self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
I'm a transhumanist doctor. In a better world, I wouldn't need to add that as a qualifier to plain old "doctor". It would be taken as granted for someone in the profession of saving lives.
At any rate, I intend to live forever or die trying. See you at Heat Death!
Friends:
A friend to everyone is a friend to no one.
User ID: 454
In Santiago Posteguillo's immensely popular Saga of Julius Caesar, Caesar is portrayed as a paragon of virtue who protects the poor and also is god's gift to women in bed, while his enemies, namely Sulla, are portrayed as twist sex-fiends who get off to young boys getting whipped and just want to oppress people for fun. Posteguillo's even more famous Africanus trilogy is just as bad, with Scipio subbed in for Caesar, and Fabius Maximus for Sulla.
I'll chime in to say that one of my favorite series of novels, Masters of Rome by McCollough, does a far more faithful rendition of Sulla. I remember consulting Wikipedia and LLMs about the veracity of several of the claims made about him, and was pleasantly surprised. Sure, several aspects, such as his rumored affair with his step-mother or the murder of his wives for gain, or potential affection for younger boys, might be slander by his political successors, but he was generally portrayed as an understandably flawed human, only larger than life in the way that people who make their marks on posterity tend to be.
Caesar? I suspect it's more of a mixed bag, and I haven't looked into it that much. McCullough presents him as a prodigy from birth, charming but principled, a favorite with the ladies, but that doesn't strike me as being a poor description of Caesar. Once again, just look at his more well-documented deeds.
Even if McCullough might lean to a more flamboyant interpretation of their lives, she's highly respected for her scholarship. You can tell that the lady Thought of Rome more often than all but the most ardent Romaboos today, counting myself in their numbers. She almost never makes anything up from whole cloth, and substitutes period-accurate guesses for aspects of daily life with verisimilitude. Further, I think that for historical characters as distant as Caesar and Sulla, any novel that isn't just a history textbook must take liberties with the truth, or at the very least, choose which historical interpretation to assume. There are tiers to this, and sliding scales for historical fidelity. I don't consider her behavior to be ahistorical at all, and historical fiction does have more leeway than an actual history.
I heartily endorse all the books, the first two are absolutely up there with the best fiction I've read.
Edit:
Given the discussion below on how truly historical depictions wouldn't be tolerable for modern audiences, I think the novel is an existence proof to the contrary. The Romans were simultaneously extremely modern in their sensibilities (we did try and intentionally resurrect quite a bit of their culture, every wonder why it's called a Senate?), but they were also alien. The book doesn't shy away from showing absolute brutality taken for granted by the people of the time, nor does it lie about their attitudes to physics and metaphysics being very far from our own. But the peoples of the past are still human, many of their prides, joys, sorrows and ambitions are recognizable to us today. And the novels do a better job at selling that than anything else I can name.
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
1d ago
I did say that this was just one of many arguments for pro-natalism, but others have done a good job of advocating for them, and I won't rehash them.
I do not mean to claim that children are necessarily the most sound financial instrument you can invest in to ensure a comfortable retirement. That's probably not true today, at least, you'd probably get a higher yield from investing in the stock market instead of child care and education for your kids.
For what that's worth, that was unlikely to have been the case in the past. Passive investing with returns good enough to retire on, at low risk is a phenomenon that is maybe a few hundred years old, and only decades in certain parts of the world. For the average peasant (and most of your ancestors, and mine, were average peasants), children represented the most secure investment they could make. Both in the distant future, and in the medium term, your field could always use another farmhand. It's no accident that widespread automation of physical labor coincided with a drastic decline in fecundity.
Of course average lifespans tell a misleading story due to infant mortality, but if someone was truly bedridden they would not survive long. Modern society finds people in their 60s fit to continue working, and it's likely that the ancients felt the same, until the elderly rapidly dropped dead.
That's going too far in the other direction. Family is immensely useful to have around when you're sick in many cases. A bad flu, or a broken leg, for common examples. Children are family you make, and if you're looking after ailing parents or siblings, well, they're children someone else related to you made.
Even today, even if you're wealthy while you're old and infirm, there are few people you can trust more than your own children. I've seen bad actors and elder abuse, but they're clearly in the minority. Most kids genuinely hold affection for their parents and act as good guardians when the familial contract flips around.
Of course this is the real reason. But the question is whether or not it's truly true, versus a deception.
It's true for the majority of people, the majority of the time. Parents sacrifice a lot for their children, even in circumstances where they could get away with doing less without catastrophic social consequences. If that isn't revealed preference (for those inclined to parenthood), I don't know what possibly counts. And even a lot of people more lukewarm on the idea report "a switch being flipped", where suddenly they become far more driven and determined to protect their kids from harm and ensure their well-being.
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
1d ago
As someone who had ADHD (obvious even as a kid, the diagnosis was delayed by willful ignorance on my parent's part, though I've forgiven them now) and was subject to corporal punishment for doing ADHD things, I assure you that the drugs are more effective, and better in the longterm.
(I also happen to think that mild corporal punishment is fine, and that society overreacted when it came to bands. It was just more socially acceptable to the point of being unremarkable when I was growing up)
This is the worst kind of hyperbole. No, someone saying they're not that into their kids isn't subject to the same degree of social ostracism as actual rapists or pedophiles. C'mon dude.
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
1d ago
Having kids is one of the worst things you can do to your short term happiness, up there with getting addicted to heroin or getting in a motorcycle accident.
I believe that for a many values of "short" in "short term happiness", heroin would help.
I invert your argument: my contention is that children are the opposite of heroin, you're trading short term comfort for long-term satisfaction.
Your analysis fails because it assumes that the purpose of a human life is to remain in a state of homeostatic bliss until you flatline. It assumes that "happiness" is defined solely by the absence of friction. If the goal of life were simply to minimize suffering and maximize relaxation we should all just hook ourselves up to morphine drips and gently pass away in a warm bath.
This is the philosophy of the last man. It is the worldview of a creature that has mistaken the safety of the zoo for the purpose of existence.
I have many reasons for wanting children. But the one that's the most stark, and relatively recent, is watching the elderly die.
It's rarely fun, dying. Especially of old age and the baggage train it brings with it. But the ones who die least painfully are those with children and grandchildren to mourn them, and remember them long after they're gone. I've seen many people die bitter and unloved, looked after by attendants paid minimum wage and providing minimal care. It's not like having children guarantees comfort in your last days, god knows that quite a few people have few qualms about sending granny to rot in a care home, and many more do have qualms but are forced by circumstance.
Still, I know which option I'd prefer. I have the fortune to not be a hypocrite: my grandfather isn't quite on his death bed, but in his late 90s, the difference is marginal. It's probably the bed he's going to die on, assuming we don't need to change the wheels after our dog gnawed on it. He's not going for a jog or getting the mattress changed. But he's at home, surrounded by family, and loved. All endings are sad endings, but I expect his will be less sad than most. Good luck getting any of that without a family in the first place.
The childless elderly don't just face worse deaths. They face worse lives in the decades leading up to death. Your 70s and 80s, if you're lucky enough to be healthy, are not years of adventure and self-actualization. They are years of watching your friends die, your body deteriorate, and your cultural relevance evaporate. The things that gave your life meaning when you were 30 or 40 or even 60 have largely evaporated. Your career is over. Your relationship with your spouse, if you still have one, has likely settled into comfortable routine or quiet resentment. Your hobbies persist but with diminished intensity.
What doesn't evaporate is family. Your children are still there. Your grandchildren are growing up. You have people who need you, not in the desperate dependency of infancy, but in the gentler ways that adult children need their parents. Advice, support, connection to the past, a sense of continuity. You have a reason to get up in the morning that isn't just "I haven't died yet."
You seem to think that the choice is between a life of relaxation and fulfillment versus a life of drudgery and misery. But this badly misunderstands the actual choice on offer. The choice is between a life arc that resembles an inverted parabola versus one that resembles a cliff.
With children: your 20s and 30s are hard. You're building a career, raising kids, sleeping four hours a night, and wondering if you'll ever feel like a human being again. Your 40s get easier as the kids become more independent. Your 50s and 60s are potentially quite good. You have grandchildren but without the grinding responsibility of primary care. You have adult children who are friends and companions. You have purpose and connection. Your 70s and 80s, while inevitably diminished by age, are softened by family.
Without children: your 20s and 30s are great. You have freedom, money, time. You can travel, pursue hobbies, sleep in on weekends. Your 40s and 50s continue this trend, perhaps with even more money and stability. And then somewhere in your 60s or 70s, you drive off a cliff. Everyone you know starts dying or moving away or becoming too old to do things with. You have no natural support system. You have no one whose life you're intrinsically woven into. You have resources but nothing to use them for. You have time but no one to spend it with.
Yes, parents complain about parenting. They make jokes about needing wine. They talk about how hard it is. But they also, when you actually ask them, report that their children are the most important and meaningful parts of their lives. They have more children. They encourage their own children to have children. They don't act like people who made a terrible mistake and are trying to trap others into the same fate.
The simpler explanation is that parenting is both genuinely hard and genuinely meaningful. That it involves real sacrifices and real rewards. That the rewards are not the same kind as a good night's sleep or an uninterrupted brunch, but they're rewards nonetheless.
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
2d ago
Sounds good to me. We officially on?
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
2d ago
I feel like the cure is worse than the disease
– A sufferer
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
2d ago
I love a woman who will literally just kill me, then dance on my corpse.
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
2d ago
I don't think we have juries here, but that's a nitpick. Those rules sound fine, though I'll note that I'd want the money myself instead of a donation to a charity, though I'd donate if necessary. And if that's the case, it has to be a charity that is legal to donate to in the UK, our free speech norms are a tad limited.
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
3d ago
I'll eat my hat if they were anywhere a majority. I'm far more inclined to believe that polling would show something very close to Lizardman's constant.
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
3d ago
Man (pun not initially intended), I've never felt like "being" a man, nor have I ever felt tempted to become a woman. I wouldn't hit the magic button, I'm content the way I am.
I have a masculine personality and stereotypically male interests. I'm very good at the touchy-feel stuff when I can be arsed (I had a bunch of female friends, even if I had more male friends overall), but I prefer the way men talk to other men. Being a woman also comes with severe inconveniences in the form of periods. And here I was feeling bad for myself after getting migraines once every few months.
When I contemplate changing my body, I envision becoming taller, stronger or more handsome (and escaping from the prison of my flesh)—more masculine—I've never even desired to be twinkish, let alone feminine.
At the end of the day, I don't feel like I have some kind of pointer in my head that affirms my male personality. If I turned into a woman by means either magical or Indistinguishable From It Science, I'd just do the same things I already do. There's no gender dysphoria or euphoria, there just is.
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
3d ago
any human
Does that include people with Down's Syndrome? Outright and obvious diseases aside, I can think of plenty of people who are so unpleasant/pointless to talk to that I'd speak to an AI any day instead. And even within AI, there are models that I'd prefer over the alternatives.
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
4d ago
I've been... lazy in that regard. Far too much money in my account that's not accruing interest. But yes, that's a factor. I also earn an OOM more than I did back India, which definitely helps. If I was less lazy, I'd have put most of my money in the S&P500 by now, but I've already put myself in a much better place than if I'd been complacent about things.
I don't expect that this will necessarily make me rich in relative terms, I'm starting too low, too late. But I want enough of a safety net to survive in comfort for the (potential) period of unemployment when AI eats my profession whole, before we implement solutions such as UBI. Not starving, not dying in a riot, all of that is important to me.
I'm probably in the 99.99th percentile for doctors (or anyone else) when it comes to the use of AI in the workplace. I estimate I could automate 90% of my work (leaving aside the patient facing stuff and things that currently require hands and a voice) if I could.
The main thing holding me back? NHS IT, data protection laws and EMR software that still has Windows XP design language. This means I'm bottlenecked by inputting relevant informant into an AI model (manually trawling the EMR, copying and pasting information, taking screenshots of particularly intransigent apps) and also transferring the output into the digital record.
The AIs are damn good at medicine/psychiatry. Outside my own domain, I have a great deal of (justified) confidence in their capabilities. I've often come to take their side when they disagree with my bosses, though the two are usually in agreement. I've used them to help me figure out case presentations ("what would a particularly cranky senior ask me about this specific case?" and guess what they actually asked?), giving me a quick run-down on journal publications, helping me figure out stats, sanity checking my work, helping decide an optimal dose of a drug etc. There's very little they can't do now.
That's the actual thinky stuff. A lot of my time is eaten up by emails, collating and transcribing notes and information, and current SOTA models can do these in a heartbeat.
To an extent, this is an artifact of resident doctors often being the ward donkey, but I'm confident that senior clinicians have plenty to gain or automate away. The main reason they don't is the fact that they're set in their ways. If you've prescribed every drug under the sun, you don't need to pop open the BNF as often as a relative novice like me would - that means far less exploration of what AI can do for you. Yet they've got an enormous amount of paperwork and regulatory bullshit to handle, and I promise it can be done in a heartbeat.
Hell, in the one hospital where I get to call the shots (my dad's, back in India), I managed to cut down enormous amounts of work for the doctors, senior or junior. Discharges and summaries that would take half a day or more get done in ten minutes, and senior doctors have been blown away by the efficiency and quality gains.
Most doctors are at least aware of ChatGPT, even if the majority use whatever is free and easy. I'm still way ahead of the curve in application, but eventually the human in the loop will be vestigial. It's great fun till they can legally prescribe, at which point, RIP human doctors.
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
4d ago
ChatGPT isn’t so different from, say, Jarvis in Iron Man (or countless other AIs in fiction), and the median 90-100IQ person may even have believed in 2007 that technology like that actually existed “for rich people” or at least didn’t seem much more advanced than what they had.
Eh? I'm very confident that's wrong. Normies might not appreciate the impact of ChatGPT and co to the same degree, but I strongly doubt that they literally believed that there was human-level AI in 2021. AGI was science fiction for damn good reason, it didn't exist, and very, very few people expected we'd see it or even precursors in the 2020s. Jarvis was scifi, and nobody believed that something like Siri was in the same weight-class.
To shift focus back to your main thesis: the normie you describe is accustomed and acclimatized to being average. Bitter experience has proven to them that they're never going to be an "intellectual" and that their cognitive and physical labor is commoditized. It's unlikely that being the smartest person in the room (or in spitting distance) is an experience they're familiar with. Hence they have less to lose from a non-human competitor who dominates them in that department.
On the other hand, their average Mottizen is used to being smart, and working in a role where it's not easy to just grab a random person off the street to replace them. That breeds a certain degree of discomfort at the prospect. I've made my peace, and I'm going to do what I can to escape the (potential) permanent underclass. It would be nice to have a full, accomplished career with original contributions to my professional field or the random topics I care about, but I'll take a post-scarcity utopia if I can get it.
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
4d ago
Call me an optimist, but if we're talking about a civilization capable of rendering the observable universe at our perceived level of fidelity, I think they've got that handled.
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
4d ago
Why not? The question was whether small tweaks in the sim parameters might have catastrophic effects. Being able to revert to an earlier save or checkpoint is useful either way.
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
4d ago
It's okay, I'm sure they've got rolling backups.
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
4d ago
The Culture series? The Golden Oecumene, for a slightly different take on a post-scarcity utopia.
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
4d ago
I was visiting my psychiatrist uncle while his dad was over. As part of Standard Indian Hospitality, they tried offloading their spare wardrobe onto me. This included a pair of high-waisted grandpa trousers.
I'm sold. They're surprisingly comfy, look good on me, and go with everything. Highly recommend.
The incredibly loud and sequined suits? Less so, but you take the good with the bad.
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
4d ago
I can nominate @ArjinFerman or @Corvos, if they're willing to accept. I'd be happy to not bother with an escrow if you're fine with it, given the lower sums involved.
My proposed terms are clear concessions on an acquittal or conviction, and if this somehow doesn't resolve in 2 years, a general throwing up of hands and acceptance that we're never getting to the bottom of this.
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
4d ago
I don't see how this disagrees with anything I've said?
The hypothetical example you've presented is probably more cut-and-dry than anything we've seen here. I suspect that it would actually be more likely to end in a conviction than you think, judges do not regularly do Bayesian calcs in court.
A guilty verdict is very strong evidence of guilt. A verdict of 'not proven' is very weak evidence of factual innocence (as opposed to legal innocence).
I agree, in fact I alluded to the same. If a video came out showing an assault by the accused and without a conviction (as unlikely as that is), then I'd be willing to accept that in lieu of a favorable legal verdict.
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
4d ago
keep in mind your original argument rested on nothing more than statements from the police, not official charges, or an actual convction
Hmm? I don't think that's the case. I also heavily stressed what can only be described as "local sentiment", perhaps priors, in addition to the official story. The locals (debatably including me) thought it's more likely than not.
For example:
My own priors, which seem to match those of most actual Scots I’ve spoken to, lean toward a more mundane explanation.
and how you portrayed anyone unconvinced by your arguments as unreasonable.
That is not true. I think I made a strong argument, but I also acknowledge:
I would like to believe that this clarification settles things, but I am also not naïve. If your epistemic filter is tuned to maximum paranoia, then the absence of evidence is merely further evidence of a cover-up. For everyone else, the police statement, local skepticism, and sociological context should nudge your priors at least a little.
In other words, as a Bayesian, my opinion is that you should at the very least be slightly swayed by the argument. That is not the same as thinking that anyone who disagrees with me is unreasonable. There are actual people (living breathing humans) who are immune to any argument, probably including divine intervention. My scorn is largely reserved for them.
Similarly, the article you shared has meaningfully moved my posteriors. Back then, I expect that if anyone asked, I'd say I'm 80-90% confident of a lack of guilt, and now I've moved down to 70%. That is precisely the kind of update in the face of new evidence that I endorse and respect. Hence why I do it myself.
I expect that if a conviction is secured, I'd jump to maybe a 90% certainty that I was wrong, and if they're acquitted, then back up to 90% confidence of being correct. Feel free to tag me if something happens, since I don't really read the BBC that often.
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
4d ago
I'm not sure I trust you enough to hold up your end of the bargain. If, for the sake of example, it was @ArjinFerman offering, I'd take it, though I'd prefer smaller sums like £50:25 since I don't care that much. If you're willing to go through the hassle of finding someone to use as an escrow, while using crypto (which is hassle on my part), sure.
If not, I care about my reputation and epistemics to happily accept being proven wrong, if and when I'm proven wrong.
It can be simultaneously true that ADHD is overdiagnosed (in the US) and that it is a "real" condition. My point is that corporal punishment is still the inferior option, though I recognize it as a valid option.
The symptoms of ADHD have enormous overlap with being a "difficult child". What else better sums up absent-mindedness, hyperactivity etc? Stimulants aren't a class of drug that only helps people with ADHD, not like antipsychotics being of minimal benefit to the average person (it can make the insane sane, but it can't make the sane supersane).
In general, they can be quite effective for anyone. They're popular as study-aids for a reason, there are few people who don't benefit from increased attention and focus, even if their baseline is adequate. They are also quite safe, especially when used as prescribed. A world where the tradeoff is children who don't quite meet the ideal cutoff for ADHD (a highly clinical and discretionary diagnosis already) end up on meds while those who also "actually" need them also do is fine. It's not going to burn out their brain or give them cancer fifty years down the line. They probably end up getting better grades.
In other words, drift and expansion of ADHD diagnosis and treatment is about as benign as it gets. It's nowhere near as bad as a hypothetical world where every sad kid gets a diagnosis of depression and receives SSRIs, or is diagnosed with schizophrenia after mentioning an imaginary friend. The reader may substitute their own feels on gender dysphoria and affirmative care.
More options
Context Copy link