site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 110649 results for

domain:alexepstein.substack.com

Incredible post, thanks for taking the time to write it all out. Do you write anywhere besides here?

A tumblr post I quite enjoyed:

Certainly! Here is a tumblr post to get rich white champaign socialists riled up:

The reason AI is the Current Thing for libs to get mad at is because it puts the ability to have someone ghostwrite your college essays into the hands of poor people.

I generally agree about your fourth point: More than a decade ago, one of the better professors I had at university was an English teacher; she was young enough and new enough to not have been worn down by the grind yet. A large part of the grade for her class was in the exam portion, where we were given ~4 hours of proctored exam time to (mostly) write several short essays in person by hand, without electronics. We were allowed copies of the literature involved and no other aids, and basically given "choose 3 topics from this list of 10 to write essays about", where the topics were things like "compare [work A]'s [element x] to [Work B's]." etc. I imagine she could simply load more of the final grade on that final exam, and the similar but shorter midterm, rather than homework essays, and still be able to assess/grade students' abilities in the era of ChatGPT.

Instead, it largely seems like universities have mostly tried nothing, and are all out of ideas. The remarkable fatalism I've been seeing about it is amusing.

I want to get you started. What is the Oxford Movement?

Just replying to point out this is an insightful take, thanks for making it.

Even before ChatGPT many humanities students were super-lazy and didn't bother to do even a very dumbed down amount of work. Nor were they prepared to put even a mild effort into pretending they'd done so. If they ask you to read a huge amount of text, you can just read some of it looking for a question based on that info to ask, ask the question and it'll seem like you've done the reading. But there were many who couldn't even be bothered with that, even when the lecturer tacitly encouraged us to do it.

It was quite awkward when someone from outside uni came in as a guest teacher and expected students to actually do significant amounts of reading for a course.

People go to university as a cultural ritual, I only really learned anything from one unusually hard course.

I’ve always found it amazing just how out of touch the intellectuals in university are about what their institution actually means for students. To be blunt, college hasn’t been about education for a very long time, and it strikes me as hilarious that anyone who attended one writes these sorts of handwringing articles bemoaning the decline of education in college. 99% of students who were ever in university (perhaps with the exception of tge leisure class) have ever gone to college seeking the education for the sake of education. For most of us, it’s about getting job skills, getting a diploma, padding a resume, etc. if learning happens on the side, fine, but most people are looking at college as a diploma that will hopefully unlock the gates to a good paying job.

I would think these kind of essays, which a genre older than I am, are defensive in nature. Lets be honest, the more an institution is a skinsuit, the more defensive it is going to be of itself. If Harvard was a bunch of white boys from Boston's upper class playing squash for bragging rights against Yale and their rich New Yorkers they would feel no reason to pen such an essay. But since universities have been transformed into giant apparatuses whose purpose is hoovering up federal funding, they will be very defensive.

From my point of view it's that you have degenerated into kanging and chimping from cognitive dissonance, like unfortunately many in the American sphere of influence. It seems Americans simply cannot conceive of having a serious or superior enemy, they grew addicted to safely dunking on premodern peoples in slippers or nations with deep structural disadvantages like Soviets with their planned economy and resource-poor, occupied Japan with 1/3 of their population – even as they sometimes smirk and play the underdog in their ridiculous doomposting. They feel like Main Characters of history, who are destined to win for narrative reasons and therefore can afford arbitrary foolishness in the midgame – at it will amount to is a few extra lines in the moral takeaway in the epilogue. Karl Rove's famous quote is quite apt.

China is not unbeatable, China is not stronger than the (hypothetical at this point) US-aligned alliance of democracies, and they're currently behind in AI. But you cannot see when I say this, because it would legitimate my positions that are less soothing for your ego, and instead you are compelled to default to these whiny complaints that are just a demand to shut up. Were you living in reality, you'd feel more incensed at nonsensical, low-IQ-racist boomer copes that keep undermining your side's negotiating position.

Accordingly I gloat that much harder when you lot suffer setbacks, because I strongly despise delusion and unearned smugness and believe they ought to be punished.

In what sense wasnt this already demonstrated by Germany buying russian gas?

It's a matter of degree. Pressing Germany to move away from Russian energy supply could be easily justified in the world where the US was a credible guarantor of German security, as indeed Russia tried the gas card to dissuade Germany from supporting Ukraine, and now German industry which grew dependent on Russian gas is contracting. True, Germany showed independent (and faulty) decisionmaking then. But this was all in the realm of politics as usual, rules-based international order, and German choice was business as usual too. Now we see a test of naked American authority in Trump's exploitative trade war, in “DO NOT RETALIATE AND YOU WILL BE REWARDED” bullshit. Faceh explicitly says “Honestly I can say I thought there'd be more capitulation by now”, and that's exactly the spirit. This is not normal politics, this is a desperate shit test: will you cave, or will you resist? Are you a country or an imperial vassal? Getting refusals in this condition is decisive, and clearly the US side expected to get fewer of them.

Any advice on getting one?

There are many ways, but in my experience the most decisive step toward getting paid large sums of money to tell other people to do things they would do better without your interference is to get an MBA.

Look buddy, if Pastor McGee’s sermon causes ever causes me to have a late night premonition about the Whore of Babylon, it’s going to be sweet wholesome REAL AMERICAN Jezebel harlot like Taylor Swift playing her, not some E-lectronic Celebrity from “California” who posts naked tik-toks on the OnlyFans.

Is AI safer per mile than a slightly above average driver?

It's a legitimate question because it's entirely possible that the vast majority of traffic accidents are caused by unlicensed drunk drivers texting behind the wheel. AI does not do that, and it's kind of hard to see how it even could.

Give Pinochet an AGI 500 times smarter than a human and it will absolutely harm humans in service of tge directive of keeping Pinochet in power.

Pinochet stepped down from power voluntarily. Like as a factual historical matter he clearly had goals other than 'remain in power at all costs'. I would point to 'defeat communism' and 'grow the Chilean economy', both worthy goals, as examples of things he probably prioritized over regime stability.

Almost all regulatory complexity is the result of closing loopholes lawyers found in earlier, simpler regulation. Congratulations to them, because all the legal specialists in each regulatory area will be poring over any new, ‘simplified’ regulation with the religious fervour of a leading Talmudic scholar to find out exactly what is implicitly allowed until enough bad news comes out that the current regime is restored.

I feel like we need something roughly equivalent to a doctrine of "oh come on". I realize I'm only gesturing vaguely towards a large area of idea-space, but it seems plain at this point that humans will game any system made of rules made of words until it's completely corrupted.

I'm not a believer in the ability to computerize law, so the only way forward seems to be to rely on the restraint of lawyers...

...ok, well that's obviously not going to work. We need to give them some sort of skin in the game. Something to lose when it goes wrong. As such, I propose, roughly, the following system:

Whenever an argument is deemed "clever", either by a judge or a panel that reviews cases, it goes in front of a jury of 10 randomly selected people from the voting public. If less than 50% of them respond with "oh come on", nothing happens. If more than 50% of them say "oh come on", the lawyer making this argument is shot. Less than 70%, they're shot in the foot. Less than 90%, they're shot in the chest. If it's unanimous, they're shot in the head.

I'm doubling down on my prediction that AI will replace any white collar job which a mentally ill person can do acceptably well, but never perform well enough at sanity-requiring tasks to replace people. What this means for the workforce in practice is probably that the professional class sees stagnant wage growth and relies more on unpaid internships for building work experience.

I think that American complaints over Trump are warranted but disproportionate, that's why I spent so much of that post comparing to foreign countries.

The Australian government works in a totally responsible, law-abiding, careful and considered way like you're calling for. But the results are a complete disaster and there's no obvious way to fix it. This is paywalled but it tells you the story in the http address.

https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/australia-s-fall-in-disposable-income-is-the-worst-in-the-world-20240822-p5k4ji

Productivity is in the doldrums. Energy prices are rising despite the government's promises, the only thing they successfully did is provide subsidies for power to make the price seem lower. All major cities are ludicrously unaffordable and more people are constantly imported to make it even more unaffordable. Industry is a shambles, we're constantly bailing out what little remains due to the terrible energy policy. To top it all off they've proposed unrealized capital gains tax on superannuation, there's nothing they won't stoop to.

And the Labour government that oversaw all of this just got their biggest majority ever for seeming to be less like Trump than Peter Dutton's Liberals... who weren't really like Trump in any significant sense and basically offer the same thing as Labour albeit slightly moderated. There's no way out of this mess.

There are way worse things that could happen to the US than tariffs or Trump, you could have a deepseated economic crisis at a structural level, not a mild stock market shock that's easily undone at the executive level.

The EU loves stable, boring governance. But just being stable and predictable doesn't work very well if you're stably and predictably doing the wrong thing all the time, that's why the US is rich and relevant while the EU is not.

Stability and effectiveness is of course good. Australia did a good job of blocking illegal immigration. Violent crime is still fairly low despite the best efforts of the drug legalizers and policing reformers. But the hierarchy should be:

  1. Stable and wise (lee quan yew)
  2. Chaotic but more or less wise (Trump)
  3. Stable but unwise (George W Bush, Clinton, Obama, EU, Australia)
  4. Chaotic and unwise (Pol Pot as an extreme example)

Without Trump, there's a decent chance that the net closes and it becomes effectively impossible to contest the deep-seated institutions and lobbies that want to wreck the economy so they can maximize their control and security, turn the US into the EU, shut off any dissent as hate-speech... Before Trump, what legal victories were there where people convinced others to moderate the madness? Were there many such victories? Were they permanent wins or temporary compromises? The net is closing in the EU, they're moving slowly to ban the AFD and any alternative to managed democracy and permanent decline/replacement. Vote poorly in Romania and your election will simply be undone.

o be blunt, college hasn’t been about education for a very long time, and it strikes me as hilarious that anyone who attended one writes these sorts of handwringing articles bemoaning the decline of education in college. 99% of students who were ever in university (perhaps with the exception of tge leisure class) have ever gone to college seeking the education for the sake of education. For most of us, it’s about getting job skills, getting a diploma, padding a resume, etc.

These people don't believe that. They're simply using a very different definition of 'education' than you are, one centering around having appropriate credentials rather than knowing things/how to do things. This isn't totally new, either- much as grievance studies are particularly blatant, lots of psych and ed research is just polished turds too, and the people getting these degrees don't really seem to care. Like the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy says about itself- well then reality is the one that's got it wrong.

hurts anyone but themselves.

Well it doesnt hurt them at all, otherwise it wouldn't be cheating. The injured parties are non-cheating competitors (although good luck finding one in these majors methinks), and society, which is ostensibly being tricked into thinking they are looking at a slip of paper that shows this woman can do a lot of mind numbing gruntwork, but in fact just scrolls tictok all day.

In this scenario, if the US imposes tariffs, the target country retaliates, and then after some negotiation they settle on a rate that is higher than the prior status quo but lower than the initial tariff imposition, is that a win or a loss?

Definitely a win in my books.

This is the danger that economists like Tyler Cowen say is most pressing, i.e. not some sci-fi scenario of Terminator killing us all, but of humans using AI as a tool in malicious ways. And yeah, if we don't get to omni-capable superintelligences then I'd say that would definitely be the main concern, although I wouldn't really know how to address it. Maybe turn off the datacenter access to 3rd world countries as part of sanctions packages? Maybe have police AI that counter them? It's hard to say when we don't know how far AI will go.

You're broadly correct, although your terminology is a bit off. When you say "aligned", people almost always use that word to mean "it doesn't behave in a deliberately malicious way". What you're talking about is more along the lines of 'it can't stay on task', which has long been a huge concern for basic useability. People claim this is getting better (Scott's AI 2027 post is predicated on continuous growth in this regard), although Gary Marcus has concerns on this claim. From my perspective, AI is very good at coding, but you really have to break down the problems into bite-sized chunks or else it will get very confused. I'd love to have an AI that could understand an entire large codebase without a ton of drawbacks or cost, and then execute multi-step plans consistently. Maybe that's coming. In fact, if there's any further AI improvements I'd bet that would be on the list. But it's not guaranteed yet, and I've been waiting for it for over a year now.

If a student wrote a "based" indigenous studies essay, would that help them pass the class to get the degree they're paying two hundred thousand dollars for?

Of course, there's the opportunity to write and think about things that aren't either kind of slop. But I'm very skeptical that equal standards would be applied. Though I would say it's unlikely for any student to actually flunk out of Columbia for the content of their essays (or the quality of them, or anything really).

"Bullshit jobs" and the like

Any advice on getting one?

What if your child falls asleep while smoking and the cigarette lights their jammies and they just get fucking immolated?

Nicotine is a stimulant and prudent parents make sure that, like caffeine, it is confined to the morning and well away from nap time.

Admittedly, it IS kind of wild that this this a tech where we can seriously talk about singularity and extinction as potential outcomes with actual percentage probabilities. That certainly didn't happen with the cotton gin.

Very true on that front. LLMs were pretty magical when I first tried playing with them in 2022. And honestly they're still kind of magical in some ways. I don't think I've felt that way about any other tech advancement in my life, except for maybe the internet as a whole.

I'm a lot more optimistic than you.

Any particular reason why you're optimistic? What are your priors in regards to AI?

I don't think money will save you from a government that wants you death or destitute.

The South African government is shitty, corrupt, incompetent, and unwilling to address the needs of its white population, but the ANC does not want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg(after all, they very much want to steal that egg for themselves). The party that wants to drive out/kill/dispossess the whites is a minority party which, like most socialist parties, is most popular among college kids.

You said the motte works in SV, that is incorrect. I haven't claimed that the motte is full of normal christians, just that some christians living in flyover country are here and know and complain about aella.