ParanoidAltoid
No bio...
User ID: 1028
ParanoidAltoid
3mo ago
Samo Burja floats a simple idea inspired by Musk's Twitter takeover: Fire 80%, hire back 10%:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=dg_bQcswbeM?si=k0QiBLWgyM47iMVr&t=299
There's more detailed discussion in that podcast, but to give my layman take:
Potential disasters that could happen if critical employees are in fact fired?
After the initial twitter purge there were fires to put out, but it seems rehiring back the 10% that revealed themselves to be load-bearing was enough to keep things alive, basically as they were before. Perhaps a critical employee would refuse out of spite and take their severance, but I'd guess that sort of person has a lot of overlap with the sort of person who was wasting space/actively harmful anyways.
Do you think Elon is the right man for the job without political connections?
No, running a tech firms is simpler & requires less political savvy. But he provides the model. I've spoken about this to liberals/centrists who'd normally dismiss me as a libertarian nutjob for wanting to gut the FDA, but being able to point to X at least provides a salient real-life example of the sky not falling. Maybe Musk could spearhead it somehow, he seems to have learned the friend/enemy rule of politics & can bring visibility to this strategy.
The right man for each job remains important: Elon probably tanked Twitter's stock value, whether X is better than Twitter is a matter of taste. He cared more about his free-speech agenda, which is what we got. There's no libertarian panacea where you gut an institution and things just become better off naturally, and the wrong person with the wrong priorities might keep all the wrong people.
The right man for the job is, of course, Peter Thiel. Or people in that network, perhaps there's a shadowy cabal of live players assembled around Samo Burja's "Analysis" firm. Or more realistically, the sort of disgruntled ex-FDA-insiders you might hear on a tech-right podcast:
https://www.fromthenew.world/p/richard-bruns-inside-the-fda
I say "tech-right" not to be partisan, more to describe this: people with the autism to know and care what actually works (like EAs), but enough cynicism & familiarity with how institutions work to not be eaten alive immediately (like the OpenAI fiasco).
Thinking a few thousand people from a little internet bubble I know about would ever get near the halls of power seemed like a childish/schitzo pipe-dream, maybe it is. But after the JD Vance pick, things look a bit different.
ParanoidAltoid
3mo ago
Yeah, I often view questionable DEI appointments as essentially human-shield tactics. Now all criticism of her can be suspected as an attack on women and minorities. And of course there's people who do just hate women and minorities, just like some Zionists do want to see dead innocent Palestinians. Their tweets and memes can be amplified to garner support, at the expense of all the women and minorities who let it get to their heads. Quite tragic.
ParanoidAltoid
8mo ago
Even if many moderns don't outright argue this, their actions and stances on various topics reveal them as materialists through and through
True. But I don't think you need anything as concretely magic as ESP to argue the point that a materialistic worldview is extremely limited.
We know qualia is real. We know the self is some kind of illusion, and might operate on some weird paradoxical mechanism a la Hofstader's Strang Loop. Either way it's too complicated to model and neuroscience is a baby field.
We also have the replication crisis, and academic institutions that seem to pathologically deny their limitations in order to maintain their narrative. We know that narratives can completely reframe how we see the world; even if you don't go full post-modern it's clear that narratives are still extremely distorting yet necessary. Our understanding of meaning is a mess, yet is pretty much the most important thing to everyone at every moment.
And there's the egregore theories; even a weak version like "social networks are complicated and practically incomputable in a similar way as large neural networks or brains" leaves us pretty in the dark about how to predict and understand the world.
All in all, ESP just seems like a strawman of the "materialism is limited" camp.
ParanoidAltoid
1yr ago
Mike Pesca interviews a reporter during the 2010s in Brazil on his new book, If We Burn: The Mass Protest Decade and the Missing Revolution
https://open.spotify.com/episode/62QiTDxfwA0g5WBD4RMXO6?si=8a7f222ee5124b7d
My brief summary of his account: In 2013 Brazilian leftists, anarchists and punks take to streets to protest bus fares. After about 4 protests things become violent/rowdy and police crack down, the media switches to become sympathetic with the protest. Millions enter the streets with various demands. Among those are right-wing soccer hooligans (the Brazil national football jersey becomes their uniform), who physically expel the original leftist protestors. Like, manhandling them off of the streets.
All protester criticisms are aimed at the popular left-leaning ruling party of the time, despite the president being somewhat sympathetic. Two years later, she's gone and far-right Bolsonaro takes power.
My commentary: These protests swelled to contain numerous amorphous groups from everywhere on the political spectrum. Social media, traditional media, and the government all had different levels of sympathy at different times. Though the chaos is unpredictable, the leftists started a chain of events that contributed to a far-right demagogue taking power.
The current thing: Similarly, the pro-Palestine protestors contain many overlapping subfactions. A Muslim may start chanting "From the river to the sea" believing it to mean "Kill all Jews", his cousin and a college student may join in thinking it's only about equal rights for Palestine. Another college student might join in knowing what the chant means, but not want to cause a fuss and shift focus away from the bombings. A third college student may think violent revolution is actually pretty cool and American Jews who don't speak up against Israel are valid targets.
I have no hot takes, the various overlapping factions make things chaotic and hard to draw lessons from. However, Western nations in 2023 are looking a lot like Brazil 2013, maybe this is our future. I would like to see Metaculus posts for "Will over 1 million protestors take to streets on any given day before 2025?"
ParanoidAltoid
1yr ago
I somewhat agree, but, there is the argument that getting a solid blue majority is easier than getting everyone to take red, which will never happen in any real scenario. Sure, taking blue is really dumb if you were, eg, the first person to run into a blender. But I can reframe it too: 50 people on a raft drifting into shore, one guy jumps off early so he can swim to shore early, and the captain yells "If too many people jump off early the raft will collapse." The authority figure and inaction bias both push towards a shelling point of staying put, and if someone immediately jumps off I'm gonna think he's a jackass who could've killed someone.
I can't help but notice this is like a platonic respectability cascade, and is also really controversial just like respectability cascades: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/give-up-seventy-percent-of-the-way As a reminder, this is where something innocent, like shortening Japanese to "Jap", is perceived as signaling something bad the speaker, leading to a cascade whereby it does start to signal something bad because only the actual bad people are willing to keep doing it.
We could all ignore the blue pill, but as soon as a majority people do it eventually it does become selfish not to. I can see how it has the dynamics of a toxic respectability cascade: I don't think anyone thought blacklist was racist until that paper in 2018, people looking to create a moral dilemma they can be on the right side of spread it, until actual good people start believing it and suddenly I'm in the most heated argument I've ever had with my (now ex) gf.
In the original poll I picked red, then switched to blue in follow up polls when it felt safe, and my groupchat went 6 - 1 blue. Unkilled so far across all of them, and never chose red in a blue majority poll since the first one. So, I'm not dying on any hills here. But like in the Scott Alexander article, I'm at least not going to be one of the first to join some destructive cascade.
ParanoidAltoid
1yr ago
If you're saying you find their worldview more appealing, go for it. I'm talking about degree of state-control and overall mission. (If you think RT is better in that regard, then I am brainwashed by the Cathedral and you can ignore whatever I say.) Russia Today is a straightforward tool of the state, when Putin invades Ukraine he knows RT will say what he needs them to, journalists who defy this at risk of falling out windows. CBC does not operate anything like this, they're just part of same Blue-tribe that all think alike. Same with CNN in the Iraq War days, they supported the war for the same reason most Americans did, they were mad about 9/11 and in a patriotic mood, the journalists both felt this themselves and knew it's what their audience wanted.
CBC's mission is probably horribly corrupted by an activist worldview, but they still adhere to whatever mix of journalistic integrity/modern activism their average reporter can defend to themselves. Their gov't stipend has little to do with that and mischaracterizes the entire problem. RT is much simpler and easy to characterize.
ParanoidAltoid
1yr ago
No one asked but one point on this: The CBC in Canada is state-owned and state-funded, I couldn't really object to such a label being put on it. It's technically correct, and twitter can't really differentiate on vibes. But if anyone holds the belief that it's somehow on par with Russia Today, that's ridiculous: it has the same left-wing bias as as every non-right-wing network does, and for the same reasons: it's run by people with that bias. It continues to have that bias no matter who's in political power.
And as queasy as state-funded media might make me on principle, it's got plenty of competition from private entities, and the bias of wanting to spread sensationalism for views is also a problem (including with the CBC, who sells ads and likes views just like everyone), so having some variety in the ecosystem seems good.
ParanoidAltoid
1yr ago
and for having a backbone, but only barely (but still more than Bostrom; always pitiful to see scared autistics)
I really think you're in a bubble, considering the context his response was very heterodox. He mentioned some true things about other factors that affect IQ, apologized for his language, but said he'd "like to leave it to others" to determine if genes play a factor in IQ. He's getting dragged for this, and others have called it brave, I don't think it's fair to call Bostrom spineless.
I'd like to know exactly how you guys would have responded, maybe you can think of something better. But I feel like you're all just anonymous internet guys who don't have realistic standards for people who are trying to actually be effective and powerful and have more important priorities than culture warring.
Ty, I will use this. I've argued before that if autism is an "extreme case of the male brain", and on-the-spectrum just means "kind of autistic", then isn't on-the-spectrum just... male? But someone wrote a piece debunking the extreme male brain theory, since instead of the high-T male traits that theory predicts, autists show lower-T traits, more likely play video games and dress-up... This all makes sense.
Still, my point stands: where are the maximum-T great men? Playing it safe, getting high in Austin, defending their irrelevant works. It's going to take at least some boyish idealism to want to tilt at the windmills of the US government. I predict more of this in our future.
More options
Context Copy link