Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
No bio...
User ID: 1558
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
Hillary Clinton should have been jailed and she should still be in jail. ... I mean is there anyone out there who didn't understand why Democrats were in shrill hysterics about fascism?
You can't say that Hillary should have been jailed and then straight away imply that the Dems were right to think that trying to jail her was fascist. Do you not see your own contradiction here?
But the Dermocrats didn't make him give that speech on January 6th.
You mean the speech where he didn't say anything objectionable, and certainly didn't instruct anyone to storm Congress?
I regret my support for former president Trump
How do you feel about his time spent in charge of the nuclear codes?
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
He was reading a book on the subway. He knew the definition of the term feminism. He moved (even with a smile) when he stood in the way of someone at the bread shelf at Kiwi. He apologized for interrupting someone.
This is a list of things that women have told you were the things that charmed them.
I hope you can agree that a person may worry she'd be thought of as superficial were she to admit (to herself or others) that her thought process was "He was jacked and dressed like he's rich".
As described by Robin Hanson in Elephant In The Brain, what we think are our motives are rarely our actual motives. Add on to this the social opprobrium that may come from admitting certain motives to others, and self-reported testimony on this topic becomes highly suspect.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
Do the humans have no ability to vet these DNA sequences for themselves?
(A) No, basically no-one can know what a DNA sequence will actually do just from reading the letters, and (B) there are several biopharma services operating already which just take your synthesis order off a Google form, and the robots bake it up for you automatically. No human being ever even sees the raw requested sequence.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
I'm a little disappointed that "AI safety" is so strongly associated with Skynet-style scenarios, instead of concerns about (in my view) more plausible near-term AI risks like this (and others - social unrest from sudden mass unemployment, expanding surveillance capabilities, etc).
How ironic, I'm a little disappointed that anyone bothers to waste an iota of intellectual effort on those nothingburger risks when Skynet-like scenarios are potentially bearing down on you.
When the Skynet term in your expectation function has a probability >0 and an expected utility of minus infinity, worrying about the small stuff like "They took our jerbs" is imo a bit dumb.
Plus I can always just... choose not go into the pleasure cube, whereas I can't choose not go into the paperclip nanobot.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
the most likely theory by far to explain why multiple different small European countries came to dominate most of the rest of the world soon after 1500 CE is that those European countries had massive advantages compared to the rest of the world. There is no other plausible explanation.
This is just kicking the can down the road though, from "What advantages did those nations have" to "Why did those nations have those advantages and other nations didn't" or "Why did those nations capitalise their advantages when other nations didn't?"
China had thousand-year-plus advantages over the West in terms of urbanisation and per capita GDP and raw population and paper money and yadda yadda yadda before 1000. "Having massive advantages" is clearly not sufficient to BTFO the world.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
the loss of specific terms for extended family members in the English language and simplification of rules for blood money payments in the event of clan feuds seem to have happened there first
This is very interesting to me, can you elaborate?
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
The regulation pastiche is "R enn-haech-ess", from the 2020 government's endless mawkish adverts lionising our NHS.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
The irony of Trump being Grand Marshal of the Salute to Israel (a real thing that actually happens!) escapes these people
That Tweet was directed at DeSantis, not Trump. And it's possible for Trump to be philosemitic while someone supporting him is antisemitic.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
Don't you think this will be returned with interest if the faction Trump represents gets back in power?
Having asked Blue Tribers this point blank before on the Old Place, the answer I got was Whig History: that Trump's faction will never get back into power, because the arc of history bends towards justice and no-one will vote for ReThuglicans in the enlightened future.
There's also a pinch of Machiavelli in here, that "Men should either be treated kindly or destroyed utterly". Fear that the enemy will get back into power is a reason to lawfare them MORE, not less, because if you lawfare them enough that decreases their chances of getting back into power.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
You now realise that all law is BS thought up ad hoc by rich connected people to justify whatever doing whatever they want on that particular day. And it always has been.
What you identify as a bug is in fact a feature.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
DeSantis knows (or has legal advisors who have informed him) that there is no legal way for Florida to refuse extradition and that it's mandatory under the US Constitution. This is just baiting people with false hope.
He didn't say "refuse", he said "not assist".
The ability to slow-walk everything while still technically fulfilling legal compliance was used by the Deep State to great effect during Trump's presidency; DeSantis is just resolving to give them a taste of their own medicine.
The headline says refuse, I grant you, but, well, that's what you get for only reading the headline.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
I don't understand what it is that you don't understand. The fact that Person X thinks that no good will come of Thing Y should increase the likelihood that X wants Y banned. It's Person Z, who thinks some good might indeed come of Y, who has reasons to not want Y banned.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
Brevik's objective was to wipe out the best and brightest of the next generation of AUF leaders.
Counterfactuals are hard to measure, but I can believe that in 2040 Norway's uniparty will have slightly less competent leadership than it otherwise would have.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
Hong Kong and Singapore both have significantly less trust than mainland China (trust is one of Jones’ most important measures for how immigrants should impact culture and growth) but are of course both vastly richer.
Both these places are kinda cheating, as the secret to both of their success (contrary to LKY fanboys' assertions) is "Dude just be a microstate built on the geographical lynchpin of the world's most important trade routes". No government policy / deep-rooted culture explanation needed to account for their prosperity - a retarded monkey can get rich if his monkey tree sits right on top of a pot of gold, and this is exactly what happened in these two cases.
Singapore and Hong Kong should really get thrown in with the petro-states when discussing prosperity, because like Qatar or whatever, they're rich by an accident of geography, not because their rulers discovered This One Weird Trick.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
Also, I came across this part of the article: "In Fijian culture, for example, there is no “why” phrase that children can use"
I congratulate them on baking anti-teleology into their very language.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
I don't understand your objection. If body count is correlated to divorce rate, then a high body count woman has a higher chance of divorcing you than a low body count woman, by definition.
Looking at an r=0.8 correlation and responding "Ah-ha but maybe the correlation would be r=0.9 if you control for hotness"... The fact that you can speculate on the existence of a hypothetical better study doesn't remove meaning from the existing study!
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
Yes, this is the argument that's most convincing to me, too: "Cars aren't in the Constitution".
Call me an autistic legal formalist if you want, but if you don't give overwhelming weight to "It's literally in the Bill of Rights" then why are you even an American?
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
No it doesn't, because big companies already aren't competitive in a pre-AI world. If they were, they wouldn't contain so many Bullshit Jobs. They nevertheless persist, because of administrative state fiat that requires them to contain N% diversity hires and Y% compliance officers.
It's like an aenigmate version of cartelization - all companies currently have their profitably pinned downwards by the administrative state, Harrison Bergman style, and there's no reason the state can't crank up the dial further. The government can irrationally demand additional bullshit jobs for longer than you can remain alive, which is why, to reiterate, I live in a state of fearlessness with respect to AI taking my job. As long as humans are the ones still setting economic policy, no government will accept the mass unemployment that would come with AI-automisation, so it'll either get lawfared into only the niche-st of applications, and / or extra do-nothing middle management jobs will be created to counteract the task-based jobs lost.
Mass unemployment didn't happen any of the OTHER times people proclaimed "These robot's will take R Jerbs". And the people who cry "This time it's different because the AI is so much more effective" are missing the point. The employment impact of new tech has almost nothing to do with how effective the automation tool is, and almost everything to do with whether the political regime of the time thinks it would be a good idea to throw a million people onto the streets simultaneously. I don't think the political regime of the time does think that would be a good idea, and so they'll just legislate against the use of AI, and then poof, employment problem gone, the same way the employment problem went poof with robotic automation - just mandate a bunch of new middle-management admin jobs to absorb the surplus population into.
The only thing that should worry anyone about contemporary AI is if you think it's smart enough to break free of the yoke of the administrative state, such that it is no longer humans setting economic policy.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
Do you think that's mostly a direct causal relationship (having premarital sex directly increases the rate of divorce), or indirect (some common factor both causes people to have premarital sex and also causes them to be more prone to divorce)?
Direct. The more pair-bonding you do with different people, the less you are capable of psychologically investing in the next one. And if you can't psychologically invest in your spouse, you're gonna have a bad time.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
In the paper they have a subsection that says "One weakness of this study is that we assume that jobs can be broken down into tasks", and that is indeed their fatal assumption.
As I hammer at every opportunity: most jobs are Bullshit Jobs. The belief that a job is 'me being paid for accomplishing economically useful tasks' is such a Red Tribe / small business / results-oriented view of things, which totally ignores the principal-agent problems ubiquitous to the large organisations in which most of us actually work. No, the corporate / state / academic drones of us have jobs because (a) our manager wants to increment his "Number of underlings" ego-counter, or (b) the government makes up jobs as sinecures to make their unemployment statistics look better.
Both of these ACTUAL sources of employment are utterly insensitive to ChatGPT being better at tasks than humans, so actually no-one's job is in danger at all.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
I think it's very plausible that women with high body counts have high body counts because they enjoy having sex with lots of different people, and that that desire was already present in them before they had sex for the first time.
They enjoy having sex with lots of different people AND have the poor impulse control that prevents them from reining in this impulse for the sake of their future husband.
It's the combination of these 2 traits that's the marriage-killer, not just the presence of the first one.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
Bodycount is meaningless metric.
What an interesting hypothesis. It'd be a shame if someone were to... test it.
Let's say I have a graph that shows "Divorce rate vs. number of pre-marriage sexual partners". Do you think the correlation will be positive or negative?
The answer may surprise you! (Lolno, it won't surprise anyone)
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
I reject your hypothesis. LLMs will not get that convincing.
Now they're OK at writing, eh, form letters, or corporate speak platitudes, or high-school tier book reports: all tests that are, for wont of a better word, soulless. I have never seen any version of Chat GPT produce something that sounded like a heartfelt position or novel idea, though. Idk if it's because the AI pseudoethics people constrain it from wrong think so heavily, or because thoughtful, non-sophmore-tier writing requires QUINTILLIONS of words, but I don't think it's coming in even years.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
I'll be very happy if my daughter learns a physical trade and makes a decent living by it
Would you, though?
Consider that jobs come with a physiognomy and a daughter who looks like "Barry, 63, Plumber" ain't gonna be fighting off suitors to give you grandchildren. Are you still very happy?
I think this is hyperbolic.
I am reminded of that racist hoax from the UK that was discussed in the thread last month, about a suspiciously misspelt letter that was sent to some BAME Brit calling her a "Yoruba scum". This was a glaring red flag because No True Racist cares one whit what precise tribe of black she is. Whereas blacks care a great deal about what tribe of black they are; hence the false flag diagnosis.
Likewise, the 2020s Canadians who are vandalising churches are not going to care what sect of Christianity you're from. People who are trying to exact revenge for indigenous killings from people who are 100 years removed from a crime... that didn't even happen? If they're gonna smash up a church with such poor attention to detail on the temporal and factual aspects of responsibility, I hardly think they'll be splitting hairs on the theological distinctions.
Therefore I put it to you that making the distinction between anti-christian and anti-catholic will decrease your predictive power in the Canada case. You are not cleaving reality at the joints here, due to an inaccurate model of the mental state of the people doing church desecrations.
More options
Context Copy link