domain:nunosempere.com
"If you mince your oaths, the Lord still knows you took His name in vain, he just sees you're a fucking pussy as well"
And NO, I will NOT do it.
Nobody cares which words you say or which wokies use it as a spell to steal all your mana or whatever you're afraid of, just maybe find a way to talk about the subject without everyone on the board cringing their way to a rectal prolapse over your childish personal neurosis.
I don't think I even particularly disagree with you, but this is pure cringe. You sound completely brain-fried and should probably stop consuming culture war material.
Didn't that particular anecdote turn out to be an exaggeration?
I can confirm that I have bought womens' razors at times because they were cheaper (slightly) and didn't have the dumb 'lubricating strip' that clogs up with beard if you don't shave often enough.
From my perspective, America has outperformed its economic peers in Europe and Asia over the last forty years despite this supposed "anchor"
Debatable. Over my life time America went from "the promised land" to "not sure if this is worth the bother of moving half way across the world" to "it's definitely not worth the bother, plus they lost their marbles culturally". Though this is somewhat complicated by the fact that Europe made no shortage of idiotic political/economic decisions during that time itself, including importing it's own set of anchors, as well as America's cultural trends.
If I had any intention of moving across the world, I'd probably be picking China, not the US.
Normies have the idea that a price is based on cost, plus a certain amount of profit. Charging more for a product because the customers are less price sensitive rather than because the product costs more to make is considered cheating the customer.
Rationalists may not think that way, but everyone else does. If pink razors cost the same to make, but women are willing to pay extra for them, charging extra is dishonest.
I wonder if some of the problems people have with this kind of in-group bias is the reverse: immigrants who are culturally different and need to exert a lot of effort to catch up will get along with mainstream Americans, but immigrants who are multiple generation assimilated are more likely to use their immigrant heritage for identity politics.
Unfortunately that is past the point where Reddit lets you search. (You may see posts suggesting that Reddit only returns 1000 posts but narrowing it down will work. Narrowing it down will not work.) But I can come up with some related posts:
Moderator tells me that I can be abrasive but not antagonistic
I am agnostic on LLMs being conscious or having qualia. More importantly, I think it's largely irrelevant. What difference to me does it make if an unaligned ASI turns me into a paperclip but doesn't really dislike me?
Is a horse happy about the fact that the tractor replacing it isn't conscious? It's destined for the glue factory nonetheless.
We have no principled or rigorous way to interrogate consciousness in humans. We have no way of saying with any certainty that LLMs aren't conscious, even if I am inclined to think that, if they are, it's a very alien form of consciousness.
You mention an entity being 'cognizant' of something, but I would have thought that's the thing obviously missing here. To be cognizant of something is to be aware of it - it's a claim about interiority.
I'm talking about whoever is doing the assessment of consciousness being "aware" of the fundamental limitations of the entity they're testing. I could, in theory, administer a med school final exam to Terence Tao, and he'd fail miserably. I would be a bigger idiot if I went on to then declare that Tao is thus proven to not be as smart as he seems. That meme about subjecting a monkey, fish and elephant to the same objective test of ability in the form of climbing trees, while usually misapplied, isn't entirely wrong.
I also don't mean to make any implications about "interiority" here. I would happily say that an LLM is "cognizant" of fact X, if say, that information was in its training data or within the context window. No qualia or introspection required.
Well, that sucks. People really are getting their history in all the wrong places.
...I think that's what the Sunday small-scale question thread is for.
Well, I will grant that on the latter definition, LLMs are 'intelligent'.
I don't think I would grant it on the former definition, because I take building a model of the world to be a claim about conscious experience, which LLMs don't have. LLMs are capable of goal-directed activity, for whatever that may be worth, but I think having a model of the world implies having some kind of mental space or awareness. You mention an entity being 'cognizant' of something, but I would have thought that's the thing obviously missing here. To be cognizant of something is to be aware of it - it's a claim about interiority.
I mention this because I notice in AI discourse a gulf where it seems that, for some people, LLMs are obviously intelligent, and the idea of denying that they are is ridiculous; and that for other people LLMs are obviously not intelligent, and the idea of affirming that they are is ridiculous. I'm in the latter camp personally, and the way I make sense of this is just to guess that people are using the word 'intelligent' in very different ways.
I've seen people stating they essentially believe Bridgerton's portrait of the period is racially correct, even if they acknowledge that the queen figure doesn't exist.
I think it's a combination of a few things
- These modifications largely only go one way in modern culture. There'll be Black Blitz sufferers, but there will be no White characters in an equivalent tale about Africa 500 years ago
- A lot of people are staggeringly ignorant and take this sort of thing at face value, promoting this sort of 'eternal present day' mindset in which it becomes impossible to think rationally about historical topics since you're essentially imagining the current level of affluence and racial integration to have extended back forever. I've met people who genuinely think Bridgerton is a historical tale.
Not that there is anything wrong with taking the high road and turning your back on media, but there's at least two good alternatives:
One: Watch old stuff. No, that's not the same as rewatching stuff you already like, because nobody has enough time to consume all the multiple lifetimes of classics that already exist.
If you are a science fiction fan, for example, can you seriously tell me that you have already watched all of Star Trek (the pre-Enterprise stuff), Babylon 5, Stargate, Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, The Twilight Zone, and The Outer Limits? If you are a film buff, have you honestly already tried going down the American Film Institute's list of the 100 best American movies, Roger Ebert's The Great Movies, or all Best Picture winners made before the year 2010? If you are an animation guy, have you truly already watched all 2D entries in the Disney Animated Canon, Don Bluth's entire filmography, and the standard recommendations of Gargoyles, Avatar: The Last Airbender, and the DCAU, as well as hidden gems like Exosquad?
I doubt it.
Two: Watch foreign media. The woke mind virus may have taken over the Anglosphere, but Asian stuff remains largely isolated. You could embrace the hallyu and watch one of the very nice K-dramas that are going around, most notably Squid Game. Or you could dive into anime, which is truly a completely different world; there is a reason why men fall in love with anime girls and Demon Slayer can outsell the entire American comic book industry. As AntiDem put it:
The appeal of anime is simple: It depicts a world with intact families, high trust, feminine women, politeness and good manners, public order, low crime, and a sense of mutual obligation between neighbors in a community - a world not slathered in gratuitous degeneracy and consumerism, peopled by unmarriageable women and increasingly angry men, which is in the process of careening toward disaster because a corrupt, ineffectual government is helpless in containing an uprising by violent lunatics hopped up on a fanatical ideology.
In the 20th century, people longed for a galaxy full of advanced technology which would take us to unknown worlds beyond the stars, and were inspired by television which showed it to us. In the 21st century, people long only for home and family, for peace and stability, for connection and friendship. To hell with the stars - just give us back the hearth and the dinner table. That is all we dream of now.
I encountered anime in the first year of my adulthood. It taught me that there was another path available - that people could behave differently than they had in my shattered family and the cold, brutal place where I grew up. That there were other ways to go through life than being selfish and angry all the time. That not every love between a man and a woman was doomed to end in bitterness and hatred. That people could be your friend for reasons other than wanting something out of you. That behaving honorably and sacrificing for the good of people around you isn’t just a thing that suckers do for ingrates. That not everybody breaks promises whenever they become inconvenient. That there are other approaches to the world than cynicism and irony. That not everything is a scam, and not everybody is out to hustle you.
Nothing in my life up to then had taught me any of that.
You're probably right. The biggest driver was just being able to sneak in games while work was slow.
I get some sort of autistic pleasure from obfuscating language
That doesn't sound very autistic at all, actually.
As a child of immigrants myself, I appreciate the liberal cosmopolitan attitude: many of the kindest and most considerate people I have met have been whites who took great pains to live up to the color-blind promise. And I do reciprocate those feelings. But many immigrant and children of immigrants do not feel as I do. You can pave over a lot of problems with prosperity and wealth, but when times are hard those attitudes will come to the fore.
This ultimately doesn’t say too much though. You can't really look at a bunch of women's clothing, check for ones that have pockets, see how well they're doing and then draw any conclusions about whether the lack of pockets in women's clothing is demand-driven or not. It is possible for women's clothing with pockets to sell well and for the lack of pockets in women's clothing to still be demand-driven.
To put forward a simplistic example let's say that 15% of women would want pockets, and that the remainder don't. Let's say that a slightly smaller percentage of women would be willing to pay extra for pockets due to the additional cost of sewing on functional pockets (note that pockets are a pain in the ass; even the non-functional ones are if they have flaps and bindings and the rest, but the functional pockets take a lot more time even than that). If ~13% of women's pants have functional pockets, and the remainder do not, clothing with pockets will still sell well even when the relative lack of pockets in women's clothing is demand-driven, since the supply of that good is appropriately scaled to its demand.
Unfortunately I am not aware of any economic studies on this, likely because the topic is trivial and the answer is obvious. Most of the literature I am able to find on it is ideologically-infused sociology without even the slightest hint of rigour. All I can say is that personally, as a dude, I actually don't like pockets, it doesn’t feel particularly secure and I often carry a sling bag along with me in non-professional circumstances where it would be more socially acceptable for me to do so. I assume that the incentive to just use purses is greater when you want to carry makeup and other items (the women I know pack a ton of stuff in their purses; I'm honestly not sure what half of it is for).
I can't fathom Total War working well on mobile. And why not get it on PC, where you can use one of the many mods? I just don't see any upside here, get it on PC imo.
If the letter is real, then showing the letter itself will lend a certain amount of legitimacy without giving up the source. It won't be proof but it would be a whole lot more believable.
So, he wants to run a hanania republic.
The arc of history bends towards machine dominance in all tasks. Just the other day we had OpenAI's contender come second to some Polish genius who was practically sweating blood in an invite-only programming optimization contest.
https://officechai.com/ai/openai-places-second-behind-human-coder-at-atcoder-progmming-event/
But we can't retrain Psyho for 10,000 years of subjective time on more optimization. His brain is capped at 20 watts or so, just like the rest of us. God isn't going to release homo sapiens max (now with denser neurons and a bigger cerebrum!). The bioethics brigade won't let us step it up and nobody has the balls to ignore them, plus it's too late now. In contrast, Nvidia has a 2-year release timescale.
One would think after watching various chess masters get crushed in the 80s and early 90s we'd have learnt. But it's like you said, nobody learnt anything 'Oh it can beat an amateur but a master has deep conceptual understanding' -> 'oh it can beat a master but Kasparov has deep intuition' -> 'oh it's a nothingburger, let's move on to text'. We continue to not learn the trend even today when progress is much faster and in many more domains. Gary Marcus somehow still has a following, he's the Gordon Chang of AI.
I get some sort of autistic pleasure from obfuscating language (my friends and I came up with an insane number of codewords for too many things) so maybe you caught me in some sort of subconscious trap. Irregardless, I will still not say the words.
Does anybody imagine that Europe and Asia are bastions of noble, honest public servants?
More options
Context Copy link