@toadworrier's banner p

toadworrier


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 12 04:23:06 UTC

				

User ID: 1151

toadworrier


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 12 04:23:06 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1151

My gut feeling is that this is primarily the work of opportunistic scumbags rioting for the fun of it, for which a fairly small protest which got out of hand was merely the catalyst

Does Ireland's history mean that there's a population of such scumbags who are unusually competent and causing trouble?

Now that the dust seems to be settling, it looks like a coup by the more nonprofit-focused boardmembers and executives against the guys like Sam and Microsoft who wanted to build a company with real shareholder value.

If true, then this sounds like the board doing it's job. Even if the result of this is to entirely kill OpenAI, that would still be closer to the mission than what had been going on. That said, I'm still waiting to see what the real result will be.

South Korea even had a female head-of-state.

So did Pakistan.

I agree with all this, but I want to add a caution from the perspective of immigrant Australia.

It's normal common in my immigrant community to:

  1. Assume any slight by a white person is racism and thus be angry at "this country"
  2. To have dual citizenship and/or believe a passport is just a piece of paper 2a. The word "patriotic" means "patriotic to the old country"
  3. To prefer the signs and symbols of the old country (sporting teams, flags, regalia etc).

This combination is far more common than my own eccentric notion of actually being a patriotic Australian.

All of this sounds like it's the polar opposite of what @AshLeal is claiming, but no. The people I'm talking about are perfectly well acculturated and behave well among other Australian folk, work on common projects with each other.

I'm aware the NHS does that, albeit with public pressure often forcing them to accept treatments with terrible returns.

But in practice it is the sin of the American system to overpay for treatments because of what amounts to public pressure (as manipulated by those who stand to profit). The NHS is actually quite good at denying costly treatments, at least by the standards of 1st world healthcare systems.

(imagine a forum with only one ongoing thread)

You mean like one gigantic thread where a bunch of mostly right-wing, onlinefolk post their culture war angst? Hard to imagine.

Thanks, that's really helpful.

It seems my impression of Korea being left-wing was skewed by emphasis on labour -- Unions being powerful and traditionally respected but now a bit too big for their boots. Kind of similar to my own country, Australia where construction workers are the last holdouts able to engage in actual gangsterism and teachers are radically left wing (of course in Korea that takes a special form).

the BRICS New Development Bank (Egypt, Zimbabwe and Saudi Arabi will probably join as well).

So after all those betl-and-road-initiative projects failed, the Chinese want to lose more money and influence?

Thanks, these are interesting questions. Sorry I took me two weeks to get to them (I hope you get a chance to read the article itself!).

First, does it matter if Progress-advocates have emphatically endorsed a definition of "progress" that extends much further than "the growth of knowledge", "productivity", "social complexity", or "human health"

You are right to think in terms of definitions of "progress". There can be absolute progress of moral importance towards The Good; and there can be mundane progress towards other things. I believe both kinds are real, but agree with you that they should not be conflated. Also I'm showing that the mundane progress shouldn't be lightly ignored. My examples are there to show that any attempt to do so, distorts the word far away from it's ordinary meaning.

If they had explicitly committed to a far more extensive definition of "progress" than the one you are defending, why is it unreasonable for us critics to hold them to that definition, rather than accepting yours? For a concrete example, consider the concept of a "war on poverty".

I wouldn't condemn that critique. I even might join it, depending on what exactly is being critiqued. But I object to that critique being extended to a blanket claim that progress doesn't exist -- that would be to conflate absolute and mundane progress.

I think that's also what you are doing in your second question

...t, it seems to me that there should be some fundamental difference between primitive!fight and progress!fight, but it doesn't seem to me that such a difference exists.

No there doesn't have to be such a fundamental difference. Because progress!fight only differs from primitive!fight by mundane progress. Even though I believe absolute (i.e. moral) progress is real, this is not an instance of it.

More generally, what does it mean to be human? What is the human condition? What is human nature? Have any of these answers changed meaningfully over time?

Are you asking this from an Aristotelian point of view? I.e. "what is the Telos of Man"?

To take your question literally. I'd say human nature has not changed very much. I wouldn't say our Telos has changed at all.

If so, high-quality analysis of these questions should fall out of date as the ground-reality being assessed changed, yes? So texts from antiquity focusing on these questions, like the Epic of Gilgamesh, Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, various religious texts from the BCs and so on, should be obviously out-of-date with the humans we observe all around us. Is this what you observe?

No I don't believe they should be out of date. Nor is it what we observe.

Is your point that, were absolute progress real, then we would have moved beyond the problems which those works grapple with? Because that is a valid point, which I'd like to tackle if that's really where you are going with this.

I'm dubious, for instance, that you actually understand the moral questions posed by slavery. Can you name the two developments which most changed the moral calculus of forced labour between 1400 and the present day?

Are you then taking a relativist stance, that slavery might have been OK for them even if it isn't for us? I'm sorry that sounds like a rhetorical-gotcha question -- it's not intended as such. I'm trying to understand you.

What makes you think she's white?

Wikipedia says "She is of English, Irish,[8] DjabWurrung, Gunnai and Gunditjmara descent."

(he's confidentially told me that he fears our center-right government is looking to pick fights with academia over 'cancel culture', and he has been given a top mandate by university central to avoid anything that would give the press 'woke academia gone mad' headlines)

It's working!

Can you link some of your arguments. It fits my priors, but I'd like to see the reasoning behind it.

An important question is whether the supreme leadership in China permitted this [gain of function research].

The supreme leadership probably thought they were supporting a bioweapons research program and conning the Americans into helping. Turned out they were sort of right, just not in the way they expected.

I don't know whether or not they scan Kindle's actively for sideloaded stuff. But there is probably specific pressure to go after you.

I think in the case above, Amazon wasn't acting out of a general programme to enforce copyright, they were reacting to someone with laywer who was upset about a particular e-Book that they had actively distributed.

There's a strong history of contact between real Buddhism and German Idealism. Schopenhauer is the most well known of the lot to be influenced by Buddhism. Less well known are the various Germans who just went to Asia, became monks and never came back. Many great works of scholarly Buddhism were written by this sort of monk.

The point is there is a very deep continuum between Buddhism as traditionally practice and the stuff that goes on in corporate mindfulness trainings in the West. The core of Buddhsm always has been a particular lineage of meditation teachings. Anyone seriously investigating those teachings seriously is a Buddhist; whatever the particular cultural-religious penumbra he surrounds it with.

Third, they are facilely _un_cynical in a way that grates on Irish people - I have yet to get through a conversation with a Brazilian without them telling me about their "dream of Europe" in such a gormless way as would make a beauty pageant contestant squirm.

Do Irish people object to the this because they think the Brazillian is bullshitting, or do they object because they suspect the Brazillian is being honest?

Adversary reveals himself through his accusations

I didn't know this was a common idea? Is there some background reading for it?

And if they don't publicize it, it doesn't matter.

Why not?

OK so the law against conspiracy to murder is constitutional because murder is not lawful.

Whereas a law against conspiracy to ostracise is not, because it burdens the rights of those who are taking orders about whom to ostracise. How exactly does it do this?

It's one thing to say that ostracism itself is legal (which it is), or even protected by the 1st Amendment (which it isn't), but it's another thing to say that the conspiracy is protected.

Unless the university is in the habit of telling students why they’re rejected, there’s no real smoking gun, especially given the reliance on non-objective criteria for admission.

But this is not the way American anti-discrimination law works. For decades lawyers and civil-rights bureaucrats have been successfully going after every more implicit forms of putative discrimination. "Here's my statistical evidence that Foo has a disparate impact on Bar. I was FooBarred, now give me $$$$$$$" is standard practice.

That cat really will be among the pigeons if the Court can make that particular sword cut both ways. My guess is that over time the court system will follow the leader, but the EEOC will not unless the Republicans take over the government and gut the thing.

Can you link to me the document you are referring to?

AFAICT the particular injunction that this article on about is https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.294.0_5.pdf, and is only seven pages. But of course there are many, many other documents.

The word appears twice in the poem:

I don't know if that's what you consider a heavy Australian accent. The speaker is the real deal, though not what I would call ocker. His voice is well matched to the poem.

Clean criminal history because you think juries take that into account directly (are they always allowed to know?) or because such people behave differently in court from repeat criminals?

Ok, I've reread your post, and I think I stand by what I said above.

So it's kind of weird that you set up Yudkowsky as your bugbear, but then mostly argue against something completely different from the "Yuddist" position.

I don't think that's a fair reading of either my substack post or my Areo piece. Yes, I do criticise his position, but my main target is centralisation. The reason I bring in Yuddist foomer-doomerism into this is (a) this position is actually quite prominent, Eliezer got published in Time for chrissake, and (2) the "smart" argument I hear for why centralisation is Good Actually is based on foomer-doomer assumptions. Eliezer himself is more consistent: he knows that his assumptions lead him to a ban even on government activity. His acolytes seem to think "well the worst of both worlds at least gets us part of the world we want, so let's go for it".

The PRC has actually started requiring interpretability as a precondition of large AI deployment, ...

This is just naive.

But anyway, even if you believe the people who brought us the Wuhan Institute for Virology have got it all covered, then you still have to worry about all the other countries in the world.

For all that the CPC is tyrannical, they still don't actually want to kill all humans; they cannot rule humanity if they, and humanity, are dead.

Communists don't all always kill millions of people on purpose! For example Great Chinese Famine, was more incompetence than malice. Here's what I say in Areo

The tyrannical governments of the past were dependent on human beings to administer the machinery of repression, but an AI-powered tyranny has other means at its disposal. Totalitarian states have never been reluctant to depose their own leaders and an AI-powered ruling party could afford to dispense with every last cadre. The machines might be the true leaders. There’s no telling what such machines may choose to do with us humans. They might simply kill us all, since we are superfluous and a little unpredictable.