@self_made_human's banner p

self_made_human

amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi

15 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 05:31:00 UTC

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

self_made_human

amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi

15 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 05:31:00 UTC

					

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

Hey, I have the same thing as well...

.... maybe. This is a very bad time to be fishing for compliments, at least from me. I do not doubt you can write well, or that you are capable of making high effort, good-faith arguments. With no comment on the former, I would prefer to see more of the latter.

Also, you have been warned for LLM-baiting in the past. I would advise, for the health and longevity of your current account, that you do not try this experiment without talking to us mods first.

I think your link might be broken. Leads to a dead reddit link.

My understanding of current consensus is that entirely or majority LLM written posts are banned.

The problem is that there is no consensus beyond that. If we had a rule, informal or not, that a suspected X% of AI is the cutoff for action, I would enforce that, even if I think that the acceptable value of X is larger than most.

Ah, well done.

Now, what did I tell you about agreeing with or complimenting me? It keeps me up at night, or so I'd say, if my sleep cycle wasn't shot and if I wasn't already the consumer of a cup of strong coffee.

I mostly believe you. Mostly. And mostly because you are the honest kind of criminal, once we have you in the lockup - you're usually kind enough to submit a written confession before we need to pull out the nightsticks or stage a shoot-out.

It would be... nice, of course, if you did that proactively without needing the trip in the police van. Have you seen gas prices these days? But I can't hold that against you, because I only disclose the usage of AI when required or when someone asks.

Go on. Shoo. Live to see another sunset, or continue giving Anthropic engineers a headache. I think that if the other mods were likely to act, they would have acted. I leave that door open for them, if they so choose.

I did not even need the "main paragraph" to know what he did, it's obvious to me, and probably other people who do use LLMs a lot. I don't doubt that you noticed too. I do not think that his "explanation" is unbelievable, but do forgive me if my reaction to him offering me a sealed bottle of water is to send it off for chemical analysis. If he hadn't admitted to it, I would have banned him. He did admit to it, so I am not sure what to do. I am slightly annoyed none of the other moderators have stepped in and taken the problem out of my hands, but can't blame them for that. My inner conflict is my own, and I am genuinely unsure if more moderation effort is required beyond telling him "We know what you're up to."

I noticed it immediately because, I’m sorry to say, it read a lot like some of the things you’ve written recently in style and tone. The rest was a mix, but clearly quite a lot was written or rewritten by him.

I know. I noticed and found it deeply uncomfortable. If it makes you feel better, I've already dialed downed the usage of AI for stylistic advice or editing significantly, because I've increasingly come around to the people who think that that it dilutes my own voice and personality. That, by itself, would not have been enough, but I've noticed other people doing the same thing in the wild: I do not want the primary difference between Count and myself to be the arguments we make, with our style and tone being similar.

Dialing down is, of course, not zero. But you can see how my most recent long-form post is more "me" in style than what came before. This is a recent development, mere weeks. I don't think I did anything morally wrong, but I do not want to become part of a homogeneous blob of writers with pleasant but startlingly similar prose.

For the rest of your points? I don't disagree. We will soon be unable to tell. I'm lucky that I have a digital record predating LLMs that I can point at to show that I don't need them as a crutch or as a total replacement, more as a regular tool or aide. But that is not a binary matter either.

I did got to the gym twice last week, so I breathe a sigh of relief.

This was an excellent essay, a worthy indulgence for the sin of a few dozen shitposts.

I wonder what your take on AI-assisted writing is. No particular reason, of course, though you might want to look at my mod-hatted reply.

Count. My good sir.

I know someone using an LLM when I see it. I know you've used one. The issue is that I do not know it you were lazy and simply typed a short prompt and got Claude (in all likelihood) to do all the work, or if you shared a draft and had it edit it for you. Or something in between.

Why? Because I use them everyday. I can smell it. I also know that some effort was made to not make it glaringly obvious, but it takes a thief to catch one, at least depending on how busy/lazy the police are.

I suspect you might deserve a warning or a ban for this. The only reason I'm not doing it is because I genuinely do not know if you have used it in the manner I use it, which is minimally and doing the bulk of the labor. There are no facts here to fact check, per se, at least not in an objective sense, or I'd look for hallucinations.

Untouched by the light as you are since birth, I still wish to extend you a little charity and benefit of doubt, though I worry even that's too much. I am too tired to even get into the weeds of this, or at least how I pick up on the tells. But not too tired to not throw your post in Pangram, which says this is 17% AI. Nor too tired to remind everyone that I have used Pangram on my own edited writing and in semi-formal experimentation, and noticed that it has few false positives but many false negatives, including underestimating the degree of AI contribution. I'd eat my non-existent hat if a mere 17% of the post came from an AI. The issue is that I do not know if was 20% or 90%.

Unlike you, I feel little need to feel morally unclean because I have a pretty clean track record of good-faith, high effort engagement well before LLMs, and also because I disclose my usage to whoever asks, if I've used one to any degree. You really ought to understand that we're not the same, at least in my eyes. You still benefit from my fear of hypocrisy or error.

When all of God's Creations sing in heaven, won't a shitposter be part of the choir?

So I won't do anything. At least not right now. If the other moderators step in and whack you, I will defer to them. Alternatively, if they're busy, I will assess general sentiment and act accordingly when I'm back. I am genuinely okay with anything from tolerance, to a warning, to any kind of ban. You belong in a museum or a zoo, maybe a zoological museum. I'd pay for entry.

Call the cops. Definitely seek the hold, but cops first. Share as much evidence as you, she's at serious risk to herself.

@Throwaway05 or @reo might be able to provide more specific advice. I hope they show up quickly enough to help. I still think my approach is for the best, based off what I know.

Mod hat on:

As general advice, it's a bad idea to post on the front page if you need people to see it immediately. It'll be stuck in the filter by default until a mod allows it through, which we don't see (the post shows up for us, we have to specifically check the filtered list). You're lucky I checked right now.

Also, I would personally excuse this post on the grounds of emergency, but I do not know if the other mods would, at least on general principle. This is not a new standard I'm setting on behalf of everyone else.

Mod hat off:

I'm going to write a reply as a normal user. It seems serious.

Edit:

In hindsight, I should have written the second comment first. I'm tired and barely thinking straight after being up all night studying. Thankfully it cost all of 30 seconds, so I won't lose much sleep over it. Consider this an apology nonetheless. My priorities were out of wack.

Also, for anyone else in a genuine emergency, probably post in the CWR thread too. More likely to be seen by someone, hopefully someone who can help. I don't care, personally, if it's not actual CWR material, at least if it's a real emergency.

The subreddit is nice, albeit too quiet for my taste. The actual comment section on the ACX Substack? Pure sensory hell for me, in the sense that the terrible UI and UX makes me never quite feel like writing there. I could and should, in the sense that's a good way for me to get a boost in popularity in exchange for effort, but it's just that bad. And I'm the kind of person who begrudgingly uses the reddit mobile app, even if it's a hacked and modified version.

That is a claim not incompatible with HBD-adherents still being witches. Just, at least in the US, the kind of witch that has the power to cast a few spells if you get too uppity with the pitchfork. Good change, we need more descendants of the witches-you-couldn't-burn.

I would rather hang myself, or take some of you guys with me (this is a joke, and not just for legal reasons).

What I like/love about this place is that it hasn't divorced itself from its rationalist roots entirely. Sure, it's drifted to the point where I'd personally label the Motte as rat-adjacent; yet it retains the important things - like, the popularity of clear arguments and good epistemics makes it one of the few places I care to interact with the internet. Minus any pretense of Standard Rationalist Rules For Discourse, this place would become indistinguishable from 4chan or X in a week.

If you ever storm off declaring you're not coming back and then don't return within a few months: I'll have to check the obituaries. I say this with some degree of affection, even though we rarely see eye to eye.

The Motte and the CWR thread it birthed from, arose at a time when, on Reddit and other social platforms, expressing extreme LW opinions in most places was deemed acceptable or popular, and extreme RW views had a good chance of getting you banned.

The Motte offered a safe space, but one with a value proposition that was more attractive to the disenfranchised. This informed our starting pool, which skewed RW even if it had a large number of centrists or more heterogeneous thinkers.

I agree with netstack below that there are other strong selection effects in terms of openness to ideas, inclination to debate, and ability to be polite. I'll gloss over that.

We skew to the right of /r/SSC, our ancestor, and to the right of the typical subreddit, at least the ones that weren't founded for the purposes of gathering around RW views.

And this is... fine? At least for me. I am an Enlightened Centrist, but the based kind, where the dots on the political compass that represent my individual views form a circle with the center at the intersection point of all quadrants.

I'm the annoying type of person that usually looks at the two polarized sides of a debate and says they both make valid points. From my perspective, the average Mottizen is to my right. But I don't care, I know that the typical liberal or leftist is more eager to burn me at the stake for wrongthink or being some kind of right-wing fanatic. Adversity makes for strange but reasonable bedfellows, the kind you can trust to take out the trash. If I didn't like talking to the mix of people here almost all the time, I'd go find some other place to mentally-masturbate.

Freddie is mentally ill, and with no malice intended, it can show in some of his writing. Amadan is the polar opposite, he's even and calm-tempered to a degree I find impressive, concerning or mildly-intimidating. It takes a lot to piss him off, or to even see him lower his standards. We could use him as a benchmark for "sanity".

Reminds me, I need to take my pills or @faceh is going to make me his tulpa.

Of note, Indians that work in corporate America in the US is a powerful filter on who you hear from.

The ones in Silicon Valley are the most notorious for it online, at the very least. I don't work in SF or in tech, or even happen to live in America, so I have no idea if it's actually common, but most other Indians not in India don't care very much. The 2nd gen ones hardly care at all.

I've stopped thinking about it entirely since I've left the country, though as my reply above will show, I haven't changed my actual views on the topic. It's good to get away with not caring, instead of it being a constant handicap or shackle around my ankles like in India.

We don't really have many active Indians who have mentioned they are Indian here. From memory, it's just me and @DirtyWaterHotDog, after Vanilla left (apologies to anyone who I've forgotten, if they exist).

Vanilla was an interesting character, there are plenty of right-wing leaning Hindu-nationalist casteists in India, though I have the good fortune of knowing very few of them. As painful as it is to admit, I think it's probably true that there exist significant disparities in IQ between castes in India. I'm far from upper caste, and just above the threshold where I'd be lower-caste and entitled to affirmative action.

Speaking of said AA: I loathe it with every fiber of my being. It deprived me of the opportunity to enroll in a better med school despite decent grades and exam results. I was entirely caste-blind my entire life until that point, because I was Westernized enough to simply not care (and my family were socially liberal). The immense resentment that developed afterwards is mostly gone, because I managed to escape to a place where caste had no bearing, where everyone's performance was judged on the grounds of the performance itself.

I understand why the upper castes are mad about things, even if I'm lower-middle caste (I lack a better word for it). This AA is ruinous in India, and many have fled to the West to get away from it, even if that wasn't my primary motivation. From a purely Bayesian perspective, these mostly upper caste Indians are probably right to think that the lower castes who benefit from quotas are dumber than them on average. Should they import their casteism and rage to a Western context? Probably not. I don't. But someone who got into an IIT on the basis of caste is not of the same quality as another candidate who didn't. It might be an inscrutable and impenetrable quibble to a white recruiter in SF, but Indians from India would know better.

I consider myself fortunate not to have to worry or particularly care about it anymore, and note that I would never have if it wasn't wielded against me or used for demagoguery and identity politics.

And when everyone dogpiled on self_made_human for using AI to slopify his posts I didn't see any mods rushing to rescue him even though he's both Indian and a mod himself.

Neither did I. Amadan was one of the critics himself, and while I still advocate for my approach to LLM use, I took his dislike of it seriously. Far more than I would the average resident doing a drive-by. Negative feedback from someone I like and respect (despite his concerning takes on Reverend Insanity) means much more to me than anything thrown by the peanut gallery. I think his response, namely ignoring or skimming most of my posts, is a far more reasonable one than people calling for any LLM usage to be banned or slinging insults at me. I endorse the general principle, I agree that for many topics on this forum: if you don't like it, don't read it, instead of bitching about it.

(This has a limit. SS gets warned for joo-posting when he becomes one note. It is good for him that he tries to spice up his repertoire on occasion, though his true passion and calling still bleeds through.)

Hell, since the initial kerfuffle, I even ended up using LLMs less for editing purposes and stylistic purposes. My self-imposed standards include that if people are noticing and mentioning AI influence in my prose (regardless of their stance on it), then I've lost too much of my original voice and character. Or perhaps I took it even more seriously because people who appear intelligent and discriminate and who gave me positive feedback mentioned they noticed in passing. Even if they don't mind, I do. I like my voice, even if I think AI helps me in practical ways.

I share your distaste. Once, many years ago, when my depression was first being treated, my mother acquired a therapist for me - she was a deeply religious elderly lady who wanted me to attempt guided meditation while focusing on mental imagery of Krishna/Ganesh/any other Indian god I utterly lack belief in. This started an argument, and resulted in a compromise where I focused on something more neutral, I think it was visualizing a flame or focusing on my breathing.

Still not helpful. I didn't like her at all, but I did give it an honest try. I just ended up extremely bored and eager to get it over with.

(I usually suggest that men get a male therapist. I haven't looked at serious evidence, but I think that's probably a better fit on average. More likely to be able to relate to your problems and empathize better, while being less touchy-feel in favor of sharing concrete advice.)

I get the same reaction on the rare occasion I've interacted with or been exposed to other forms of guided meditation, you know the stuff on YouTube which involves someone with a calming voice yapping away. If it works for others, good for them, but I can't stand it. I could get behind mindfulness meditation, at least in theory, but I didn't find it helpful either.

That is a claim I find even more confusing. I can kinda sorta understand the reasoning behind claims that we are biased against left/right wingers if I squint, not that I think those accusations have much merit either.

(The RW claim we extend affirmative action to Leftists, the LW claims we go easy on the Right because that is the Forum Consensus)

But Indians? Really? I have no idea where that's coming from, and I think your handling of KMC's previous warning was perfect, and that you would have done the same thing for any other ethnic group. I wouldn't have touched it (not that I had the opportunity to before you did, as far as I remember) because of the potential of coming across as having a conflict of interest.

(As I've said before, Zorba's moderati must be above reproach)

People write negative comments about Indians all the time. I have done my fair share of criticism, even though I also come to our defense when I feel that the criticism is unfair/factually incorrect. Usually, that amounts to politely reminding people that India is not sub-Saharan Africa, and that assuming similar levels of dysfunction or dirt is unwarranted. Can't say I've ever modded anyone for insulting us either, though I do recall you warning Hlynka for being blatantly racist against me years ago (an opinion shared by others in writing). If I can't get away with claiming that I am extremely non-partisan about my place of birth when I have multiple comments discussing its dysfunction (or acknowledging that claims of an average IQ in the low 80s have evidence), who can?

I genuinely consider my ethnicity to be mostly incidental trivia about me, at least when it comes to my most important opinions and beliefs. I can't really help being Indian, can I, but I am nothing like the modal Indian in India, or even the other lucky bastards who made it to the West.

Eh. People will always have grievances. Some more factually warranted than others. I feel like this one can be safely ignored, while I make a cursory wave in the direction of potential personal bias while denying actual bias.

So, your theory of mind is that I go extra-hard on anti-Indian comments because I am (kinda sorta in a distant online way) friends with @self_made_human?

I wish. I'd settle for you going easier on me in particular, but I will note that every time we've had a disagreement (or the one time you temp banned me before I became a mod), I thought you had a good point.

On a more general note, there is little need to demonstrate favoritism towards the mods here. They were chosen because they were considered a good fit for the community and have a record of the kind of engagement we're looking for (and of course because they're willing to devote the time and energy). It is little surprise that we're not the ones usually needing to be slapped with warnings or bans, and even when we do mess up, it's usually a temporary lapse that is addressed through internal channels. The overwhelming majority of the time we end up in a fight, it was provoked by someone less sympathetic.

This is easy to mistake for favoritism towards us and harsher punishment for those we dislike, but I do not think it's true. We usually recuse ourselves from weighing in on moderation decisions when we believe that our judgement is clouded because of personal antipathy, or even because us taking action will convey the impression of a vendetta.

In the context of meditation? Any implication that the benefits require a spiritual or religious explanation, and not merely an empirical/materialist one.

I have never succeeded at meditating, or at least getting anything out of it. You can blame my ADHD for that. But there is decent scientific evidence that it works for the purposes of improving mental health, and people I trust/respect, like Scott, endorse it (albeit stripped of the woo).

I believe that meditation is a means of both interrogating the underlying processes of the brain, as well as modifying it through intention or simply as a consequence of the practice (which might have unintended consequences). As an analogy: meditation sometimes does the equivalent of gaining super-user access to an operating system, or even the ability to tinker with the firmware. You get to examine all/more running processes than are normally available to your conscious attention. Kinda like comparing looking at the programs open on the task bar vs opening up Task Manager.

You are, in effect, forcing your mind to pay attention to itself. You might notice aspects of your consciousness and subconscious that you do not normally acknowledge. You might be able to modify it, not just notice it.

This is usually fine. Meditation seems to help a lot of people become happier or less anxious. You might be able to understand why you feel sad, or why you react in ways you don't wish to in response to external stimuli. But it also carries some risk: people have reported psychotic breaks, becoming completely ambivalent, or in the case of some jhanas, something dangerously close to wireheading. Just because you can see the code doesn't mean you should tinker with it, or at least that your tinkering will benefit it/you.

(I'm not saying that meditation is dangerous, in a relative or absolute sense. Just that the risks are non-zero. If you don't become an ascetic monk doing it for hours and hours every day with maximal intensity, you'll be fine.)

From memory, actual imaging and chemical analysis of the brains of people meditating have a striking resemblance to the brains of people on psychedelics. I suspect that this is possibly why both of them work, they share some common mechanisms (disruption of the Default Mode Network). This is not as surprising as it sounds in a vacuum, after all, you can make yourself slightly happier by thinking about happy things, or anxious by intentionally focusing on the negative. The mind can and does affect itself all the time.

But that does not imply any supernatural or preternatural aspect to it. I see no reason to believe that there's anything inexplicable going on here that can't be pinned down to the material realm. You are not communing with higher powers, you're not seeing into your soul. You're just trying to tweak your brain, while using your brain.

As much as I dislike the woo associated with meditation, from a purely empirical point of view, it does help with depression. We've shamelessly stolen some of the aspects, like mindfulness, and put them in certain forms of therapy, at least in CBT.

It's not a guaranteed solution, and it does have risks if over done, but then again that's also true for psychedelics and more standard antidepressant treatments.

Not to my knowledge. I agree that stimulants are the closest (and at least performance enhancing if used sensibly), but I wouldn't say they make someone saner or more rational. And they have their own risk of inducing mania or psychosis. Antipsychotics are right out, you can't take a sane person and make them super-sane by giving them risperidone.

That's talking about the kind of people who are mostly sane. If you're genuinely delusional or schizophrenic to the degree deserving of a diagnosis, then antipsychotics do work and help with a return to sanity. Just not as well as we'd like.

Well, I'm glad that someone else is making the same argument I often make (and it's not like it's one that's original to me).

I do have a related writeup written not very long ago. I explore some other factors and observations that you didn't get into in your current post. For those who care:

https://www.themotte.org/post/3467/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/401360?context=8#context