YoungAchamian
No bio...
User ID: 680
YoungAchamian
16hr ago
Yeah... it sucks that its going to have to be such a costly lesson but idk how else to get them the message at this point. I assume their careers and self interest are super aligned with foreign adventures so to stop this kind of behavior will require a steep cost to them personally and their careers, to act as a warning for the next gen of war hawks.
I also want Congress to rein in some of their powers. I'm tied of "special operations" that take a whole carrier battle group over months. If you are doing large scale operations, you are at war.
YoungAchamian
16hr ago
I'm a pretty cynical bloke, and my sympathy for Trump didn't even come from his promises, but from the kinds of people who hated him,
Pretty much my stance when I voted. Trumps not really my "hated-outgroup" even if I'm not a fan. but the kind of people who hated him are. And I think he's a vindictive bully who would attack my hated-outgroup, dismantle their hold over American institutions. Until Iran it was kinda looking that way., now... idk. But I am not happy.
YoungAchamian
17hr ago
What does the anti-war side in the US want in the Iran conflict?
A Domestic policy focus, the continued removal of the woke cancer from American institutions, a weakening of the war hawks and the globohomos, a reduction in executive fiat and the abrogation of congressional powers and at this point a complete divestment from the sandbox from hell.
The War Hawks keep seem to be either missing the message in regards to the average citizen’s desire for empire building in 3rd world shitboxes, or more realistically they understand if they get us into a quagmire then with no good options to extricate ourselves without humiliation they can get their way. They keep hitting the defect button, at this point we might as well make the cost for doing so, ugly otherwise they will never get the message.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
There's always more tax cattle
The standard term is pay pig /s
YoungAchamian
2d ago
if you don't even read what they say, you cannot be considered to be knowledgeable about their thesis.
They broadcast the hell out of their thesis online, as far as I have encountered it, I categorically disagree with the base principles.
Keep in mind, making these arguments is akin to telling early NASA engineers in the 1950s that they shouldn't send rockets in to space because then the hyper advanced aliens in the dark forest are going to start collapsing space and that will be bad for the universe. It comes off as literal insanity. Just because some science fiction book has conceived of it doesn't make it actually possible or even reality.
I'm tired and I'll respond to the rest later.
YoungAchamian
3d ago
This jives with my understanding, I always have thought of them as similar to a software consulting company for Defense related projects.
YoungAchamian
3d ago
Have you read Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies? That's a pretty core doomer text.
No I haven't and I'm not likely to. The fun of Science fiction is its not taking itself too seriously.
AIs naturally want
Let me stop you here, AIs want nothing, they aren't sentient. They are a very advanced token model that is predicting the desired output from the context and the question. They are a tool, a mathematical function approximation fitted to a general solution. If doomers want to call a coding subroutine sentient, well its a free country, but they are abusing the english language to do it. This is the cargo-cultism.
let it give instructions for a civ 4 game
In AI R&D we call this Course of Action Generation. The military has been trying to get GenAI to provide strategy tips for the better part of 4-6 years. It has failed every wargame it has attempted. If you think you have a great solution and that AI can totally model the world for military tactics, I recommend you submit to this: https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/60a94bf650a84d3fb0bb524862e78401/view, DARPA's DISCORD project. If DARPA is asking for it, that means they think it doesn't already exist and is a moonshot.
Is that not a world model
Not if you are filtering through yourself to give it context and understanding of the situation. You are using your human world model as the surrogate to the LLMs. Can it play Civ 4 left to its own devices, shown a picture of the screen with the tutorial on? Maybe an agentic setup to take actions?
Saying that AIs don't have a world model today is not an effective counter
To be specific, I said LLMs don't have a world model. LLMs are not the full set of AI... Do I believe AGI will never develop a world model? No.
The whole concept of a world model is nebulous
This is like saying a convolution or self attention is nebulous. World Model's mean very specific things technically in ML research. The charitable interpretation is that converting the technical jargon to a descriptive lay-person understandable explanation is very challenging.
YoungAchamian
3d ago
Exactly, which is my major gripe with the AI-Science-Cargo-Cult Mysticism that AI singularity doomers swim in. Basing the real-world situation on the details of the Sci-Fi scenario that is not in any way based on actual science is insanity. It's there for broad outlines, core elements, not details.
And honestly I haven't seen as much motion as I'd expect on the world interaction front.
It's a very active area of research but it hasn't reached the state that lay-folk would interact with it.
YoungAchamian
3d ago
A "world model" is not really some far reaching philosophical characteristic. LLM discussions require you keep in mind what the LLM is actually doing. It is making very impressive statistical correlations between the semantic mapping of token embeddings in a way that best conforms to the expected output. It is not modeling anything else than that. Whatever world knowledge it has is only acquired indirectly through patterns in data.
If I asked you why does a ball fall if I drop it, you'd say gravity, if I dropped the ball you'd expect it to fall. If I asked why does my glass of water have less water in it after an hour outside in the sun, you'd say evaporation. If I showed you a small metal projectile moving at high speeds towards a person, you'd realize they are being shot at, that blood will come from the wound, that they will give a cry of pain, that someone was doing the shooting, that there should be a loud noise, etc. You have a "model of the world" aka you understand that there are causal factors that will cause a reaction and that if you observe the reaction what those causal factors may be. These are all things that happen irrespective of the statistical correlation of words.
Now, Obviously an LLM will be able to tell you all these things because all of these situations occur as text in its training data, over and over. But there exists things that exist outside of that training data, and so you should expect it to act very much this same way for those.
YoungAchamian
3d ago
Same with the passenger. Sucks to be him because I'm fine.
I mean in this case the passenger is analogous to the baby.
I feel this topic will endlessly fail to converge because of the underlying teleological differences. If one side believes in a unitary telos of sex -> reproduction and the other believes in a multi-variate telos of sex, then I think convergence is unlikely. The risk-based argument fundamentally belongs to the multi-variate telos. The unitary telos smuggles in Christian values, which is not very convincing to non-Christians. There are other arguments, but ones that are anchored on the topic of life/humanness are always semantic debates where each side trots out their specific very biased tailored definition and attacks the opposing definition.
Unfortunately many of both sides are also invertebrate hypocrites around the principles of this discussion, and want to cut a fine boundary carveout for their pet side while dodging the "child-support payments" of the downstream costs. The best that can we can really hope for is that each side sticks to holding their own views in their own community and doesn't try to enforce it on the other side's community. But due to the universalist and totalizing natures of the underlying grand narratives involved that sort of equilibrium is probably not emergent.
YoungAchamian
3d ago
Your solution is essentially what Chain-of-thought prompting is doing. In order to cut down on hallucinations, aka token prediction unmoored by the constraints of reality, you provide the model the intermediate steps at each section. As you found, when given micro steps, the LLM doesn't need to make large reasoning jumps that require intrinsic understanding of the rules, causal factors or some underlying structure of the world.
Your idea is essentially, "how do I provide an embedding that represents the state of the world" at each step of the model's prompting. Language is the easiest for human's to embed but it is not the most compact or highly representative.
YoungAchamian
6d ago
This is a non sequitur, we are discussing the meta level comparison between pro-life and forcing vaccination, if you wish to discuss bodily autonomy applied to abortion there are comments throughout the thread discussing it.
YoungAchamian
7d ago
ZanarkandAbesFan
Nah ^ blocked me for this comment. Or at least has very recently blocked me and it just so happens to coincide with their low effort comment below. I just find it funny or ironic of all my controversial comments that the genuinely innocuous one was what got me.
YoungAchamian
7d ago
Is it? That's cool. They did not offer me one when I went to a Hillel in college for an antro of religion observation but it also wasn't a very serious service/community.
YoungAchamian
7d ago
In a data modeling understanding, everything is a "piece of evidence" any observation, any data, is fuel for the bayesian model. I observed it, made a tentative connection, stated my theorized connection, you and the other poster pointed out why is not a likely connection, I updated my understanding model of the what/when/where/why's. The end.
Idk why you are jumping at this so aggressively.
YoungAchamian
7d ago
Yes the non-tongue and cheek answer is that this is a problem that has been semi-solved by having a more egalitarian relationship with both partners working at a comparable income. Assortative mating within your socio-economic class leads to stable relationships. I'm not sure where IraqVeteran8888 falls into the spectrum, but my shot in the dark is that a guntuber is conservative -> trad relationship -> Wife stayed home to take care of the kids and do the home making -> bigger alimony payment when divorce happens.
The other observation, though probably more charged, is that average gender warriors opinion of women getting the short end of the stick through their own actions in the dating, is to say "you should have picked better, or actually cared about the red flags". Unfortunately that same advice applies to men in the marriage market. Don't marry Stacy because she's hot and wants to raise your kids if she also is the type of vindictive or mercenary to take you to the cleaners in the divorce.
YoungAchamian
7d ago
I have no dog in this fight, nor am I particularly Joo-pilled. It was more of a curious piece of evidence that might have weighed in on a model of behavior. Not every underlying model mechanism is correct.
YoungAchamian
7d ago
And other predators still, like Christianity must be fought off with memetic technology like rationalism, critical thinking, and atheism. However it was a clever predator and it to adapted to the anti-bodies and now gave us a virulent strain of Atheist-Christianity aka Woke-ism.
YoungAchamian
7d ago
The simple answer here is to make sure you marry a woman with comparable assets and a career so you can divorce rape her. There are a bunch of famous female celebrities recently that have gotten divorce raped by their lower-earning male ex-partner. I imagine the DR happens more when you marry some woman who becomes a stay at home mom who you have kids with.
The courts see woman + kids and "balance" the income for the woman and then "balance" it again for the kids. ie: 100% income (male) 0% income (woman) -> divorce: 50% M and 50% F -> each give half to the kids, 25% M & 75% F as women are assumed to be primary caretakers.
Isn't Peter Magyar jewish? Some friends in my right-wing group chat shared a photo of him in a yamaka with a star of david on it. I personally don't know anything about him. But I imagine if he is a practicing jew that might be a better model to explain his reluctance to sanctioning israel.
EDIT: Nice this comment earned me my first block for something so innocuous, is this a motte rite of passage?
EDIT 2: Wrong kind of Right, very pratchet-onian of me
YoungAchamian
7d ago
Not once have I seen from you an argument that a fetus isn’t a human being in any way wouldn’t be difficult for you. I said as much earlier and received no direct response to it.
This was me being charitable to you.
If you don’t think people should walk about the streets with a sense of vigilante justice about them and decide to act on their liberty to murder other people for transgressions real or imagined
This is not you returning that charity. This is you taking my gift horse to the glue factory.
What I’m asking you is to do is define all these terms in a way that circumscribes only a fetus
How about you do it first? You've spilt a lot ink not describing any of those terms and wanting me to do all the works so you can attempt to knock them down.
I can define all these terms
Then fucking do so and stop telling me you can.
my moral framework isn’t only accurate (naturally, as I’d argue), it’s universal
Again, prove it, show me the deets.
Well good luck trying to eat your cake and have it too
You are literally doing what you accuse me of.
Then per the Socratic method, you’re being irrational.
Asking you to actually define your terms is not irrational. Accusing me of being an idiot or irrational because I am holding you to any normal debate standard is insane.
Now give me your morally coherent framework for how “none of this,” supposedly counts.
How about you stop bloviating and do it first. You are claiming this grand universal moral theory that perfectly encapsulates everything but evade any attempt to actually explain what that is. I am not claiming some grand perfect moral theory, I'm just claiming that yours is not universal. Your response to that is hate and ad hominins...
The reason this “clump of cells,” (which also captures you and I incidentally)
It also captures sperm cells and eggs. Does jacking off into a cup count as murder?
a human is because it possesses a unique genetic blueprint that is distinct from both parents and is placed on a developmental trajectory towards a fully actualized human being.
"Will become X" is not the same as "already is X" in the full morally relevant sense. You are smuggling in the assertion that because something has an endpoint it must already possess the moral status of that endpoint at all points in time.
In Catholicism innocence is defined as the state of being unburdened by deliberate malice or evil. Children are innocent because they lack the rational maturity and understanding to commit mortal sin.
Cool, now define innocence without appealing to Catholicism or sin. I'm not catholic and neither is 84% of the world.
This is what having a discussion requires. You need to leave your frame just as I leave mine, and you define your arguments in ways I can understand and agree with and vice versa. It is not a "I'm going to dictate to you what is right or wrong from my castle and you can accept it or be wrong" Considering we don't live in a theocracy, as much as apparently you'd like to (see I can be uncharitable too), Christian morals are not auto-includes in government because we have separation of church an state.
Ahh yes the Quokka effect. The innocent belief that if you just show people the error in their ways then they will correct because the only reason they made that error is because they were unaware they were making it in the first place.
I do think the parent comment is touching on something in regards to an extreme sense of fairness being inherent to Autists, and the violations of that fairness being very triggering. But you also have a good point here in the inability of Autists to model uncharitable behaviors online and assume a base level of "something". I'd say its probably a level of development, as Autists are forced to reckon with the wider outside world, I think an anger at the unfairness develops including a souring of the "Quokka effect"
I'm not sure I understand the connection between your first and last points?
EDIT: my brain moves faster than I type and I forget to type out important words
Last time I checked, getting into an accident and having your passenger die is not vehicular manslaughter. You'd have to be driving criminally negligent, reckless, or otherwise unlawful. unprotected/protected Sex is not unlawful, criminally negligent, or reckless.
But you are pretty much granting that you don't have a duty to preserving the life. You are just hoping to punish the driver for something else. In this hypothetical you can just leave scott-free. The whole point is whether you have a duty to save the passenger or not.
Not to derail, but does anyone have any idea of what this actually means? I work with defense modeling and sims folks and I am an AI/ML person but whenever I hear the words AI Simulations I'm left scratching my head. Is this just making world sims for RL models? But then why would you be training an RL model to invade Taiwan? Simulations are generally done on big HPC rigs with tons of variables, ie. Finite Element Modeling. This isn't something that really benefits from neural nets. Maybe my technical classification is different than the non-technical, but this guy is supposedly some researcher I feel like the classification would be more precise.
More options
Context Copy link