FeepingCreature
No bio...
User ID: 311
FeepingCreature
7mo ago
openrouter.ai has it available.
FeepingCreature
7mo ago
Yeah, I always feel confused with Zack because it's like ... clearly Eliezer is defecting against Zack and so the callouts seem fair, and Eliezer did practically ask for this, but also the strategy as you describe is probably pretty existentially load bearing for life on earth?
I guess what I'd want to say is "sigh, shut up, swallow it all, you can live with it for a few years; if we get the Good Singularity life will be so much better for AGPs than it would by default, so sacrificing consistency for a bit is well worth it." But I realize that I can say this because of my healthy tolerance for political bullshit, which is not universal.
FeepingCreature
7mo ago
Thanks for the writeup! I was wondering what was happening with that since I only caught the edge of the drama.
FeepingCreature
9mo ago
I disagree that it's too fast, and I would submit that making it 2x on YouTube doesn't make it better is an argument for it. This is music that is intended for that speed, not speed purely for speed's sake.
FeepingCreature
9mo ago
I think the main novel factor of the electronic music scene that started 2000-ish is the really high BPM, enabled by speeding up samples and using digital tracks. I don't think you'll ever see that in the mainstream. Dubstep is just a melodic direction, a kind of novel instrument, and thus can be absorbed, but if the rhythm is too fast for most people to even parse, it stops sounding like music entirely. So while that song uses dubby elements, I'd still fundamentally call it artsy pop-rock at heart. Which to be fair, goes for lots of current electronic music too.
Fast electronic is older than you think. Nothing against Camellia, but just for the one I know, DJ Sharpnel were making this style of music in 2001. Hell, Project Gabbangelion was in 1996. It almost makes more sense to view its current popularity as a revival.
(It's from 2005, but I really enjoy this best-of album.)
FeepingCreature
9mo ago
One possible problem: you can compare prices iff there's competition, which will depress prices.
FeepingCreature
9mo ago
Yes, but it's near impossible to genuinely have no bias about X; to have absolutely no bias X has to be decoupled from any causal modeling. We have bias for almost anything that happens in the world, so I think this just makes for bad intuition because it's such a cornercase.
FeepingCreature
9mo ago
AIUI technically speaking you have conditional probabilities, but that's not quite a "likelihood of having a likelihood" but "a likelihood given a precondition event which also has a likelihood".
FeepingCreature
9mo ago
Trans-Exclusive Regular Feminist
FeepingCreature
9mo ago
This is basically Bayesian-vs-frequentist. I think the counterargument would be "the statement that X is likely to have a probability isn't even coherent, that's a type error". You can say that a class of events has an objectively true rate of occurrence, ie. if a coin will be thrown 100 times, then there will be a factual number of heads that show up, but you cannot say that any individual cointhrow has a likelihood of having a likelihood - that's just a simple likelihood. In other words, you can assign 10% probability to a model of the coin in which it has a 60% probability of landing on heads, but the word "probability" there carried two different meanings: observational credence (subjective) vs outcome ratio (objective). You can't have a credence over a credence; one is observational, the other is physical.
Not sure if that makes sense.
FeepingCreature
10mo ago
Speak for yourself, I intend to run millions of forks.
FeepingCreature
10mo ago
Desecrating any of these
Atheist point of order: you cannot desecrate them, because they are not sacred.
The Invisible Pink Unicorn (possibly made of pink-glazed blown glass, in the style of My Little Pony) as the steed bearing the returning Jesus, depicted as a Super-Saiyan, His head and hair burning white, His eyes like a flame of fire, His feet like fine brass
Honestly, I believe many atheists would consider that "fucking awesome".
I mean sure, and you'd say "well all altruism is effective, everyone is genuinely trying to help out as well as they can," I just simply don't think that's the case at all. EA as a name is an implicit insult to non-E A - and the insult is ... kinda deserved. Rationality, or rational fiction, have the same issue. As Max0r said in his DOOM Eternal review, regarding the tightly focused combat system:
"But Max0r," I hear you thinking. "That's every game ever!" Yes! Every good game ever.
A tight focus on effectiveness can assume a quality of its own - that sort of behavior can be surprisingly rare. Especially if everyone finds it too awkward to consider or admit that quality differences, possibly massive differences, exist.
FeepingCreature
10mo ago
As a person who gets knotted up about paperclip maximizers, let me just note here for future reference that we were always EA. You can find "effective charities for AI" all the way back in the early GiveWell recommendations. Mosquito nets is what we recommend to those strange people who for some reason don't see the pending apocalypse coming.
And of course, since you're giving me such a perfect setup:
so what, all lives are being saved here exactly?
Exactly. :P
This logic seems mad though, taken to it's extreme the most altruistic move would be to help someone that shares none of your values, and since altruism is a core value you should be exclusively helping the least altruistic of people as that is the most selfless thing you could do. Of course this is obviously ridiculous and self defeating (like the lgbt groups supporting hamas)
That's a misunderstanding. You're implicitly applying a virtue/signaling framing to a consequentialist policy. You should be supporting the least altruistic people iff you want to signal the depth of your commitment to altruism to your peergroup. EA isn't trying to "maximize the depth of the virtue of altruism", it's trying to "maximize the rating produced by the altruism principle." Adherence is "capped" at one - when you already do the maximum good for the greatest number, you cannot adhere even harder by diverging from this concept to avoid also benefitting non-altruist principles. That is, EA does not at all penalize you for your actions also having auxiliary benefits to yourself or your peergroup, if that happens to be the optimal path. Also, utilitarianism is in fact allowed to recognize second-order consequences. That's why "earning to give" and 80,000 Hours exist - help some already pretty privileged people today, and they can probably help a lot of others tomorrow.
What makes EA EA as opposed to traditional A is exactly that it's supposed to care more about outcome rating than virtuous appearance!
FeepingCreature
10mo ago
Ero, surely.
FeepingCreature
11mo ago
I think it's worth looking at the answers to that question when it's posed for other sexual orientations or desires. "Can't you just not be a public masturbator?" "Can't you just not be a pedophile?" "Can't you just not be a sadistic murderer, Ted?" If he says, "No! I was born this way, and I can't change!"
I mean, first of all yes, I think that applies to all of those as well. I think people back then were conflating "can't you just not do the thing you like" and "can't you just like the normal thing instead." One of those is possible, the other isn't. But also, I genuinely think there's a difference in that most kinks, I believe including pedophilia, tend to be optional, not obligatory: you can get off without them. This does not apply to gayhood. I think there's maybe genuinely two separate categories here.
FeepingCreature
11mo ago
Sure, but then the argument is on who is right, and I am not aware of a strong reason for why who you love should be wrong to be.
FeepingCreature
11mo ago
I thought Born This Way was supposed to be about "can't you just not be gay?"
FeepingCreature
11mo ago
That seems unrelated: there's a difference between a partner and a victim.
FeepingCreature
11mo ago
Childhood as gay conversion therapy does work: some people only realize they are gay in college. They gather the usual evidence, "women don't interest me" plus "wow that man makes me feel things", but without gayness as a model it just gets lost in the evidential noise of daily life.
The problem is that once you have the model of gayness, you can't exactly erase your memory and redo childhood. So it is a viable conversion therapy, possibly the only viable one, but it is not one that can be applied to a person it has already failed for.
FeepingCreature
11mo ago
Long before you put paedophiles in jail, you should argue for the much cheaper approach of a special arm of the police whose job it is to surveil every house for child abuse. You could probably even farm most of it out to AI. So since we don't even do this, it's not just that society accepts the current level of child abuse in trade for not having to put an unknown fraction of the populace in jail, it accepts the current level of child abuse in trade for not providing every household with a Child Abuse Safety Siri, which is much lower. We don't even do this with schools or churches! In other words, just the cost of implicitly accusing every member of society of being a potential child molester is already too high to be worth stopping the vast majority of abuse that happens. In conclusion, society seriously does not care very much about the background noise of child suffering.
FeepingCreature
11mo ago
I mean, but conversely, who should have the right to determine what feelings are or aren't part of an identity? I mean conversely, if I start saying "divine-attracted" or "people who experience a religious impulse" and note that they don't have to raise their children to believe in Hell, they can't help that they perceive the divine but pushing it on others is a choice- I suspect some of the same people would become very angry at me.
Hell, being grossed out by gayness also doesn't need to be part of people's identity. As they say, "you are not immune from propaganda identifying with your impulses."
The investment and divestment of impulses from your identity is to some extent voluntary. However, it also serves as a signal as to which impulses you value the highest. To say that "SSA do not have to make that a part of their identity" is close to saying "SSA should not make that part of their identity" which is itself approximately equivalent to "society should not try to fulfill or support SSA". At which point I start disagreeing: so what if men have impulses to have sex with men? Society is a system to arbitrate the fulfillment of impulses with minimal friction. The religious impulse or the purity impulse should not get primacy over the gay impulse.
As a
doomersafety tribe person, I'm broadly in favor of catgirls, so long as they can reliably avoid taking over the planet and exterminating humanity. There are ethical concerns around abuse and dependency in relations where one party has absolute control over the other's mindstate, but they can probably be resolved, and probably don't really apply to today's models anyways - and anyways they pale in comparison to total human genocide.But IMO this is the difference: whether safe catgirls are in the limit possible and desirable. And I don't think that's a small difference either!
More options
Context Copy link