quiet_NaN
9d ago
I am from Europe. The principles of international law were not developed by some pink-haired idealists, they were agreed upon after we spend a few millennia murdering each other and were getting really really good at it. Even if they are unevenly enforced, they still lead to an outcome which is vastly better than the alternative. Like OSHA handbooks, they are rules written in blood.
quiet_NaN
10d ago
It is almost as if violating international law because you have the most guns has negative downstream effects, and showing restraint might have been a better long term strategy. Who could have predicted that?
I still hold out some hope that the US/Israel relationship will turn sour and the next US president will not be shoulder deep in Bibi's rectum. Not having the top military superpower do their bidding might make Israel a bit more reluctant to escalate.
quiet_NaN
10d ago
Hormutz is just a repeat of that, except us europeans didn't even bother trying this time around.
The US violated international law by attacking Iran. Iran predictably retaliated by suspending innocent passage through Hormuz, which is also a violation of international law. What exactly should a law-abiding European nation do? We do not have the military capability to sink the US ships threatening Iran and destroy the Iranian ability to threaten innocent passage.
Personally, I would just have made a deal with Iran where it lets through ships destined for Europe and gets French enriched uranium in return. Instead we mostly did nothing and hoped that Trump would chicken out eventually, which it now seems like he did.
quiet_NaN
10d ago
The 300 billion fund is a trap for Iran and the regime. They may get the investment, but not ownership.
What would be stopping them from nationalizing the investment in a year?
The usual strategy is that whenever someone nationalizes the properties of US companies, the US backs a military coup in that country, but if the US could stage a coup in Iran we would not be in this place.
quiet_NaN
10d ago
Aka "kill everyone and let God sort them out".
If you hang a man at p(murderer)=0.5, you are not increasing justice at all.
Of course, the threshold on p(murderer) must be low enough that you can achieve general deterrence. If you require ten upstanding citizens giving eyewitness reports under oath to convict a murderer, this will make it very easy to commit murder without facing consequences.
I think that murders by private citizens are only a small fraction of the homicides committed in the last few hundred years or so. They happen, but the median homicide victim was probably killed in state-sponsored violence.
You would certainly cut down on private murders if you allowed cops to shoot whomever they feel are up to no good. But this will reliably lead to the "up to no good" designation being applied to political enemies, entrenching whomever is in power, which is generally a terrible idea.
quiet_NaN
10d ago
Regime Change: Nowhere close. Very, very conditional surrender.
I would dispute even "conditional surrender", at least as far as the Iranian side is concerned. It is (or will or would be) a negotiated peace. Both sides make some concessions, so both sides have some points they can try to sell as victory.
By points, Iran has won rather clearly.
-
The regime survived and is likely strengthened. The US and Israel dropping bombs on Iranians is worth more propaganda-wise than what a thousand propagandists could accomplish in a decade.
-
Iran has established that it does control the strait of Hormuz and thus can squeeze the balls of the world economy whenever they feel like it.
-
Iran has also set a precedent that attacking them is, if not a presidency-ending mistake, at least a serious blunder which will cost the president a lot of support.
Iran was not in an enviable situation. The US and Israel had a technological advantage on a scale that it was not even funny and could bomb them at will for months. But the US did not achieve any strategic goals from these tactical victories.
Personally, I abhor war, and I do not consider Trump's and Netanyahu's war even remotely justified. So I celebrate not only the end of the conflict but also the fact that the warmongers had to retreat with their tail between their legs.
For what it's worth, I think it's good policy today to sign the deal. I even think the overall terms of the deal can be a net victory for the United States.
Compared to a continuation of the war? Sure. Let me try a metaphor. If I were to find myself in a firefight with multiple cops, the best strategy would probably be to throw away my gun and announce my surrender. It would satisfy my preferences better to get charged with assault than to be a corpse full of lead. Still, calling it a "victory" would be a bit of a stretch. Taking a step back, I should probably ask myself what life decisions I took prior to that which lead me to the situation, and re-evaluate them with the benefit of hindsight. Like "why the fuck did I think picking a gunfight with the police was a good idea?"
Iran did not pick this war, Trump did. His deal will be compared to Obama's deal, and it will be found wanting even before taking into consideration all the expenses in materiel and lives to set the table for it.
And removal of sanctions is a Good Thing full stop. Sanctions do not work to change regimes, they work to punish populations.
I am fine with sanctions against Putin (at least since 2022), at least to the degree that it is a voluntary decision by countries not to buy certain resources from the sanctioned party -- obviously Putin should still be free to sell his oil to Cuba, if they want it. A good chunk of the Russian economy is used to support his war of aggression, and it can be more effective to deny him hard funds than to continue to do business with him and buying more weapon systems for Ukraine to counter the effect of his additional funds. The Russian fossil fuel industry is basically the money tap for his clique, so it is hitting the people responsible. By contrast, banning e.g. Russians from OnlyFans would disproportionally hurt sex workers who are not politically responsible for Putin. (I am sure some of the money from the porn industry is also funneled to the oligarchs, but I would be surprised if they managed as large a fraction of the surplus as with fossil fuels.)
quiet_NaN
11d ago
Obligatory source article on weirdness points: LW.
Which makes the "effective" part seem like a lie. Lots of charity involves convincing normies to give you money, and they basically suck at that.
The EA criticism of traditional charity is not that they were ineffective at getting donations. They excel at it, actually.
Likewise, Eliezer might have recruited more people into the ratsphere if he had spent less time writing about quantum mechanics and more time pushing deepities at people.
But both actions would have sacrificed the main selling point. You can not both optimize for pulling people's heartstrings and for the actual impact of your interventions. Do the former and you will turn off the people who are interested in the latter.
Nor can you raise the sanity waterline by using cheap tricks to recruit people into your cult -- you might gain ten times as many members, but you would also turn off the people who you need the most to write on LW.
quiet_NaN
11d ago
People arguing that it's actually good and healthy to have kids around nude adults they or their parents don't know seem extremely alien to me.
Here in old Europe, nude beaches have been a thing since at least 1960, I guess. My understanding is that this is very much non-sexual nudity, generally (probably due to the sand creating friction). I do not think it is especially traumatizing for kids to see naked adults in a context where it is treated as normal.
Presumably, you mean that kids are encouraged at vibecamp, not in the sex tent specifically. I think kids should be definitely shielded from viewing sex at least until they actively start to search for it -- even more if it is strangers fucking who might be into all sorts of kinks.
I also think that it is probably a good idea to keep sex parties and everything else well separate. Bringing your kids even to the anteroom of a sex party -- where the adults are still clothed but the context is already that they will fuck each other -- would seem highly inappropriate.
That being said, I think that it is inevitable that people will hook up at vibecamp. Some will hook up with more than one partner, some even at the same time. There is a difference between the sex being the main attraction and one of the optional sideshows, though. I have been to music festivals which included fetish parties, and it did not end up setting the theme of the overall festival.
Nor is it the only part of vibecamp which may not be kid-friendly. Presumably, Doomers will attend -- as they should. An eight-year-old overhearing a discussion at breakfast where two smart people agree that it is likely that AI will kill all humans within five years will very likely be more affected than one who observed (from his hotel room, or tent or whatever, while he/she should have been long asleep) a few naked people making out during a midnight nude pool party before disappearing in the sex tent. The solution would be not to take out your sex organs or child-inapproriate beliefs where kids can see you. (There might be more child-inappropriate topics apart from sex and doom, perhaps drugs, or horror movies, discussion of wars and so on.)
quiet_NaN
12d ago
If an Islamic terrorist/spy sold a sob story about how Israel is oppressing them, would she be more sympathetic and protective of the Islamist or the Jews?
Funny, if I think a foreign entity illicitly gains access to US classified information through human sources to gain an advantage in the ME conflict, the possibility foremost in my mind is not a pink-haired SJW gave intel to Hamas.
Everyone is a security risk. Immigrants might still have ties to their country of origin. Religious people subscribe to a system of ethics which is not coextensive to US criminal law, and even non-theists might have moral codes which limit their compliance with lawful orders. Anyone might succumb to propaganda about how the US would be better as a commie or fascist state. Anyone involved in the culture war might believe that winning is more important than following the law. Women may be susceptible to love scams, men to hot women who are mysteriously into them. Anthropic is worth almost a trillion dollars, it seems reasonable to assume that the black market value of their models would range at least in the tens of billions. Many people who could not be lured to China by a million or ten might think about defection for this kind of money.
Anthropic has strong financial incentives to stop the weights of their models from leaking. I doubt that a flash drive with all their internal documentation and model weights is gifted to every employee as part of the onboarding process.
quiet_NaN
12d ago
he still outperforms pretty much all of the rest of our expert class.
As a member of the expert class (in the broadest sense), I must object. Trump is not one of us. He does not deal in facts, he deals in narratives. Few people are prouder than he is of his ignorance.
Nor is it clear that he outperforms anyone, let alone the experts. I mean, MAHA did more for measles awareness than the CDC ever did before, but that was likely not intentional. The medicine Nobel for the Paracetamol-autism link is yet another one which the woke Scandinavians deny him.
Free trade is what made the US the economic powerhouse it is today, but perhaps Trump can outperform the free market with his tariffs.
To an outside observer, the Iranian thing looks pretty bad -- botched coup, expensive air war, antagonizing rather than decapitating the regime, etc. But sure, there is a chance that the deal he will make will be much better than the Obama deal and he will get the war Nobel.
quiet_NaN
12d ago
If you are working on sufficiently powerful technology with dual-use applications, then you work for the War Department. There is no option for you to continue your preferred work while licensing only peaceful civilian applications of your product.
There is an ideology which assumes that the political leadership knows best what is good for the people, and that the industry should be subservient to their will.
There is another ideology which is based on the weird conception that people have rights, including the right to to form groups to do stuff in a way which might displease the government.
Most polities will happily strong-arm any and all resources into their survival if they feel their existence is being threatened. But with the former ideology, it is the rule, not the exception.
If you are trying to convince the government that you are not a security risk, do not hire people like this and present them as neutral experts. (No seriously, what the actual fuck were they thinking?)
Oh no, a pink-haired woman. The horror, the horror. She seems a "security risk" in that she likely did not vote for Trump. Surprisingly, that does not make her a North Korean spy.
Anthropic obviously believes that MAGA will not retain total control of the government for long, and that it is therefore not in their best interests to do a lot of ring-kissing.
If you aren't okay with the government using your technology, then don't build it.
Or you could just find a government which is not run by some mafia don in collaboration with some wannabe fascists who reflexively shout "NATIONAL SECURITY!" whenever they don't get their way. It seems unlikely that the Swiss government would use force you to allow them to use your LLM to pick Iranian schools to bomb, for example.
quiet_NaN
13d ago
I think the USG has claimed that there would be no toll for ships to be paid to Iran.
To pass the moving average threshold of the question, you would need 420 ships to transit within a week. At the moment, 2000 ships are stuck. The US has substantial assets in the region and should not take weeks to clean a passage.
Israel vs Hezbollah causing Iran to close the strait again is not a confounder, it is the most probable outcome. When people talk about the peace deal failing, that is exactly the outcome they are thinking of, I imagine. Hormuz is not an irrelevant side clause of the peace deal, it is arguably the most important short term objective for the US.
quiet_NaN
13d ago
Agreed. Obligatory acoup.
quiet_NaN
13d ago
depopulate
That is a pretty strong claim. Per WP, there were 31 IDF soldiers, one demolition worker and two Israeli civilians killed in the war. On the Lebanon/Hezbollah side, there have been over 3700 killed. From the IDF Gaza conduct, I would assume that at least half of them are civilians.
Now I get that this disparity is because Israeli missile defense is rather good, not because Hezbollah is peaceful.
But "depopulate at will" carries a sense of urgency, "we need to act now before most of our population is dead". Palestinians have send rockets towards Israel to little effect and Israel has responded by bombing them with much greater efficiency for longer than I have been alive. It is just the locals on both sides expressing their religions or something. The rational response for Israel would be to shrug and just accept it as a minor inconvenience for the failure to make peace with the Palestinians and settling in the West Bank.
quiet_NaN
13d ago
Polymarket gives a 28% chance that the strait will be open by June 30. If the peace deal is signed on Friday and implemented on Saturday, then that market would resolve to yes after a few days, so it seems fair to say that the market is skeptical that the deal will hold.
I mean, the US, Iran and Pakistan agreeing that an agreement was reached is certainly a new stage, but it seems likely that the deal will still fall through. In particular, Israel can just veto the deal by continuing to bomb Lebanon at the cost of some MAGA goodwill towards Israel which may not be that valuable after the mid-terms.
quiet_NaN
14d ago
If I were in the position of Altman and also uninterested in the utility of humans other than myself, the threat of death would not be enough to deter me, sadly.
Suppose that my odds for ASI are that p(paperclips)=90%, p(Altman aligned)=9%, p(humanity aligned)=1%.
If I do nothing, either someone else builds ASI or I die of old age. Waiting longer before trying for ASI might be good for alignment, but will be bad for me personally if I die before that. Perhaps I get a 15% probability to experience a post singularity utopia like billions of other humans.
If I push forward with my ASI, I have a 9% chance to become God Emperor of the light cone. This is a much nicer outcome for me, because I can shape the universe to my whims, and make sure that socks in sandals do not exist or that most inhabitants are lesbian furries or whatever my aesthetic and moral preferences might be. If I am willing to sacrifice a few percents of my shot at an eternal life for that by building ASI when it is less likely to be aligned, I will probably also be willing to sacrifice a percent of it on the off chance that humanity will decide to kill me to deter me selfishly threatening their survival.
On reflection, I agree with you and @SnapDragon though that the torment nexus disincentive is a cure which is worse than the disease. I trust a humanity-aligned ASI that it will come up with better disincentives. For example, it could just frustrate Altman's general preferences for defecting. Every sentient being will have at least two feet and they will be clothed by socks and sandals, and whole galaxies will be colonized without any lesbian furries in them. And cooperating could be rewarded by giving the people who could have defected some say in the future.
quiet_NaN
14d ago
Sure. This administration is great at making huge announcements which then fall apart in the court system because it turns out that not everything Trump feels he should have the authority to do is something he can actually do. Getting banned by the USG and then getting the ban reversed in court would definitely add to the hype.
quiet_NaN
14d ago
Different Bad Things are different not only in their probability but also in how actionable they are. Your approach applies to things which are not actionable. The probability that the sun blows up tomorrow is not worth worrying about, because there is nothing humans could do which would make a difference. By contrast, a lot of problems humans worry about -- from ASI and global warming to cancer or getting attacked by a bear in the woods -- are actually Bad Things where humans can make decisions which will affect the badness of the outcomes.
The US is not the land of fully unregulated capitalism, nor has is ever been. To a true believer in the free market, if would seem almost as oppressive as Soviet Russia. The list of goods and services whose sale is either forbidden or severely regulated is long. Humans. Human meat. Fentanyl. Sex. Fissile material. Fragmentation grenades. Leaded gasoline. Handguns. Dental services. Loans. Food. Animals. CFCs. Ebola samples. Parts of protected animal species. "If the government makes us pay for the privilege of burning fossil fuels, that is the end of capitalism in America" is a sentiment excusable from a guy living in 1850. For someone living today, it seems strange to claim that all the regulations amassed since WW2 are fine but CO2 emission certificates would be the end of the world.
quiet_NaN
15d ago
I think that Musk and Altman have just convinced themselves that throwing the dice on ASI is worth it for them personally. They might not even be wrong there, putting the creators of ASI into the torment nexus even if ASI remains human-aligned as an acausal disincentive for recklessly betting humanity for personal gains is not widely explored as a strategy, sadly.
I think the USG is acting against Anthropic because Amodei is less of an idiot whisperer than is colleagues, but because his company pissed off the DoD by having limitations on use of their LLMs.
quiet_NaN
16d ago
The problem for Bulgarians [...] is that [...] many of the natives [...] blur into a continuum with the Roma population [...]
I would argue that the actual problem is the racists HBD-proponents who decide to improve the local community life by abusing or attacking people based on their perceived ethnicity.
There is a lesser problem where people use appropriate heuristics based on perceived ethnicity, but this is small fries in comparison. If I were a Bulgarian, I would have a problem with people threatening me because they mistake me for a Roma. If they decide to check every banknote I pay with using UV light I could live with that.
An (Ashkenazi) American Jewish guy I know (who is far more the Trotsky or Woody Allen phenotype than the Levantine Warrior one) was accosted by some people in a small town in East Germany where he was visiting for a wedding by people who assumed he was a migrant of some sort. People are not that good at differentiating races.
Of course, the kind of Germans who would actively accost migrants will likely consider it a happy accident if they end up beating up a Jew instead. (Though more recently, I guess it is also possible that some on the far right admire Israel for what they did in Gaza.)
quiet_NaN
18d ago
As to No immigration or Democracy I will gladly side with No Immigration. Dictatorship just isn’t that bad and it’s mostly American propaganda that makes you fear it.
A dictatorship is like deciding to dismount the brakes on your car to save weight before a road trip, or sharing a needle with a stranger. There is certainly a possibility that it will not be a big deal and you get Park Chung-Hee. There is also the potential for unlimited disaster.
Us Germans have experiences both with dictators and democratic leaders. If I have to choose, I will pick a democratic leader over the coin toss which is a dictator. The worst leader Germany ever had (by pretty much any metric) is mustache guy, with Wilhelm II having worked hard to earn a well-deserved second place.
You are anti-immigration, so you probably hate what Merkel did in 2015. I have lived through it, and I can assure you that it compares to what happened 1939-45 like a sparrow compares to an A380. I will strongly prefer a candidate from a party whose policies I do not share but who is committed to democracy to a candidate whose policies I favor but who would rule as a dictator.
quiet_NaN
19d ago
I think that your analogy is good, but not perfect, because in sports there is actually a rather objective measure of performance. The sport stars who make millions will generally crush amateurs.
With sex workers, just like with with movie actors or wine bottles, there is no clear objective comparison between competitors. It is the realm of taste and fame, whose assignment is illegible.
quiet_NaN
19d ago
This strategy dates back to (at least) the civil disobedience of the civil rights movement (which was tremendously successful).
Basically, you want to be a nuisance. Public attention thrives on controversy. If you are standing peacefully in your assigned corner protesting whatever, people will just ignore you.
Ideally, the state will react widely out of proportion, thereby generating sympathy for your cause.
Ideally though, the cause comes first, and the civil disobedience comes later. I do not watch much Youtube, but I suppose for a lot of youtubers it is the other way round -- the recklessness is their brand, and they are happy to put it in the service of whatever cause.
quiet_NaN
19d ago
Not really. "We" here is a reference to the kind of blue-collar worker @Goodguy was talking about (i.e. someone who puts a lot of their identity into being the kind of person who works hard in a physically demanding job), a demographic which is underrepresented here. If @hydroacetylene's "we" is accurate and he is indeed a regular blue-collar guy, he is providing the Motte with useful information we wouldn't otherwise have access to.
Ok, I missed that context.
To be fair, what Trump did to his NATO allies was much less of a betrayal than the move Israel is now pulling. If he had invaded Greenland or made a deal where Putin gets to invade the Baltic countries without US interference, that would be in a much more similar ballpark.
The US has been waging war against Iran on behalf of Israel. Israel considers Iran to be a threat to their existence (not entirely without reason, though at this point who is ultimately responsible for the bad blood between them is akin to the hen-egg-problem).
If you call on your big brother to help you in a fight, that means that you are conceding control of the fight. Of course, a smart elder brother would refuse to fight for a younger sibling just itching for blood, and consider that their sibling will likely throw their interests completely under the bus, but that does not make Israel's behavior less bad.
More options
Context Copy link