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

Showing 25 of 68 results for

domain:inv.nadeko.net

Thanks for all the hard work, Zorba, and for letting us know.

I respect what you're saying - at least your point is that ASI "might" behave like this, rather than "will". I don't really agree, but that's ok, this is a tough speculative subject.

I can look at a shark, a dolphin and a torpedo, and will notice that all of them are streamlined so that they can move through liquid water with a minimum of drag. I am somewhat confident that if an alien species or ASI needs to move through liquid water while minimizing drag for some illegible terminal goal, they will design the object to be also streamlined. Perhaps I am wrong in some details -- for example, I might not have considered supercavitation -- but if I saw an alien using cube-shaped submarines that would be surprising.

We have many great examples of what swimming things look like. And we know the "physical laws" that limit traveling through water. We currently have only two distinct types of intelligent agents (humans and LLMs), neither of which tend to be omnicidal in pursuit of maximizing some function. And if there are "mental laws" about how intelligence tends to work, we don't yet know them. So I think you're too confident that you know the form an ASI would take.

Now, true, one of those two examples (humans) does indeed have the inherent "want" to not die. But that's not because we're optimized for some other random goal and we've reasoned that not dying helps accomplish it. Not dying in a competitive environment just happens to be a requirement for what evolution optimizes for (propagating genes), so it got baked in. If our best AIs were coming from an evolutionary process, then I'd worry more about corrigibility.

In a similar vein, preservation of the own utility function and power-seeking seem to be useful instrumental goals for any utility function which is not trivially maximizable. Most utility functions are not trivially maximizable.

Sure, it is true that an agent that doesn't "want" to die would ultimately be more effective at fulfilling its objective than one that doesn't care. But that's not the same as saying that we're likely to produce such an AI. (And it's definitely not the same as saying that the latter kind of AI basically doesn't exist, which is the "instrumental convergence" viewpoint.) Intelligence can be spiky. An AI could be competent - even superintelligent - in many ways without being maximized on every possible fitness axis (which I think LLMs handily demonstrate).

Now, it is possible that an ASI or alien is so far beyond our understanding of the world that it does not have anything we might map to our concept of "utility function"? Sure. In a way, the doomers believe that ASI will appear in a Goldilocks zone -- too different from us to be satisfied with watching TikTok feeds, but similar enough to us that we can still crudely model it as a rational agent, instead of something completely beyond our comprehension.

I think we're agreed here.

It's like the game wants the player to think this is irrelevant, yet even 2 seconds of thought shows it cannot possibly be irrelevant: whether the item is good or not is entirely determined by how big that damn number is!

I think it's a credit to the games' balance that ultimately I almost always find the answer is "just big enough to make a noticeable differencr without unbalancing the game". An item that adds fire resistance will add enough resistance that if you were struggling with an enemy that does fire damage it will be noticeably easier, but usually not enough to trivialize anything.

People care what you look like at the time you're most relevant to them, personally. That's just the way it is, and no amount of spamming them with Gerald Ford's cover shots will change that.

Steam's "Controller Layout" settings menu (also applicable to non-Steam games, such as emulators, that you launch through Steam) allows the user to customize deadzones and response curves on a per-game basis in excruciating detail, including deadzone shapes and response curves.

(It does not appear that 8BitDo's "Ultimate Software" settings application has the same granularity of control.)

Has anyone made a controller yet that accurately mimics the dead zones and response curves of the original N64 one?

Despite its flaws, I love this game. I think it has the pieces to have been a true masterpiece but got pushed out the door a year too early. If I could make just one change it would be to make the first half the game roughly 15 chapters and have you rotate classes for each chapter so you spend about 5 chapters with each class. That's probably enough time to get the students started on their specialization routes and grow emotionally attached before killing 2/3 of them in the second half. Let students who bond with you audit with other classes as the recruitment mechanism. Have the last chapter act as a checkpoint before the branching paths so you don't have to replay the first half every time. I'd also probably axe the Church route and incorporate its story elements into the Deer and Lions routes, get rid of the class system and just have [level] x [1 movement type] x [up to 2 physical and/or 1 magical weapon type, with tradeoffs for going past 1 weapon type], make the proficiencies/deficiencies more influential on skill growths so each unit feels unique.

But it is what it is, and still manages to be my favorite Fire Emblem game. Six years later, I can recall every student's name and story. By the end, I found something to like about all of them (except maybe Leonie) and remember the bittersweet feeling when I killed each of them. I couldn't give you more than 4 names from Fates and literally 0 from Engage. Neither's advantage in map design or graphics was really enough to get over how thoroughly off-putting the characterization was. Despite the interesting gameplay mechanics in Engage, by the halfway point I was desperately rushing through in the hopes it would get slightly more tolerable (it didn't). I think I would have replayed (many times over) a version of that game with everything about the strategy gameplay the same but with the story cut out and the characters reduced to faceless chess pieces without dialogue. The only other thing to make me feel so viscerally disgusted was probably James Cameron's Avatar (another piece of media where I haven't been able to pinpoint exactly why it elicits so much hate in me).

Just "progressive". Or "progressive-conservative" if you're more cutting edge- more and more of them will discover they are conservatives at their core, in time.

Yeah LLMs are notoriously weak at anagrams due to how tokenizing works. Here's a fun little demo of how LLAMA's tokenizer breaks up an input sequence: https://belladoreai.github.io/llama-tokenizer-js/example-demo/build/

Hence the famous example of LLMs failing at "how many times does the letter R appear in the word strawberry" until the training data for newer models was contaminated with the answer.

quite a bad bet for finding them.

Why should this be? It may be intuitive to you, but it's not to me.

American Democrat, blue no matter who, woke, feminist, BLM, big fan of trans and Gaza at the same time, blank slatist, protects (favored) groups as legitimate victims but doesn't really protect individuals

"Woke, politically engaged 18-35 college educated Democrats" or "Blue tribe idpol illiberals"? "Common Bluesky beliefs" or "Resistance Twitter beliefs" might get you dinged for the same comment, but if you adjusted the context you could probably get away with them. You replaced it with progressive and I think that is the best choice.

Their claim is that it is indeed a terminal goal. Here

Quote from the link:

Suppose that the AI doesn’t inherently care about its goal stability at all; perhaps it only cares about filling the world with as many titanium cubes as possible. In that case, the AI should want there to exist agents that care about titanium cubes, because the existence of such agents makes it likelier that there will be more titanium cubes. And the AI itself is such an agent. So the AI will want to stay that way.

It's hard to have it both ways: that most AI minds will be crazily orthogonal to us, except for this one very-human-relatable "instrumental value" which Yudkowsky knows for sure will always be present.

I do not think there is anything counter-intuitive about instrumental convergence.

I can look at a shark, a dolphin and a torpedo, and will notice that all of them are streamlined so that they can move through liquid water with a minimum of drag. I am somewhat confident that if an alien species or ASI needs to move through liquid water while minimizing drag for some illegible terminal goal, they will design the object to be also streamlined. Perhaps I am wrong in some details -- for example, I might not have considered supercavitation -- but if I saw an alien using cube-shaped submarines that would be surprising.

In a similar vein, preservation of the own utility function and power-seeking seem to be useful instrumental goals for any utility function which is not trivially maximizable. Most utility functions are not trivially maximizable. I mean, I can imagine an entity whose only goal is to stop existing (or throwing a single great birthday party), and which does not give a damn to what happens to Earth or the light cone, but this seems not very likely.

Now, it is possible that an ASI or alien is so far beyond our understanding of the world that it does not have anything we might map to our concept of "utility function"? Sure. In a way, the doomers believe that ASI will appear in a Goldilocks zone -- too different from us to be satisfied with watching TikTok feeds, but similar enough to us that we can still crudely model it as a rational agent, instead of something completely beyond our comprehension.

However, that still seems a rather large zone to me. The model of an agent pursuing a goal can be applied to mammals up to and including the smartest humans. Perhaps it breaks down at some point, but it seems not far-fetched to assume that it will also describe our IQ 200 ASI (which might wipe out humans first before maxing its INT and reaching enlightenment).

I think Three Houses is good but overambitious. The idea of multiple story routes through the game is neat, but having to do four playthroughs to get the full story is just absurd. In my playthrough, I did the church route and the story with the people pulling the strings completely fizzles out (apparently it gets handled better in the Golden Deer route, but you should resolve the main villains competently without requiring multiple playthroughs). And as you said, it's not like the routes differ enough to make them interesting every time. I hope that in the future they don't try the multiple routes thing again, and stick to telling a single coherent story.

Safety razors. The original ones.

use to cut yourself the least?

Just don't make a cutting motion. Superficial cuts that close in 5mins are unavoidable.

I’m not a gay man but this seems utterly backwards to me. Liberace was the highest paid musician in the entire world, an immensely talented entertainer and genuinely skilled pianist. To achieve that level of status requires a massive amount of talent and effort and you’re saying it’s more gratifying and somehow harder to just be a generic handsome guy because… other gay men find you more fuckable?

This is definitely a real dynamic in straight couples to the point of being a cliche (The Eagles’ Take it Easy if you want an example). The attractive young woman is married to/dating a wealthy older man, but stepping out on him with a young poor man who she is actually attracted to. So I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a thing with gays too.

TY for the correction

After staring at it for fifteen minutes, I realized that both names are an anagram for "anal dildo" and it's only the rule to be charitable that makes me call this a wordplay.

It wasn't meant as a boo outgroup.

Yes it was.

I just thought it's a good shorthand descriptor that everyone here would understand. Apparently not.

Of course we understood it. You're sneering at the people you hate. Making broad generalizations and then saying "Well of course I don't mean literally every single one of my outgroup" does not make it acceptable.

It's not a circle beard, because you keep the sideburns (but trimmed, to keep the cheeks clean shaven). It's closer I think to a normal full beard, but with clean cheeks, shorter length, and shaving the left and right spots under the mouth but leaving the middle to create an "anchor" shape.

Just finished Fire Emblem: Three Houses.

Pretty good music, amazing voice-acting, so-so story, gameplay that massively overstays its welcome and goes from okay to tedious near the end. Having to replay the first half multiple times to get the full story is especially unforgivable.

I could write a longer review but I feel like Fire emblem is a series where you're either a fan and have played them all or are not and are not even remotely interested.

I used Eden, which is a sort of unofficial continuation of the Ryuji emulator. Excellent performance, no bugs or issues to speak of. Nintendo should really be paying these people to port their games and selling them on PC.

I use Gillette three blade (safety?) razors. Probably a Mach 3 Turbo or something, not that I notice the difference between them. I don't use shaving foam, I just rawdog it with water. I don't have sensitive skin, so it's not an issue, and I haven't gotten a cut in more than a decade.

I defended your earlier posts against point-and-sputter sneering, but a lot of the peanut gallery's objections are starting to hit home. Why the repeated, winking reference to the color of the Hajnals vs. Tropicals' skin? If Tidus isn't earth because you want to sneak great truths into propagandized minds through metaphor, there's really no worse way to do this than raising the "That's Racist!" shields every westerner got drilled into his head in school.

In addition, you earlier replied to a comment of mine saying you'd address my critique of De Gobineau that all of the original 'Race of Kings' died off and were replaced with elevated commoners but I don't see how you did this. Maybe the bit about how the industrial revolution causes the laziest Hajnals to not reproduce? I remind you your original portrait of Tidus is of King-race nobles ruling over their fogheaded underlings regardless of skin color of the said underlings. Now we're supposed to believe a few decades of accidental eugenics have turned Hajnal factory-workers into Kings themselves, whereas the melinated Tropicals are irredeemably bad, stupid and violence-prone, immune to the same selection pressures of the industrial revolution?

why you have an entire American film genre whose recurring central theme boils down to "police brutality is good"

You do? At least since High Obama we've had an entire American film genre whose recurring central theme boils down to "police brutality is bad", and even before that stuff like "Death Wish" with the moral of "VIGILANTE brutality is good, police are useless" tended to predominate.

Commander Riker beard

I call it the circle beard myself. I also call it a Van Dyck, but now I realize that's where the goatee is separate from the moustache.

Do you have a cleaner word for that type of person?