sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
No bio...
User ID: 2725
An ultra-leftist and trans discord I'm in called Noire a man (in the context of not being the target audience of the bar).
I'm not sure how it is in Manhattan, but in my country, if you're in any city-like area there is a grocery within 2 minutes of walking at any time. You walk. Because it is next to home, you can do it every day or multiple times per day whenever you or your partner is outside. Maybe if you need like 20kg of groceries at once, you drive/bike/cart the 50-100m to the grocery. Chances are, if you have toddlers, you have a grocery compartment in the stroller anyway.
Maybe he should have clarified the misunderstanding instead of assuming disrespect. Or is that only an onus placed on countries that aren't USA?
Maybe they should put someone who doesn't make very obvious misunderstandings in charge of Trump's social media.
Ok, Denmark is a very special boy with very important traditions we understand and respect.
What kind of response do you expect to that kind of attitude?
Random bullshit you have to deal with every day is one of the important things.
You would? You would start a likely nuclear war that would kill many times more people than Covid? That's deeply insane.
I mean, retaliation that costs you more than what you're retaliating for is just politics 101. If you're not insane enough to retaliate despite the costs, you get trampled.
Well, no, I never believed Yud had mind control powers. Maybe someone who's known for charismatic deeds, but not him. My theory was in fact that Yud's experiment assistants are too unusually AI-neurotic and weird to draw any conclusions other than "lesswrongers are afraid of being simulated".
The situation is still "the experiment assistant knows they're speaking to Yudkowsky, not a potentially all-powerful AI, they stand to win money if they simply refuse to let him win, and they still let him win". It would require at minimum that the assistant willingly pretends they're actually in the scenario where an AI could torture them, and I don't recall that being in the terms of the experiment.
The one that accomplished nothing I'm aware of and will be vastly more difficult to repeat when the ones you want to bomb don't even have to live next to you?
Indeed the very fact that it was done 30 years ago says something about the viability. Why isn't it done more? Asking purely hypothetically and not as a way to endorse, of course. But it's not like there aren't motives for such acts today.
Having the drone police/army to replace human police/army is priced into "not needing the consent of the governed".
The Second Amendment apologia usually goes "we might not have tanks or jets, but the occupation has to deploy boots on the ground to police us, and a rifle is enough to deter those". Good luck with that against something that doesn't have names, families, addresses or the fear of death.
A world of vice-ridden indolents would be utopian compared to the pessimistic scenario of "the psychopathic Haves simply stop sharing land and resources with the Have Nots once they no longer need our labor or the consent of the governed".
You know what I meant.
The human has picked the words. Yes, yes, I know, I arbitrarily don't value things like "the human has calligraphied the words in a specific handwriting style and ink", etc etc. I value what I value.
And say what you will about photography, at least it actually captures what had existed at some point, not does something like "an imp inside the machine had been told what the picture looked like in order for it to reproduce it".
No, I just want commitment to the actual writing. If I have to suffer reading it, they had better have suffered writing it. I don't care if they have suffered doing some other thing, and in fact in the specific terrorist example that would count against them.
Suppose I write a book of mixed sensible life advice and myths, then claim it is the inspired word of a God who cannot lie. Which of the three options would be the most sensible approach to such a book?
Recursive because it lets you improve the capacity to self-improve.
Should I post payment credentials to accept donations for my own AI organization? I promise to do even less to build the AI that takes over the world.
Isn't MIRI effectively a rock with the words "don't build the AI [that takes over the world]" on it? I don't recall them building anything. By those standards I'm an AI organization too.
We also find it historically attested that a man in the 1800s has declared that he talked to an angel, wrote a new holy book and convinced millions of disciples to take what is, in plain terms, a blatant heresy of the dominant religion seriously.
Thankfully, USA is not ancient Rome, so the Mormons weren't yet widely tested for their capacity for martyrdom. Yet this is a modern example of how easy it is to become a prophet and found a religion. Extrapolate it from 200 years ago to 2000, with corredpondingly spottier reporting, and the story of Jesus of Nazareth doesn't look that out of place.
Being unsure about some aspects of our reality and being unsure about God are very different kinds of unsure, as you've highlighted with your model of layered realities.
You could argue that any relationship built on communication with a higher entity would necessarily be one built on coercion, sure. But without communication there is no relationship. When one can't be sure if he's speaking with God or with the echoes of his own mind refracted through religious culture, where does freely made choice even come into it?
If a willful intelligence from a higher reality actually talked to me, as you're correct to point out it could if it wanted, my questions towards Christians and interrogations of the truthfulness of their faith would be much fewer.
(Allegedly divinely-inspired words of mortal men, "signs", feelings and vibes are no proper replacement for a conversation in my book. If it wanted to talk to me, it could talk to me.)
If our assumptions based on the observable reality don't work for higher realities, then that should signal we can't derive how/if God works from what we see in our world. No matter how much evidence there is in favor of Christianity, it provides no truth value.
- Prev
- Next

Does a simulated bear shit in the simulated woods?
More options
Context Copy link