3·
2 hours agoGood news everyone, we will be living with Big Yud until the literal end of time (see comments)
- 1 Post
- 106 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: July 1st, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
OK now there’s another comment
I think this is a good plea since it will be very difficult to coordinate a reduction of alcohol consumption at a societal level. Alcohol is a significant part of most societies and cultures, and it will be hard to remove. Change is easier on an individual level.
Excepting cases like the legal restriction of alcohol sales in many many areas (Nordics, NSW in Aus, Minnesota in the US), you can in fact just tax the living fuck out of alcohol if you want. The article mentions this.
JFC these people imagine they can regulate how “AGI” is constructed, but faced with a problem that’s been staring humanity in the face since the first monk brewed the first beer they just say "whelp nothing can be done, except become a teetotaller yourself)
To be scrupulously fair it is a repost of another slubbslack[1]. Amusingly, both places have a comment with the gist of “well alcohol gets people laid so what’s the problem”. This of course is a reflection that most LWers cannot get a girl into bed without slipping her a roofie.
[1] is that even ok? I know the LW software has a “mirroring” functionality b/c a lot of content is originally on the member’s SS, maybe you cna point it at any SS entry and get it onto LW.
Nothing expresses the inherent atomism and libertarian nature of the rat community like this
A rundown of the health risks of alcohol usage, coupled with actual real proposals (a consumption tax), finishes with the conclusion that the individual reader (statistically well-off and well-socialized) should abstain from alcohol altogether.
No calls for campaigning for a national (US) alcohol tax. No calls to fund orgs fighting alcohol abuse. Just individual, statistically meaningless “action”.
Oh well, AGI will solve it (or the robot god will be a raging alcoholic)
Oh FFS, that couple have managed to break into Sweden’s public broadcasting site
Here’s LWer “johnswentworth”, who has more than 57k karma on the site and can be characterized as a big cheese:
My Empathy Is Rarely Kind
I usually relate to other people via something like suspension of disbelief. Like, they’re a human, same as me, they presumably have thoughts and feelings and the like, but I compartmentalize that fact. I think of them kind of like cute cats. Because if I stop compartmentalizing, if I start to put myself in their shoes and imagine what they’re facing… then I feel not just their ineptitude, but the apparent lack of desire to ever move beyond that ineptitude. What I feel toward them is usually not sympathy or generosity, but either disgust or disappointment (or both).
“why do people keep saying we sound like fascists? I don’t get it!”
The artillery branch of most militaries has long been a haven for the more brainy types. Napoleon was a gunner, for example.
Oh, but LW has the comeback for you in the very first paragraph
Outside of niche circles on this site and elsewhere, the public’s awareness about AI-related “x-risk” remains limited to Terminator-style dangers, which they brush off as silly sci-fi. In fact, most people’s concerns are limited to things like deepfake-based impersonation, their personal data training AI, algorithmic bias, and job loss.
Silly people! Worrying about problems staring them in the face, instead of the future omnicidal AI that is definitely coming!
LessWronger discovers the great unwashed masses , who inconveniently still indirectly affect policy through outmoded concepts like “voting” instead of writing blogs, might need some easily digested media pablum to be convinced that Big Bad AI is gonna kill them all.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4unfQYGQ7StDyXAfi/someone-should-fund-an-agi-blockbuster
Cites such cultural touchstones as “The Day After Tomorrow”, “An Inconvineent Truth” (truly a GenZ hit), and “Slaughterbots” which I’ve never heard of.
Listen to the plot summary
- Slowburn realism: The movie should start off in mid-2025. Stupid agents.Flawed chatbots, algorithmic bias. Characters discussing these issues behind the scenes while the world is focused on other issues (global conflicts, Trump, celebrity drama, etc). [ok so basically LW: the Movie]
- Explicit exponential growth: A VERY slow build-up of AI progress such that the world only ends in the last few minutes of the film. This seems very important to drill home the part about exponential growth. [ah yes, exponential growth, a concept that lends itself readily to drama]
- Concrete parallels to real actors: Themes like “OpenBrain” or “Nole Tusk” or “Samuel Allmen” seem fitting. [“we need actors to portray real actors!” is genuine Hollywood film talk]
- Fear: There’s a million ways people could die, but featuring ones that require the fewest jumps in practicality seem the most fitting. Perhaps microdrones equipped with bioweapons that spray urban areas. Or malicious actors sending drone swarms to destroy crops or other vital infrastructure. [so basically people will watch a conventional thriller except in the last few minutes everyone dies. No motivation. No clear “if we don’t cut these wires everyone dies!”]
OK so what should be shown in the film?
compute/reporting caps, robust pre-deployment testing mandates (THESE are all topics that should be covered in the film!)
Again, these are the core components of every blockbuster. I can’t wait to see “Avengers vs the AI” where Captain America discusses robust pre-deployment testing mandates with Tony Stark.
All the cited URLS in the footnotes end with “utm_source=chatgpt.com”. 'nuff said.
Remember FizzBuzz? That was originally a simple filter exercise some person recruiting programmers came up with to weed out everyone with multi-year CS degrees but zero actual programming experience.
The argument would be stronger (not strong, but stronger) if he could point to an existing numbering system that is little-endian and somehow show it’s better
The guy who thinks it’s important to communicate clearly (https://awful.systems/comment/7904956) wants to flip the number order around
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KXr8ys8PYppKXgGWj/english-writes-numbers-backwards
I’ll consider that when the Yanks abandon middle-endian date formatting.
Edit it’s now tagged as “Humor” on LW. Cowards. Own your cranks.
So here’s a poster on LessWrong, ostensibly the space to discuss how to prevent people from dying of stuff like disease and starvation, “running the numbers” on a Lancet analysis of the USAID shutdown and, having not been able to replicate its claims of millions of dead thereof, basically concludes it’s not so bad?
No mention of the performative cruelty of the shutdown, the paltry sums involved compared to other gov expenditures, nor the blow it deals to American soft power. But hey, building Patriot missiles and then not sending them to Ukraine is probably net positive for human suffering, just run the numbers the right way!
Edit ah it’s the dude who tried to prove that most Catholic cardinals are gay because heredity, I think I highlighted that post previously here. Definitely a high-sneer vein to mine.
Enjoy this LW answer about “myths that encapsulate eternal truths”. No. 3 will surprise you!
No replies and somehow that screen name just screams “troll” to me.
Not that I really care, git can go DIAF as far as I’m concerned.
janitorai - which seems to be a hosting site for creepy AI chats - is blocking all UK visitors due to the OSA
https://blog.janitorai.com/posts/3/
I’m torn here, the OSA seems to me to be massive overreach but perhaps shielding limeys from AI is wroth it
Guys, how about we made the coming computer god a fan of Robert Nozick, what could go wrong?
Vegemite?
I’ll get my coat.
Here’s an example of normal people using Bayes correctly (rationally assigning probabilities and acting on them) while rats Just Don’t Get Why Normies Don’t Freak Out:
For quite a while, I’ve been quite confused why (sweet nonexistent God, whyyyyy) so many people intuitively believe that any risk of a genocide of some ethnicity is unacceptable while being… at best lukewarm against the idea of humanity going extinct.
(Dude then goes on to try to game-theorize this, I didn’t bother to poke holes in it)
The thing is, genocides have happened, and people around the world are perfectly happy to advocate for it in diverse situations. Probability wise, the risk of genocide somewhere is very close to 1, while the risk of “omnicide” is much closer to zero. If you want to advocate for eliminating something, working to eliminating the risk of genocide is much more rational than working to eliminate the risk of everyone dying.
At least on commenter gets it:
Most people distinguish between intentional acts and shit that happens.
(source)
Edit never read the comments (again). The commenter referenced above obviously didn’t feel like a pithy one liner adhered to the LW ethos, and instead added an addendum wondering why people were more upset about police brutality killing people than traffic fatalities. Nice “save”, dipshit.
There are a bit different axes here. The tax money doesn’t directly go towards alleviating the suffering of family members of alcoholics, nor does it directly lower the effects of drunk driving. The income is a nice to have, for sure, but the stated aim is to be a “sin tax” which makes the bad thing less affordable.