@VoxelVexillologist's banner p

VoxelVexillologist

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ Multidimensional Radical Centrist

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 18:24:54 UTC

				

User ID: 64

VoxelVexillologist

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ Multidimensional Radical Centrist

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 18:24:54 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 64

because they almost always do.

Usually. But the Mark Sanford, uh, affair in 2009 was pretty memorable, for example.

A loving Harry-Dracina marriage

It's at least interesting that the (hetero) romance angle would play out somewhat differently if you gender-swapped Harry instead. But I don't follow fanfic, maybe that's been done before.

There isn't any method of execution that can't be botched

Are there any accounts of MAID being "botched"? Admittedly I haven't gone looking, but I'd assume they would be similarly effective but for the lack of medical qualifications on the death penalty side.

By contrast, in the space of all utility functions an ASI could have, the functions which are compatible with human thriving are a null set.

Is this strictly true? To most other types of animals on this planet, we probably seem like a super intelligence. To a whale, we probably look a lot like gods, and Lord knows we haven't always used that power for good. But, outside of Japan, Norway, and Iceland, our intelligence has also given us the motive to want to preserve in addition to the usual creation and destruction powers, and we've banned whaling, and the whales are doing better than a few decades ago. And for some species like the Great Auk, this realization has come too late.

I'm not saying I want AI to treat us like whales, but there are bad outcomes that stop short of extinction. The AI has already ingested our conservationist memes, but I suppose what exactly it chooses to do with them we can't guarantee.

AI Safety advocates (correctly) argue that even a 0.5% chance of the world ending is worth spending resources to study and solve.

Pascal has entered the chat, and would like to encourage us to spend large-but-finite resources on the worship of God because the positive odds of evading eternal infinite hellfire make it a utilitarian positive.

Less tongue-in-cheek: I don't think you're wrong per-se, and some resources are reasonable. But how does AI risk compare to, say, the risk of near-Earth asteroids that could end civilization?

We should maybe keep track of how this changes, and I do expect it to, but what fraction of the work that happens at, say, TSMC is fully automated? The raw silicon mining isn't. The trucks bringing materials to the factory aren't, and can't even fill themselves with gas. I'd even bet there are a few dozen batch operations in the fab that don't start themselves, if not more. The big powerplants that run the grid mostly have human operators. The repairs to all of this are planned and executed by human hands.

For now, at least, Skynet would lose because it depends on a grid and supply chain that humans could not be extracted from. I expect this to change, maybe even rapidly, in the next decade or two, but the starting point is so manual that we'd still be irreplaceable for a few generations.

Even while we're talking about automated weapons in the military, and automated aircraft, the guys on the carrier flight deck are numerous and aren't just there because it looks cool (admittedly, it does). It'll take a lot of effort to replace all of them.

You probably know more than me here, but it seems like the most interesting results would be bounding "intelligence" (which remains ill-defined) as a function of model size and training data size. There are some results in that direction, but no Shannon Information Theory class results.

It's be really nice to affirmatively prove "three sentences of training data and an arbitrarily large model cannot create the Omniscient Machine God." This seems an obvious result, IMO, but even "maximal intelligence scales sub-linearly with both training dataset and model size" would seem to dispell "FOOM" singularity concerns.

We have to deal with the fact that the human era of producing value is coming to an end,

Value is really an agglomeration of scarcity and social elements. Even today, it's possible to see a trend of concrete material wealth losing "value" to a human element. People often are willing to pay extra for functionally equivalent handmade products, farmers markets, and original art pieces. Food in terms of calories is valueless in a way our ancestors might not be able to comprehend, but there remains expensive food.

It seems quite possible that post-material-scarcity doesn't necessarily imply that human physical and emotional labor is zero-value.

The USA's Largest Employer of Mathematicians is not really academic, and almost certainly doesn't hire foreign nationals. I genuinely have no clue what their demographics look like, though.

I believe one of the AI companies published a break in one of the post-quantum crypto finalists (HAWK). It wasn't the one NIST settled on, but I bet they looked at those. Note that NIST published crypto standards have at least once in the past been resistant to attacks not yet published when they were chosen.

But also, the P=NP Millenium Problem, which hasn't been claimed yet, would have very strong cryptography implications depending on the direction that goes.

IIRC NY is a one-party consent state for audio recording. Such a recording showing up here might be the biggest surprise evidence since Kavanaugh writing down all his social interactions starting in his teens.

Power and status are highly contextual, and I've found general attempts to rate "privilege" don't map well to the full gamut of situations.

We have a few non-CW threads. Maybe they need more traffic. Although I would be cautious personally about crossing too many other domains there for opsec.

I hope the full text of her actual statements to police get released

It is interesting to me that all the media outlets claim to have the Title IX case file, which I assume they got from Jane Doe --- leaking it from the university would, AFAIK, be a felony under FERPA. I'm fairly confident she has, or could get, a copy of the police statement and full report. I haven't seen the media claim to have seen those. My best guess is that what we're seeing is heavily spun in the interest of getting a settlement, but I have no doubt there will be plenty of collateral damage.

She has given multiple versions of the events, and most of the citations here are to the least favorable of those. The DA's summary is probably technically correct, but I doubt it's the most flattering version of the original tale. The more recent version is viscerally unpleasant and I can imagine she feels today like it was exploitative, at least in hindsight. I'm not sure advertising her to the whole fraternity without her knowledge wasn't.

It seems quite possible to me she was sold a "modern, libertine, anything-consensual-goes sexuality" by the culture, only to run headlong into "lol, but not actually" in how the rest of campus reacted. It's unclear how she went to all the trouble of making a victim statement to the police without seemingly including the facts to make it a crime. I am really confused by that one, actually: is reading comprehension and general knowledge that bad among Ivy League undergraduates and police departments?

But it seems to me now she's been taken for a ride by the lawyers, and promised financial compensation, criminal charges, and fame anonymity by her lawyers with this highly-public strategy, who I suspect know deep down she'd be lucky to get at most one. I don't see anyone but the lawyers winning this even if she does settle with the university. Is settlement even an option with the other parties? The facts, even only her accounts, don't seem friendly at trial (not a lawyer, interested in opinions), and there doesn't seem a case for reputational recovery worth a settlement for the guys even if they had money.

All 8

Don't forget the Marine unlucky enough to have the same name as one of the 7 and his mother whose address was incorrectly listed in the docket.

I feel bad for Jane Doe, but those two didn't even do anything!

But at least based on texts, Male #1 didn't talk about.

Do we know which of the numbered parties sent the Snapchat message?

I suspect the open Internet is permanently dead.

I feel this, as someone who has been around it for like 3 decades now. I've watched the digital frontier get explored, claims staked, fences erected, gardens walled off, and IDs checked at the door. The last one is happening now, between various proposed legislation worldwide and informal methods used in the name of "fighting bots". Within the last few months, Reddit is no longer usable without an account, and I can't even consistently make Google searches in incognito mode.

Some things have certainly gotten better. Video was once a [BUFFERING] exercise in [BUFFERING] patience. Now it streams in HD while I download whole video games. A large local AI model can replace much of the information you'd be looking for anyway. But I do think something of value has been lost.

I'd love to see some good "closing of the digital frontier" stories in fiction.

I see where you're coming from, and it does seem relevant here but "kissing can be fine, but kissing and telling is rape" is not, IMHO, a viable legal standard. Especially since I'm not aware of it being codified anywhere relevant here. It's dangerously close to ex post facto to criminalize actions based on words separated by months or years, unless it was considered a separate crime.

And if this was truly the standard, going on a nationwide media court-of-public-opinion press tour as part of your civil litigation strategy is, uh, not a good look either.

Is Atticus Finch of To Kill a Mockingbird a bad man on the basis of defending a convicted rapist? I don't remember that book on my far-Right Patriarchy reading list (/s).

Criminal conviction is a line there, maybe even one of the better ones, but hardly the only one.

How else would you expect fraternity leadership to react to "Things (almost) went too far that night"? I have at least some sympathy for the "let's not do that again" option there. Maybe not the best way to implement that, but certainly the easiest.

Maybe libertarian sexuality works really well for some subset

I'd like to stan libertarianism here: while I'm maybe a bit jaded on the overall concept these days, the notion is that you can (voluntarily) choose your sexual norms within your community. Libertarianism here, in theory, allows both headscarves and, uh, Aella to share the same streets. You can choose to wait until marriage and find someone into that. You can join a celibate monastic order. You can just do things.

I will admit it falls short in some situations: it's pretty easy to imagine the parties here aren't always acting purely voluntarily, and that there isn't coercion within communities to adopt tighter (or looser!) codes. I'm not sure you can build a community without at least some structure of convergent orthodoxy, but maybe a line could be drawn there.

I've long wondered whether parents of twins really manage to consistently identify them from birth, and never managed to accidentally swap them before they learned their names.

This cow question seems like the best opportunity to use mu.

The reason why a priest having a mistress is generally considered a scandal is because the priest spent a lot of time denouncing that lifestyle. By contrast, the grey tribe is generally liberal in their position on sex

I somewhat disagree with this take: These folks label themselves "rationalist", but some of their most prominent public opinions are "give in to base sexual urges". It may be my traditional upbringing, but I suspect most people would agree that topics around sex are some of those people generally tend to be least rational about. I would have expected more explicit rejection of flawed human irrationality: are the Shakers and such irrational in adopting complete celibacy?