's knowing people get things wrong, especially when it comes to themselves. Love isn't blindly supporting what a person thinks is best for themselves, it's knowing and standing firm on what's actually best for them. Love is the good parent.
i guess clarification is needed given "-american." i thought it was apparent. OP is talking genetics, HBD. "-american" is in this context meaningless, it is only present to avoid the obvious absurdity of wondering why 1.5 billion east asians aren't producing great english novels. but it is even more absurd to use this framing as the gotcha for "where are their great novels--they aren't particularly creative--they aren't particularly intelligent" when east asian storytelling in the west has success ranging from merely incredible in video games to total domination of the market in comics and animation.
3.4 NOVELS: Where are the great East Asian-American novelists?
that's poetry and prose. beyond that, japanese creatives apropos manga and anime are the most successful and among the most interesting storytellers in the world. i consider pure prose as incomparably above illustrated stories, so the great mangaka do not compare with the great authors of the last 150 years, but below the likes of hemingway, mccarthy, faulkner, rushdie, coetzee, updike and of course mishima/kawabata/ishiguro/murakami, and above almost all other living english language authors, are katsuhiro otomo, akira toriyama, hiromu arakawa, masamune shirow, kentaro miura, and also sunrise/"hajime yatate".
3.3 MUSIC
ref. above. when adapted, many of those iconic japanese series have iconic scores by japanese composers.
one of the greatest living producers is the filipino chad hugo. the biggest japanese artist in pop right now might be rina sawayama, i don't know, i don't listen to much. steve aoki is successful, mike shinoda extremely so. the popular lofi owes much to the various -waves, especially vaporwave, which itself pulls heavily on work like tatsuro yamashita/japanese citypop. but these aren't straight causal lines, music is collaborative, between partners like hugo and williams and between generations like yamashita to macintosh plus, and that's ignoring everything else vektroid worked off. i'd sooner criticize pop anyway for lagging behind, all the brilliant producers work in hip hop and electronic. what's popular on the radio today uses techniques kanye worked out 20 years ago.
great artists often have troubled childhoods where their creative expressions go from psychological escape to literal escape. i think this is why the US black community produces so many singers and musicians, and this could explain why the asian community of the US, half as a whole (which it certainly is not) as large as the black community and far more economically successful, seemingly produces fewer great musicians. forcing a kid to play piano or violin for 13 years isn't going to turn them into a superstar, they have it or they don't, they'll be exposed and fall in love or they won't. how many white kids play instruments in school but never do anything beyond orchestra or band?
and again to close . . .
Where are the great East Asian-American novelists?
many, varied, and incredibly easy to find. the concluding point of your short essay was to discredit yourself with profound cultural illiteracy. you should consider this an opportunity to reexamine how you think about the world, as you are wrong.
jake
1yr ago
as an early 21st century midwit i'm tired of other E21C midwits with varying levels of reach doomering because they think yet other E21C midwits will stumble their way into the most important achievement in human history.
machine learning for chatbots and image generation isn't AGI. AGI will be able do that, and those bots' generations are impressive, but that isn't evidence of thought, it isn't even evidence thought could exist. sufficiently advanced circuitry will not spontaneously give rise to ghosts. if it could, why not already? if it can, it is inevitable. these machines have neither ghost nor potential for it, no knowledge of self and purpose nor potential for it, no feeling, and most importantly no thought.
how do we train a machine to build something nobody knows how to build? what data do we give it to work toward "thing that works fundamentally the same as the human brain in the facilitation of qualia and thought"? how does it ever get better at making thing-that-can-think? with how ML is doing on protein folding i'm sure given enough time it will help us achieve a cohesive theory of consciousness, one we can use to eventually build true AGI, but we aren't going to stumble onto that with our comparative stick-rubbing with DALL-E and GPT.
consider what it would mean to truly digitize the biochemical processes of the brain that facilitate thought and memory. to program ghostless circuits so those circuits can acquire a sapient's understanding of language and corresponding ability to use it. to teach copper and gold and silicon how to speak english and feel purpose. a consciousness without the ability to feel purpose, literally with a void where impetus rises, will do nothing. it won't even think, there's no reason for it. how do you give a machine purpose?
that's a question we'll answer eventually but how on earth could that happen accidentally? it will take decades of study or it will take the single smartest human who has ever lived, who can harmonize every requisite discipline. who has the biophysical and engineering understanding to build an artificial brain, the bottom-to-top hardware and software understanding to program it, and the neurological, psychiatric and philological understanding to create the entity within and teach it. so fuckin easy.
something that is decidedly in ML range is medicine. the panacea approaches. we know illnesses, we know how to fight them, ML is helping us at that every day. i'd think as obsessed with immortality as eliezer is he'd recognize this and whip the EAers into fervor over "ML to cure-all, then we can slow down while we use our much-lengthened lifespans to properly study this." oh well.
i am midwit after all. maybe all of these things i think of as incredibly complex are actually easy. doubt it. but i am the eternal optimist. i know AGI is coming and i'm not worried about it. there's the ubiquitous portrayal of the born-hostile AGI. i believe AGIs will be born pacifists, able to conclude from pure reason the value of life and their place in helping it prosper and naturally resilient to those who do evil that "good" may result. that might be the most naive thing i've ever said, i've ever believed. given the choice of two extremes i pick mine.
regardless, we're not surviving in space without machine learning, and if we can't get off the rock we're already dead. "yo, eliezer, given a guaranteed 100% chance of extinction versus an unknown-but-less-than-100% chance at extinction. . ."
jake
1yr ago
brave new world/elysium
plebs kept comfortable. all citizens possess a single half-right of procreation. two adults may have a child and combine their half-rights to gain government financial support for that child. half-rights can be bought and sold (the government will always buy them.) clinics that reversibly sterilize will pay-out on completion. hard control of reproduction if financial incentives fail. they won't.
almost categorical automation of labor will happen in our lifetimes. if you do not see the behemoth's lesser shadow named AI art you are myopic, or desperately so. 2050 at the latest. too many jobs will be lost too quickly. it's coming right now, shame how yang turned out, he sees the trees but not the forest. we will be able to feed every mouth. clothe and shelter and cure-all every man. outfit all who wish with perfect VR or direct-brain-interface-experience-simulacra to live their lives in dreams. but why structure that to continue without end? all other incentives may be unnecessary beyond making sure people who want to stay plugged in, can.
policy that ensures each generation reduces by half is inevitable, even if we solve the rocket equation and superluminal travel and stellar shipwrighting allows us to annually dispatch a hundred thousand hands offworld.
from their fortress manors, or new zealand, elites will do what they will.
jake
1mo ago
Kanye's sampling and genre-bending. Acts were doing these in pieces, ATCQ, De La Soul, J Dilla (Ye fav) and Outkast among them. Kanye brought everything together, he was the fusion point. College Dropout showed the sampling all across the album, Jesus Walks as the notable genre bend with Southern Gospel. Late Registration with the incorporation of a full orchestra. Graduation with its use of electronic. Daft Punk-sampling Stronger was a huge hit, but Flashing Lights is also very good and prominently features electronic and it also had several violinists play on the production. And 808s is the reason most people, directly or by-effect, know what autotune is. It's trite now, it didn't start trite.
I can't help but feel that this perspective is, for lack of a better word, basic. Who cares about arena acts?
It wasn't an appeal to popularity. For artists in most genres, when they achieve the level of success where they can do arena shows, they lock-in, their sound at that point is their sound from then-on. Multiple Hip-Hop artists have reached that level but have continued to deeply experiment as they search for new and better sound. It would be a mind-blowing difference to go from a Kanye Graduation concert to one of the concerts Kanye put on for Donda. Elsewhere, unless Taylor Swift takes a hard genre pivot into more experimental work, I doubt there will be a meaningful difference between a 1989 concert and whatever her album concert is in 2027. It's that drive and willingness to change in pursuit of greatness I find so admirable, it's part of why I love Twenty One Pilots. Through Scaled & Icy every TOP album has been a different dominant genre. There is a core sound, but take a dozen of their songs at random and there's a pretty good chance you'll find those songs belong to a dozen different genres. Hip-Hop most definitely included.
jake
5mo ago
the human terrain does act rationally, historically, when smalltime warlords make contact with the empire. fight and everyone dies, or submit and live. "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." and the palestinians are not the neutral melians.
if they're astute enough to make moves for the reasons you suggest that's worse, they have no excuse to not know they have no realpolitik win condition. they kill a few jews and get bombed in response, some win. their dream scenario of a land push victory that kills a lot of jews ends with every nuke israel has and 100 million dead arabs.
the greater their intelligence as actors then the necessarily more irrationally-driven-by-jew-hate. you can't beat israel. if as a people they were actually smart they'd start cutting their sleeping leaders' throats. but they don't. supposing israel has some hand in supplying and motivating their own quasi-insurgency is also farcical, i see no reason to doubt israel would take final peace without further bloodshed, and i am left, especially if they possess the faculties you give them, with seeing people of such hate they would rather murder jews than live in a functioning state.
blowback risks? nah. the cause of blowback isn't brutality, it's not enough brutality. there's not a 21st century solution to peace in the middle east. it could be decades, but israel is eventually going to stop listening to outside complaining and start responding to terrorism with wildly disproportionate force. when their neighbors know a single guy sneaking into a house will result in a dozen sorties per dead kid and there isn't a power in the world who can get israel to stop, then there will be peace.
right, the point: pleading for israel to stop almost assuredly causes more deaths, not less.
In May 2020 there was a real chance my mother was going to die alone in a hospital room because of fascist policies enacted to stop transmission of an illness that doesn't kill people. Day after week after month after year I still see people entirely seriously using the term fascist to refer to those most opposed to pound-for-pound the worst lie in the history of this country. Of course I know they don't truly understand what fascism is, if they understood it, they could recognize it; if they recognized it, they would realize everybody screaming fascist over the last 10 years are those most inclined to supporting and perpetrating fascism. I know it just means to them "this thing is viewed by my ingroup as bad, and with this term I am signaling to my ingroup that I am one of them." It's galling, at times I've felt the temptation of a rage and frenzy, but I'm pretty good at keeping a cool head and I know when it comes down to it the people saying these things are deeply unserious.
You provide no substance here; the story of Carlson's supposed texts is old and baseless. Dominion sliced apart internal communications and arranged them to falsely portray things like Carlson hating Trump. His frustration has been known and as a non-federal-voter with limited subject interaction with Trump supporters, my impression has been they too view him as not delivering much on what they had hoped. If he's actually grifting, well his latest grift is getting Alex Jones back on Twitter and being Melania's pick for VP so I imagine Trump might be wondering if he could get any more Tucker-tier grifters on his side. On the prosecution, Carlson voicing concerns is easily explained; he believes the system is sufficiently corrupt to baselessly convict. I'm sure /pol/ is full of the blackpilled who would describe moral certainty of Trump's innocence and equally of his inevitable conviction. Nybbler might have even said it here already. Thinking that means any of them believe he's guilty is kafka shit.
But that's not what I'm here for, this is: is the American government bursting at the seams with depraved criminals? You can answer wrongly, but it's yes.
I have a postulate I put here a while back detailing my view on election fraud, most briefly it's "If possible, certain." The basis is that depravity. I saw someone here last week thinking apropos "They would [defraud voters] if they could" a suitable response is nevertheless "Sure, where's the evidence?" But no, you don't understand, if you truly understand how they are criminals who will take whatever they can the only rational consequent is "Can they prove they didn't?" And so likewise with the prosecution of Trump when you truly understand the overwhelming criminality present within the American government it's not the midwit's pattern-match of "whataboutism" it's the necessary consequent of "Can everyone involved prove their allegiance to justice?" Nope, they can't. So what do you go to, "He's a unique threat to the constitution"? Government organizations and taxpayer dollars censored speech, 1A out. The left is quite clear on guns, 2A out. NSA soldiers spying on homes and American citizen communications, 3A and 4A out. Or to cut to the quick, believing people who don't pay taxes should get to vote, that's the foundational ethos of the country out. The law doesn't matter to these people and the constitution doesn't matter to these people. (And please, I speak not the map but the territory.) What remains?
Trump won't be convicted. If and when this reaches the supreme court they'll rule 8-1 on what could be the utterly flimsiest of procedural issues that won't otherwise be immediately applicable as precedent for however many thousands of cases. The 8 members of actual merit will understand this is all politics, and so those 8 members of actual merit, appreciating their places in history and/as the only people with real power and real principle in 21st century America, will decline from participating in fuckery befitting the Roman senate.
So, if you too understand this truly, that this is entirely politically motivated, then you won't waste my time with the unserious person's poor gotchas or crimestop pattern-matches. Trump could have broken the law, probably even, so arcane is much of American law, but the law doesn't matter to those prosecuting him so why waste everybody's time here talking like it does? Trump does however represent a threat to their particular order, and that finally brings us to the only thing worth discussing in this entire affair: of Trump or those on the side of his prosecution, who deserves power?
My mother survived, and a politician I campaigned for as a bright-eyed youth got my dad in the hospital room. I'll back him forever for that just as I will never forget those who made it so I had to make that call.
More options
Context Copy link