desolation
Eat At JR's Donut Castle!
No bio...
User ID: 1157
Are there still Advisory Opinions listeners around here? Overall I enjoy the podcast, despite David French being... David French. If I never hear "Brahimi" again it will be too soon. Just say the two cases instead of wasting 10x as long talking about the other David coining the portmanteau! Moving on-
Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services has come up on the pod, and will be heard in the upcoming SCOTUS term. This concerns a circuit split on the matter of proving discrimination, in this case in employment, where a "member of the majority" is held to a (considerably, IMO) higher standard to display discrimination. I continue to be baffled by the judge who wrote the opinion. It has gotten a little airtime, especially since the Sixth Circuit was French's stomping grounds, and one assumes it will get a lot more after oral argument and the decision next year. Interesting case, Motte-fodder, looking forward to the decision. I will be pleasantly surprised if it's 7-2, unsurprised 6-3, 5-4 irritating but also not too surprising; unless it gets wiggled out or mooted on a technicality instead of a substantive decision in which case just irritated.
In the most recent episode they spent a few minutes, much less than they've spent about engagement ring law, on B. W. versus Austin Independent School District. If you're having a good day, do not read this case. If you are easily outraged, do not read this case (that was my mistake). If you are a court nerd who wants to see how the Fifth Circuit decides what constitutes harassment, want to look at 9 judges for each side who are likely to be on shortlists for the Supes (Ho and Oldham already are for the right, they're in the dissent here, and Ho makes a showing with his own flashy dissent, even citing Ames), and can read absurdity without sparking an aneurism, go ahead. I am tempted to suggest skipping the standing decision entirely and starting on page 6 for the dissent, but that is an incomplete picture even if the standing decision says so little.
The TL;DR is- a student was bullied over the course of years, and the case basically asks two questions. One, does racial animus as an expression of political animus become, more or less, acceptable because political affiliation is not a protected class? Two, as the only prong of Title VI harassment contested by the AISD, does this meet the standard of harassment pervasive enough to "deprive the victim of access to education opportunities or benefits provided by the school"? The answer to the first seems to be yes and the second no, though I confess my charity burned to a crisp about three sentences into the standing decision so it may be a less than perfect summary.
David and Sarah believe SCOTUS will not take up this case, because of the question of political animus overlapping with racial. How unfortunate, as that is the interesting part to me. This generates quite a loophole in harassment law, even more so than the Ames differing standards of evidence. If you can smuggle protected-class-harassment in under another excuse, what's the point of the distinction?
They also bring up the two gender tshirt case and predict that when one of these cases does make it to SCOTUS, the result will be a lot more school uniforms and stricter dress codes. Like Hamtramck, I consider this superior to the alternative though worse than ideal: uniforms are a nice solution to "your rules applied fairly" where applicable.
Thank you for reading more into it.
Following up on a past comment on abortion by @naraburns: https://www.themotte.org/comment/250966?context=3#context.
An adjacent thought I've been wondering about is- to what extent are these outrage-bait cases routine medical (or patient) errors, that would've happened in exactly the same way but been totally ignored pre-Dobbs?
and treated with amused curiosity by the members of the fraternities.
Correct, it wouldn't be the members of the frats that pillory him, but any progressive-leaning group that heard about it if the troll/eccentric decided to publicize it. Cultural appropriation, infringing on their private spaces to be safe from white supremacy, etc etc.
Time to pull out an old playlist with some AFI and Hawthorne Heights, too.
I always suggest turning off the voting system,
Likely a good suggestion here, but I do not think doing so improved Scott's substacks comments or anyone's substack comments. Not having a voting system does not seem to make DSL any more peaceful or open, but there's other structural barriers there.
Not many of his post-2014 articles went really viral, and I think (hard to judge as a regular reader) that Gay Rites ranks pretty high on the Best After 2014 list. I remember seeing "New Atheism: The Godlessness That Failed" linked more often though.
There was a lull after the assassination attempt (which, yeah, perfectly reasonable) but he's really picked back up these last few weeks.
A polyamorous Bay Arean rationalist endorsing "anyone but Trump" for the second time is even less surprising than The Atlantic's endorsement.
I wouldn't call it cowardly, I don't think it's exactly fair to call it honest, but not bothering to make a pointless endorsement would've been a surprise.
He's got his cosy little life and doesn't want to upset it or anyone in his gender-ambiguous urban polycule by making waves
In the comments to his mediocre guest post, someone speculated he'd only publish something so bad if it was from a girl he liked. Still wondering if that's true.
The root cause is that (unusually) there was a large partisan gap between postal and in person votes, because fear of COVID-19 was a partisan issue.
Also situations like a homeless-support NGO that apparently provides mailing services for every single homeless person in Philly, and there's some (conspiracy thinking)(honest questioning)(take your pick) about ballots from sources like that.
Harry Byrd Sr.
Huh, they don't seem to be related, especially since the name is because Robert was adopted, but Robert and Harry bear some resemblance IMO. Weird.
Being from West Virginia where 50% of buildings and public structures are named for Robert C. Byrd (citation needed), he's a memorable fella.
TBF to Byrd, the man turned it around so much he got a glowing eulogy from the NAACP, including mentioning his involvement in the VRA.
So using "trimester" probably keeps timelines ambiguous, and "weeks" sounds a lot shorter than months
I've heard that the trimester language started being used because of the abortion debate and trying to make convenient bright lines, but I don't know how true that is. Pregnancy isn't really 9 months but rounding generously gives you the three-part structure.
(how many weeks are in a pregnancy? I think most people couldn't answer that without calculation).
Anyone that's been pregnant or close to someone pregnant should know it's (roughly) 40 weeks; appointments tend to be scheduled by weeks rather than months. Outside of the pregnant and adjacent, I'd be surprised if many people get the "right" answer even if they calculate.
What a perverse cycle of history: the West turned away Jews, Holocaust, West feels guilty and sets up asylum laws Never Again etc, those asylum laws ultimately end the "guilty West," becomes anti-Semitic again, Jews get turned away.
And I wouldn't count on most of Europe being too safe for jews in the future.
In the rate case where the inferential distance can not be bridged, you should at least try to make your arguments as factually close as possible.
Yes, this is the smarter way of describing my concern.
I do get the arguments as soldiers concern, but my concern is that a lot of x-risk messaging falls into a trap of being too absurd to be believed, too sci-fi to be taken seriously, especially when there's lower-level harms that could be described, are more likely to occur, and would be easier to communicate. Like... if GPT 3 is useful, GPT 5 is dangerous but going badly would still be recoverable, and GPT 10 is extinction-level threat, I'm not suggesting to completely ignore or stay quiet about GPT-10 concerns, just that GPT 5 concerns should be easier to communicate and provide a better base to build on.
It doesn't help that I suspect most people would refuse to take Altman and Andreessen style accelerationists seriously or literally, that they don't really want to create a machine god, that no one is that insane. So effective messaging efforts get hemmed in from both sides, in a sense.
I think you have a disagreement about what aspects of AI are most likely to cause problems/x-risk with other doomers.
Possibly. But I still think it's a prioritization/timeliness concern. I am concerned about x-risk, I just think that the current capabilities are theoretically dangerous (though not existentially so) and way more legible to normies. SocialAI comes to mind, Replika, that sort of thing. Maybe there's enough techo-optimist-libertarianism among other doomers to think this stuff is okay?
Plausible, yes. I am unconvinced that concerns about those are the most effective messaging devices for actually nipping the problem in the bud.
"No danger yet" is not remotely my point; I think that (whatever stupid name GPT has now) has quite a lot of potential to be dangerous, hopefully in manageable ways, just not extinction-level dangerous.
My concern is that Terminator and paperclipping style messaging leads to boy who cried wolf issues or other desensitization problems. Unfortunately I don't have any good alternatives nor have I spent my entire life optimizing to address them.
I remain unconvinced that morally or practically the distinction matters, though in tone-policing forums such as this it may be worth distinguishing.
There is no “crime is good” crowd.
Criminals are a "crime is good" crowd, including Seth Rogan and Chesea Boudin's entire extended family.
There’s a “crime is better than this” crowd, which is disgusted with the state of policing.
I do have a hard time accepting the positions of people who are thoroughly insulated from the consequences of their beliefs or immune to the logical conclusions of their beliefs.
The "crime is good" crowd makes an exception for self-defense, which is only valid when used against cops.
I'm sure the Neanderthals' last thoughts included "so what, those skinny folks with the funny heads will survive even after they've wiped us out. We shall go gently into that good night."
We're homo sapiens. If we take AI true believers seriously, this isn't hundreds of years in someone else's lifetime; it could be less than ten years before an amoral sociopath unleashes something beyond our control. I plan on being alive in ten years.
I do not happen to think AI (from the LLM model) is likely to be an extinction-level threat (that's a specific phrasing). I do think Sam Altman is a skilled amoral sociopath who shouldn't be trusted with so much as kiddy scissors, and it should haunt Paul Graham that he didn't smother Altman's career when he had a chance.
What is the relation of child-having to being more spiritual grounded and invested in the human race (the human race, not just their children)'s long-term wellbeing?
Note, of course, that parents can also fall into stupid mental traps and failure modes. The position is they are just somewhat less so, as being invested in abstractions is not the same as being invested in something concrete. High-minded ideals can lead one down ridiculous paths- see EA's concern for shrimp.
In my experience, such positions tend to themselves be cope, that one finds excuses for being a selfish hedonist ("Oh, I'm not having kids for the environment," totally has nothing to do with being a perpetual adolescent who can barely take care of themselves and have no interest in the world at large). People of every stripe and position will find reasons to justify that their choices are Good and Right, and will work to reshape reality to ensure that.
The risks of current models are underrated, and the doomerism focusing on future ones (especially to the paperclip degree) is bad for overall messaging.
Reminds me of a popcorn-scifi novel Nano, by John Marlow in which the greater Bay Area gets vaporized by space lasers to stave off a grey goo apocalypse. Always kinda felt having an excuse to vaporize the Bay was part of the desire behind the plot.
- Prev
- Next
Bullying your advocates into silence is so much easier and clearly more effective, that there would be no way to enact this at this point. As wise as the founders were, they didn't take Adams' concerns about the religious populace seriously enough, nor did they include protections and predictions for what would happen if traditional religion went on hiatus.
Bizarrely, political affiliation is protected in California, though I assume there's umpteen loopholes for why this has no effect on reality.
More options
Context Copy link