domain:slatestarcodex.com
This is the same problem as I have with open borders proponents: If you want to have open borders, then make your case for it and get laws passed which say that we have open borders. But don't have laws which say that we don't have open borders, but then work to make it easy as possible to not follow the laws.
If you really want there to be no conditions for assisted suicide, then have policies (and laws if necessary) saying "there are no conditions for assisted suicide". But if you can't or won't do that, don't have policies that say that there are conditions, but then set things up so that they are trivial to work around.
Arguments like "what if we compare various possibilities a djinn might give you and what if we ask the 70 year old", etc. are arguments that there shouldn't be conditions, or at least not the conditions we have now. They are not good arguments for "we should have conditions but since conditions are bad let's make sure they don't work".
If you are a refugee from Iran, and the regime hates you and will not give you any ID documents, then a reasonable country would recognize your plight and try to work around it,
If you are a refugee from Iran, and Iran won't let you have documents, the other country should try to determine that you actually are a refugee and from Iran, even if it is not as easy to determine this as it would be if you had an ID. If the other country says "Iran doesn't give out IDs, so we'll just accept everyone who claims to be an Iranian refugee", that's a bad policy which is forseeably going to be abused. (In fact, similar policies are abused in real life by "refugees" that aren't really refugees.)
Also, it's a lot easier to revoke a bad refugee status (or a marriage, or your other examples) than to revoke a suicide.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
23hr ago
I think it matters what you intend the system to be used for. There’s probably a market for a sycophantic waifu or friend bot. But I don’t want my accountant to act like my best friend. In fact, I’d personally trust business or career advice less if I thought the human or bot giving the advice was trying to be my friend or appear as my friend.
SnapDragon
23hr ago
I definitely don't have @self_made_human's endless energy for arguing here, but his takes tend to be quite grounded. He doesn't make wild predictions about what LLMs will do tomorrow, he talks about what he's actually doing with them today. I'm sure if we had more people from the Cult of Yud or AI 2027 or accelerationists here bloviating about fast takeoffs and imminent immortality, both he and I would be arguing against excessive AI hype.
But people who honestly understand the potential of LLMs should be full of hype. It's a brand-new, genuinely transformative technology! Would you have criticized Edison and Tesla at the 1893 World's Fair for being "full of hype" about the potential for electricity?
I really think laymen, who grew up with HAL, Skynet, and the Star Trek computer, don't have good intuition for what's easy and what's hard in AI, and just how fundamentally this has changed in the last 5 years. As xkcd put it a decade ago: "In CS, it can be hard to explain the difference between the easy and the virtually impossible." At the time, the path we saw to solving that "virtually impossible" task (recognizing birds) was to train a very expensive, very specialized neural net that would perform at maybe 85% success rate (to a human's 99%) and be useful for nothing else. Along came LLMs, and of course vision isn't even one of their strengths, but they can still execute this task quite well, along with any of a hundred similar vision tasks. And a million text tasks that were also considered even harder than recognizing birds - we at least had some experience training neural nets to recognize images, but there was no real forewarning for the emergent capability of writing coherent essays. If only we'd thought to attach power generators to AI skeptics' goalposts, we could have solved our energy needs as they zoomed into the distance.
When the world changes, is it "hype" to Notice?
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
23hr ago
I cannot recommend The Secret History highly enough, incidentally.
I'm happy to put it on the list. If you have a few other recommendations for someone who enjoys Ellis and is open to Tartt, then please fire away.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
23hr ago
9/11 was not a self-help group for depression gone horribly wrong.
The 9/11 Attack Considered as a Self-Help Group for Depression.
Osama Bin Laden was the organizer of the therapy session.
The north tower got off to a bad start.
roystgnr
23hr ago
Why is this comment +10,-16 for merely making an argument?
Possibly for the false assertions in the arguments' premises; probably for the insulting phrasing and meme at the end.
Or this one? +10,-12
This is a good example; thanks. Many of the counterarguments to it ended up looking better than the arguments, but the only thing asking for a downvote is the "just laughable" swipe at the top, and that's unrepresentative of the care taken in most of the rest of it.
Does not even get small meaningless negative reinforcement via stupid internet points.
For zero negative reinforcement, there's always cat -v /dev/random. You'll get all the arguments, sooner or later.
I'm fine with negative reinforcement for bad arguments. Good counterarguments, at least if there's a dogpile of them, are themselves something of a negative reinforcement, don't you think? I just don't like it being expressed via what's supposed to be a count of negative reinforcement for bad comments. The "karma" vs "agreement" vote counts on LessWrong and similar sites now are an interesting experiment in separating those. I don't know what the correlation coefficient between them is (or what I'd expect it should be, for that matter), but their distinction is respected enough that even infrequent readers like me often come across the "this is really interesting even though it's wrong" score combo. The "I agree with this but it's a bad comment" combo seems rarer, but that may just be an artifact of the crowd or the subject matter there; for culture war discussions I fear I'd want to assign it a hotkey.
quiet_NaN
23hr ago
suicidal intent always means depression, without exception
I find this view fascinating, like flat-eartherism or young age creationism. Like learning about the biotopes around hydrothermal vents which work without any sunlight and are utterly alien to any life forms I regularly interact with.
9/11 was not a self-help group for depression gone horribly wrong. These jerks were fully expecting to respawn in heaven and be rewarded for their great deeds. Their final moments were the best moments of their lives.
Even a pure suicide without any intended side effects can be very rational. The caught spy biting on his poison pill is a well-established trope. He is not depressed because he is anticipating getting tortured and betraying his secrets.
If some comic book super-villain captures a person and her loved ones and tells her that she can either kill herself and save her loved ones or she will spend the next month first watching her loved ones being slowly tortured to death and then being tortured to death herself, suicide is an entirely rational response.
A toy model of endogenic depression would be that it just imposes some mood penalty, which adds to situational modifiers. So a person who had just been dumped by their girlfriend (-30), buried a parent (-40) and got caught in the rain (-1) might not attempt suicide, but a person who was also melancholic (-20) might.
Or one might describe depression as an epistemic attractor state -- a strong belief that one's life is shitty which is self-reinforcing through confirmation bias.
I generally support interventions to prevent suicides if it seems likely that the mood penalties can be fixed or that the patient can be moved away from that attractor state. Turning a depressed person into a non-depressed person is much preferential to turning them into a corpse.
But at the end of the day, people's emotional baselines differ, and it is not up to outside society to tell them if their permanent modifiers make their life worth living or not. And I would fire any therapist who could not agree to that on the spot as fast as if they had suggested that I should just let Jesus into my heart.
philosoraptor
23hr ago
What if you conceal it in a mirror or somewhere non-obvious? Neither Epstein nor the average prisoner is a secret agent with bugfinding tools.
As you practically said yourself, this is spy-novel stuff. You are almost certainly greatly overestimating the budget and technological sophistication involved.
Besides, much of the purpose of such things is to serve as a deterrent. Hiding them works against that. (As well as being able to maintain or replace them easily, not that this was a high priority in this case on anyone's version of events.)
SSCReader
23hr ago
Just to point out though none of that supports your claim that their reply would be obviously less correct on quora. That's the claim that you need to buttress. Do you see why?
Because someone answering a particular quora question is self-selecting. First to be on quora in the first place and second to answer that particular question.
It could be 8 out 10 women have worse general knowledge, but that given the selection pressures men and women's answers on quora are equally correct because only the 2 out of 10 women post there, and so on and so forth.
You can't evidence a specific claim like this with general statistics. Consider: Men generally have less knowledge of fashion than women. Positing this is overall true for a moment, it doesn't mean that men answering fashion questions on a website will statistically answer worse than the women, because it is highly likely those men are very unusual, otherwise they wouldn't be answering questions on fashion in the first place. They are very likely to have greater fashion knowledge than the average man. Whether they have more knowledge than the average woman on the website we could only determine by analyzing answers on the platform itself.
So you still haven't actually evidenced the women on quora would be obviously less correct in general. You may have evidenced that if you pick a random woman and ask her a general knowledge question she will on average do worse than a random man. But that wasn't your claim.
To evidence a claim about quora you will have to analyze data from quora (or something similar perhaps), or find a way to unconfound the general data to account for selection effects on quora. Which in itself probably requires you to analyze a lot of data about quora.
Or to put it another way, the fact 8 out of 10 men know little about the goings on on Love Island, doesn't tell you much about the level of knowledge a man who CHOOSES to answer a question on Love Island has. Because interest in the topic is a factor in both level of knowledge and wanting to answer the question.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
1d ago
I am not interested in debating the object level truth of this topic. I have engaged in such debates previously, and I found the arguments others put forward unpersuasive (as, I assume, they found mine). I'm not trying to convince @self_made_human that he's wrong about LLMs, that would be a waste of both our time. I was trying to point out to him that however much he thinks he is critical of LLMs (and to his credit he did provide receipts to back it up), that is not how his posts come off to observers (or at least, not to me).
self_made_human
Sajjano durjano bhūyāt, durjano badhyatāṃ sadā, baddho'nyān nibandhāyet
1d ago
Note that I claimed that the support of experts (Geoffrey Hinton is one of the Nobel Prize winners in question) strengthens my case, not that this, by itself, proves that my claim is true, which would actually be a logical fallacy. I took pains to specify that I'm talking about Bayesian evidence.
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, one of the classics that humans have noted since antiquity.
Consider that there's a distinction made between legitimate and illegitimate appeals to authority. Only the latter is a "logical fallacy".
Hinton won the Nobel Prize in Physics, but for the invention of neural networks. I can hardly see someone more qualified to be an expert in the field of AI/ML.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
An argument from authority can be fallacious, particularly when the authority invoked lacks relevant expertise.
This doesn't mean your claims are false, of course, just that the argument you made in your previous post for your claims is weak as a result.
It would be, if it wasn't for the veritable mountain of text I've written to explain myself, or the references I've always cited.
rae
1d ago
consistent in claiming that (contra your interlocutors) they can reason, they can perform a variety of tasks well, that hallucinations are not really a problem, etc. Perhaps this is not what you meant, and I'm not trying to misrepresent you so I apologize if so. But it's how your posts on AI come off, at least to me.
When someone writes something like that, I can only assume they haven’t touched a LLM apart from chatgpt3.5 back in 2022. Have you not used Gemini 2.5 pro? O3? Claude 4 Opus?
LLMs aren’t artificial super intelligence, sure. They can’t reason very well, they make strange logic errors and assumptions, they have problems with context length even today.
And yet, this single piece of software can write poems, draw pictures, write computer programs, translate documents, provide advice on countless subjects, understand images, videos and audio, roleplay as any character in any scenario. All of this to a good enough degree that millions of people use them every single day, myself included.
I’ve basically stopped directly using Google search and switched to Gemini as the middle man - the search grounding feature is very good, and you can always check its source. For programming, hallucination isn’t an issue when you can couple it with a linter or make it see the output of a program and correct itself. I wouldn’t trust it on its own and you have to know its limitations, but properly supervised, it’s an amazingly capable assistant.
Sure, you can craft a convincing technical argument on how they’re just stochastic parrots, or find well credentialed people saying how they just regurgitate their training data and are theoretically incapable of creating any new output. You can pull a Gary Marcus and come up with new gotchas and make the LLMs say blatant nonsense in response to specific prompts. Eppur si muove.
celluloid_dream
1d ago
No, and if those posts had been left at +1,0 I would not have said a word.
This is solely about the negative reinforcement on unobjectionable comments that merely have an unpopular opinion. The people who downvote those are doing this forum wrong. I will die on this hill.
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
1d ago
I apologize for not responding to the rest of the post, but I wanted to zero in on what seems to be a disagreement of fact rather than a disagreement of opinion.
Ergo, LLMs might be conscious. I also always add the caveat that if they are, they are almost certainly an incredibly alien form of consciousness and likely to have very different qualia.
This would seem to indicate that you already disagree with the illusionists. Illusionists believe that nothing is conscious, and nothing ever will be conscious, because consciousness does not exist. Therefore, you hold a philosophical view (that illusionism is false).
Earlier in the thread you said:
I have a strong conviction that objective morality does not exist.
This is itself a philosophical view. There are philosophers who do believe that objective morality exists. So, it appears that you believe that your own claim is true, and their claims are false.
You previously claimed that Searle's Chinese Room does know how to speak Chinese. So you think Searle's claim that the room doesn't know how to speak Chinese is false. And you think that your own view is true.
In this post you claimed that GPT-4 had a genuine understanding of truth, and that p-zombies are an incoherent concept, both philosophical claims.
So you have a long history of making many philosophical claims. You appear to assert these claims because you believe that they are correct, because they correspond to the facts of reality; so it naturally seems to follow that you think that anyone who denies these claims would be saying something incorrect, and opposed to the facts of reality. I don't see how the concept of a "category error" enters anywhere into it. So "The only way a philosophical conjecture can be incorrect is through logical error in its formulation, or outright self-contradiction" is false. They can be incorrect because they fail to correspond to the facts of reality.
Unless you want to claim "there isn't even such a thing as a philosophical problem, because all of my beliefs are so obviously correct that any reasonable person would have to share all my beliefs, and all the opposing claims are so radically wrong that they're category errors", which is... basically just a particularly aggressive phrasing of the old "all my beliefs are obviously right and all my opponents' beliefs are obviously wrong" thing, although it would still fundamentally be in line with my original point.
The point is that you can't escape from philosophy, you're engaging in it all the time whether you realize it or not (in fact the two of us engaged in a protracted philosophical argument in that final linked post).
quiet_NaN
1d ago
Making sure that they're not killing more people than the assisted suicide law allows is actually important; if they have no way to make sure, they shouldn't be doing it at all.
Suppose that you are a Swiss marriage registrar, and that Switzerland does not want to facilitate marriages where one or both partners a coerced into marrying. There are approaches with very different costs to filter these out. You could just keep a lookout for people who look unhappy or nervous. You could have a separate private chats with both the groom and the bride and mention that there are ways out for people who are coerced. You could require both of them to separately talk to a psychologist for an hour. You could require both to undergo psychotherapy for a year. You could just declare defeat and refuse to marry anyone, because it is not possible to know what motivations people have for sure.
In reality, you will probably not do that last thing generally -- even if you are fine with not having marriages, the same argument would also extend to employment contracts, loans, purchases, sex, etc. Or few people would argue that as you are quite likely to be able to smuggle a few grams of cocaine in a truck without it getting detected by customs, we either should abolish customs or stop international trade.
The assisted suicide case here was not even a matter of consent. But I will be sure that sooner or later, a case where consent is violated will appear. The chance that the evil family of some rich guy will kidnap their beloved pet and threaten to torture it horribly unless they opt for MAID is low, but not zero.
There is a conversion factor for violating the autonomy of those who would really want to live to violating the autonomy of those who really want to die. We probably disagree about the magnitude. From a utilitarian standpoint, I think that we should not minimize the suffering of those denied MAID.
Suppose a djinn offered you to prolong your life by a decade. If you accept, they will flip a coin. Heads, you get to live in the 98th percentile of happiness. Tails, you get to live in the second percentile of happiness (for your age cohort), with no way out. They also reveal that you will be 70 at the time your extra decade starts.
Personally, my answer would be fuck no. Sure, that decade in the 98th percentile would be sweet -- travelling, having sex with a great partner, enjoying life without being trapped in the rat race, playing with your grandkids. But the horror of the 2nd percentile would be much greater. You body failing, your mind fogging -- but not to the point where you do not notice any more, without social contacts, getting bedsores in some retirement home, in constant pain, waiting for a death which will not come for a decade.
In reality, we are not subject to the veil of ignorance imposed by the djinn. We can just ask the 70yo's what their quality of life is and if they want to die or not, and we will mostly get accurate answers. Nobody suggests randomly murdering elderly in the hope that they might welcome death.
So the next djinn offers their deal, which is the same as before, only you have a way to die before the decade is over -- say by stating your wish to die on seven subsequent days. They warn you that it is possible that someone will pressure you into taking that option even if you are in the happy branch.
This seems like a great deal to me. Sure, I lose some utility in the happy branch, but I also reduce the suffering in the pain branch by a factor of 5000.
The answer to this is "only take patients from places where they can legally get documents", not "stop asking for documents".
Luckily, this is not how liberal governments deal with foreigners whose governments are uncooperative. If you are a refugee from Iran, and the regime hates you and will not give you any ID documents, then a reasonable country would recognize your plight and try to work around it, not just ship you back to Iran because without ID you can not stay legally.
The Swiss people (or their representatives) have decided that humans in Switzerland should have a right to assisted suicide. Why should they deny this to foreigners just because their backwards government is uncooperative?
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
1d ago
It would be one thing if I was arguing solely from credentials, but as I note, I lack any, and my arguments are largely on perceived merit.
Note that I'm not saying you are not arguing from your credentials. But rather, you are arguing based on the credentials of others with the statement "In the general AI-risk is a serious concern category, there's everyone from Nobel Prize winners to billionaires". Nobel Prize winners do have credibility (albeit not necessarily outside their domain of expertise), but that isn't a decisive argument because of the fallacy angle.
Even so, I think that calling it a logical fallacy is incorrect...
This is, to be blunt, quite wrong. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, one of the classics that humans have noted since antiquity. Authorities can be wrong, just like anyone else. This doesn't mean your claims are false, of course, just that the argument you made in your previous post for your claims is weak as a result.
What of it? I do, as a matter of fact know more about LLMs than the average person I'm arguing with.
I simply think it's funny. If it doesn't strike you as humorous that your statement would be agreed upon by all (just with different claims as to who has the bad takes), then we just don't share a similar sense of humor. No big deal.
Do the pro-gun comments in the thread meet your standard?
Like quoting 4-chan to say-but-not-say someone's argument is retarded? +30,-2 btw (charitably, just quoting it because it's the best explanation they could find, but like .. you could see how that would be massively downvoted if it were an anti-gun rant instead)
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
1d ago
· Edited 1d ago
What, you think people don't know when they are being sneered at?
I think the most likely explanation is that our readership is doing opinion war when it comes to an issue they really care about, and that's bad.
I think the most likely explanation is that you're upset that you can't convince anyone at the object level, so you're resorting to shaming over meta-level concerns.
FtttG
1d ago
Considering it's Ellis, I wasn't sure if that mattered.
On reflection, probably not.
I cannot recommend The Secret History highly enough, incidentally.
self_made_human
Sajjano durjano bhūyāt, durjano badhyatāṃ sadā, baddho'nyān nibandhāyet
1d ago
· Edited 1d ago
It would be one thing if I was arguing solely from credentials, but as I note, I lack any, and my arguments are largely on perceived merit. Even so, I think that calling it a logical fallacy is incorrect, because at the very least it's Bayesian evidence. If someone shows up and starts claiming that all the actual physicists are ignoring them, well, I know which side is likely correct.
I have certainly, in the past or present, shared detailed arguments.
https://www.themotte.org/post/2368/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/353975?context=8#context
Think of it as having the world's worst long-term memory. It's a total genius, but you have to re-introduce yourself and explain the whole situation from scratch every single time you talk to it
https://www.themotte.org/post/2272/is-your-ai-assistant-smarter-than/349731?context=8#context
I've already linked to an explainer of why it struggles above, the same link regarding the arithmetic woes. LLM vision sucks. They weren't designed for that task, and performance on a lot of previously difficult problems, like ARC-AGI, improves dramatically when the information is restructured to better suit their needs
https://www.themotte.org/post/2254/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/346098?context=8#context
I've been using LLMs to review my writing for a long time, and I've noticed a consistent problem: most are excessively flattering. You have to mentally adjust their feedback downward unless you're just looking for an ego boost. This sycophancy is particularly severe in GPT models and Gemini 2.5 Pro, while Claude is less effusive (and less verbose) and Kimi K2 seems least prone to this issue.
https://www.themotte.org/post/1754/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/309571?context=8#context
The good news:
It works.
The bad news:
It doesn't work very well.
Abysmal taste by default, compared to dedicated image models. Base Stable Diffusion 1.0 could do better in terms of aesthetics, Midjourney today has to be reined in from making people perfect.
https://www.themotte.org/post/1741/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/307961?context=8#context
It isn't perfect, but you're looking at a failure rate of 5-10% as opposed to >80% when using DALLE or Flux. It doesn't beat Midjourney on aesthetics, but we'll get there.
I give up. I have too many comments about LLMs for me to go through them all. But I have, in short, said:
-
LLMs are fallible. They hallucinate.
-
They are sycophantic.
-
They aren't great at poetry (they do fine now, but nothing amazing)
-
Their vision system sucks
-
Their spatial reasoning can be sketchy
-
You should always double check anything that is mission critical while using them.
they can reason, they can perform a variety of tasks well, that hallucinations are not really a problem, etc
These two statements are not inconsistent. Hallucinations exist, but can mitigated. They do perform a whole host of tasks well, otherwise I wouldn't be using them for said tasks. If they're not reasoning while winning the IMO, I have to wonder if the people claiming otherwise are reasoning themselves.
Note that I usually speak up in favor of LLMs when people make pig-headed claims about their capabilities or lack thereof. I do not see many people claiming that modern LLMs are ASIs or can cure cancer, and if they said such a thing, I'd argue with them too. The assymetry of misinformation is, as far as I can tell, not my fault.
Somewhat off-topic: the great irony to me of your recent "this place is full of terrible takes about LLMs" arguments (in this thread and others) is that I think almost everyone would agree with it. They just wouldn't agree who, exactly, has the terrible takes. I think that it thus qualifies as a scissor statement, but I'm not sure.
What of it? I do, as a matter of fact know more about LLMs than the average person I'm arguing with. I do not claim to be an expert, the more domain expertise they tend to have, the more they tend to align with my claims. More importantly, I always have receipts at hand.
hydroacetylene
1d ago
I assume prep billboards are funded by grants to ‘raise awareness’ and ‘destigmatize’ and have little or nothing to do with the people who view them.
Corvos
1d ago
We’ve got a base there, so we’re renting the islands back again from their ‘rightful owners’. Nothing will actually change, Mauritius will just have lots of our tax money now.
Which is exactly the issue: many men do want relationships to form through the same process as friendship. Something organic where both people naturally recognize the value of the other person.
Let me rephrase.
What I learned in that phase is that -- like you say -- attraction is something that you need to cross as the "first hurdle."
But my argument would be that men do the same to women: it's just that men are more visual than women, and it's not at all hard to create a vague spark of attraction in a man. I don't think I'm saying anything you don't already know -- if I read your post right, that's what you're arguing.
That said, I absolutely have had relationships form through the same process as friendship. It's just that the friendship began with us both having at least a mild attraction for the other. The friendship served as a soft courtship. But I absolutely believe that every time this was the case, a relationship could have started much sooner. But I liked how it went down; like you, I take no pleasure in the initial stages of dating.
Sometimes this happened because I was in a relationship at the time, but drew the attention of someone else (this has happened exactly once, let me not exaggerate), sometimes it happened because I wasn't sure of whether I felt like dating, sometimes it happened because I was literally an oblivious idiot and I didn't know what I'd done and I spent 4 months of high school thinking my crush didn't like me when she wanted me to grab her and kiss her.
But, on that note: I also 'won' the attraction by being, in some way, performative and high status.
Birds build nests to attract lady birds (insert LBJ joke here), fish build a wonderful habitat to attract lady fish, peacocks look like a color television advertisement to attract lady peacocks (or just put extended editions of The Office on the platform)... it just is the case that, in most sexually dimorphic species, males attract females by demonstrating high status in some way. I don't have any complaints about the reality of it; it is what it is, and none of woman born controls it or chose it. However people would like it to happen, that's how it happens.
But for me, it absolutely happened organically.
I would argue strongly that I'm less attractive than you -- I don't care if I set my height to 6'7", I wouldn't get the kind of attention you're describing on dating apps. That said, short men have a really rough time, and it sucks that you've struggled because of a baseball statistic. While I have maybe once or twice been asked out by a man, I strongly doubt that gay men would consider me a catch. I can't confirm that -- I'm from the bible belt, gay men don't exactly ask out strangers on the street.
But I have a secret weapon.
I love public speaking. I absolutely love it. And when I'm in a meeting, or discussion, about something I find interesting, I can command attention.
Now, be careful what you take from that. I am the world's worst smalltalker. I hate calling people on the phone. I will avoid talking to shopkeepers if I can. I feel anxious just thinking about introducing myself to a new person. Sometimes I'm so lost in thought that I don't hear what people are saying to me, and I'll just respond with whatever I think will move the conversation along. My friends and I once played a party game where we had to imitate a randomly-picked member of our friend group, and someone imitated me by sitting, silently, with his hands clasped in his lap. That's me. When I'm not speaking, you might confuse me for a piece of furniture.
But if you say, "hey, urquan, create a presentation on the economic problems of socialism in the USSR", boy am I already excited. I'm already thinking about all the strange memes and fun analogies I can use to explain Stalin's effort to rapidly industrialize. And I'm thinking about how I might be able to make people chuckle, and remember the presentation despite the dry concept.
When I held an officer position in a club in college, I used that to springboard a few fun lectures on relevant topics I felt like sharing. I don't think most of the other members loved it, but I don't care. I did it for me. I liked it. I was good at it.
And do you know when I met my girlfriend? She came to one of these lectures. She came up afterwards, started talking to me, and wouldn't let me out of her sight until she got my number. This is by far the most interested in me a human being has ever been -- male or female. And her own recollection of the event, she told me later, is, "I saw you, and I knew I had to have you in my life." How's that for crossing the attraction barrier!
I'm not Terrance Tao. I'm Rain Man. I have some special abilities that can be quite attractive, to Miss Right, but it's not something I do with intention or structure. It's something that's only mildly under my control. And I have a lot of deficits -- I don't think anyone should be envying my social charm!
There was a motte post a long time ago that replied to people talking about social competition among women; you know, sorority girls, mean girls, female bullying in school, all that kind of stuff. And I loved the comment and have tried to find it many times, without success. It went something like this: "The women I've generally been friends with or dated have been rejects from that culture of competition. And I've seen the scars that competition has made on them."
I thought that was very wise. The women I've dated have universally not been "sorority girl" types. They're not the hot girls out there doing hot girl summer. They've just been average, kind of quirky, intelligent, and warm people. I can't say a bad thing about them. I feel like I found the crown of France in the gutter. "A good wife who can find?"
hydroacetylene
1d ago
Can someone explain to me the chain of events that led to the UK paying to get rid of the chagos islands like it’s a tree trunk or something? I understand Starmer wants to be rid of them for reasons that are stupid but why is he paying to do so.
Your argument only really makes sense insofar as one agrees that there is substance behind the hype. But not everyone does, and in particular I don't. So to me, the answer to your last question is "but the world hasn't changed". You seem to disagree, and I'm not going to try to change your mind - but hopefully you can at least see how that disagreement undermines the foundation of your argument.
More options
Context Copy link