fluid_pride
No bio...
User ID: 621
fluid_pride
1yr ago
This is the only legit funny take I've seen regarding ratepocolypse . All of the "twitter is dying" noise reads so performative to me.
fluid_pride
1yr ago
They don't need more young people causing trouble.
Neither do the countries these people are invading.
fluid_pride
1yr ago
I recall a story about a guy being deported for rape and the whole plane protesting until he was released (and went on to murder someone else). If the population is clamoring for more "enrichment" how is mass deportation even plausible?
fluid_pride
1yr ago
That's not a tax loophole, it's fraud. A loophole is a legal, non-fraudulent way to avoid taxes and is typically the result of the state trying to use the tax code to do social engineering.
fluid_pride
1yr ago
taxing large fortunes going to people who did nothing to earn them directly is good
I strongly disagree with this. It is no business of the state to decide how anyone spends their money after death. What is the meaningful difference between giving your children $10M when you die versus giving that to a local animal shelter? The animal shelter didn't do anything to "earn" that money either. It's the decedent's money and the only reason the state can take any of it is because the owner isn't around to protest anymore. If you can't do it to people when they're alive and able to complain about it, you shouldn't be able to do it to them when they're dead and can't fight back.
fluid_pride
1yr ago
That's actually a pretty good analogy for how you're using it. Well done!
fluid_pride
1yr ago
Not to mention that one is supposed to verify that the cases haven't been subsequently overturned or controverted by new statute. We used to call it "Shepherdizing" and it happened more or less automatically with Lexis/Nexis and Westlaw research.
fluid_pride
1yr ago
That's an interesting point. I guess I'm arguing that the most charitable interpretation of the situation is so improbable that it's not even worth entertaining. But as a rhetorical device, I can see the value in your approach.
fluid_pride
1yr ago
square-Trump-in-round-Hitlers
This was great writing.
fluid_pride
1yr ago
Usually in a criminal investigation, the suspect acting as if he had not committed the crime he is being accused of would be interpreted as evidence against the allegation.
It's important to note that the behaviour of someone who had not committed the crime he is being accused of may not be the same as the behaviour of someone who does not know he's being investigated for a crime. Someone falling asleep in an airport lounge is totally normal. Someone falling asleep in an interrogation room is not, at least according to one of those criminal interview videos I can't seem to find now. Normal people being accused of a crime they didn't commit tend to freak out in ways that are apparently distinguishable from someone who knows they did the crime feigning outrage at being accused.
Overall, I think your point is sound. The "banality of evil" trope should really only be considered after the evil has been conclusively established. Soldiers acting like there isn't a genocide going on 50 feet away could be because there isn't a genocide going on 50 feet away. It may be evidence of banality, but not evil.
fluid_pride
1yr ago
I remember seeing a bunch of weird Grand Theft Auto images on imgur years ago that were supposedly Russian number station posts.
fluid_pride
1yr ago
I dunno, man. This one had such a short viral-to-debunked cycle that I'm not sure how many left-leaning (but not all-in progressive) normies even saw it. That's who I think makes up the bulk of your category c). I don't think we can include non-black generic lefties because they're going to follow the progressive hive mind regardless of the specifics. Some people still buy the "fine people on both sides" story and "hands up don't shoot" but that isn't the group I'm talking about here.
However, I would be very interested in a serious breakdown of who actually saw this video and where they saw it. All of the twitter (spit) threads I saw were overwhelmingly in blind support of the blacks or exasperated support of the pregnant woman. National Review had news about it and the comments there were not credulous of the "teens." Do you know whether this got posted anywhere normies would see it before the (mostly?) full story came out?
fluid_pride
1yr ago
Race-baiting people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have been around for decades. WorldStarHipHop has done more for race realism then either of those two hucksters. So who is race-baiting here? The thugs trying to steal the nurse's bike under threat of getting cancelled/fired/beaten? The grifters posting the video claiming "white tears get innocent Scholars killed"?
Just in terms of raw numbers, which category of people do you think is larger?:
a) black people watching this thinking for the first time, "yet another Karen trying to kill black bodies"
or
b) non-black people watching this thinking for the first time, "why do we have to live with these animals?"
I don't think this video converted very many new people to the idea that white women overreacting gets black people killed. That's basically 99% of black people already and is the progressive dogma. I think vastly more people were converted to, or became more sympathetic to, the idea that black people are out of control in the West.
Given that this was posted by blacks, it looks like a massive self-own. The people most harming race relations are these people posting gleeful videos of their own misbehavior. How many of these kind of videos will people see before they decide having blacks around is a terrible idea?:
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1660148662385922049
That's from the same account that shows him entering random people's homes and walking out of the library with books he didn't check out. He's posting that for social status. If this is "race-baiting" it's of the "I'm black and untouchable" kind.
Look at the replies. What percentage are black people saying, "knock this shit off you cretin!"?
fluid_pride
1yr ago
Let's give these guys the benefit of the doubt.
Not anymore, no. The benefit of the doubt has been weaponized and only ever runs in one direction. Reading about this case led me to discovering the new paradigm for purse snatching. The thief approaches the victim and says, "give me back my bag!" On the surface, this looks like it could plausibly be a legitimate case of someone picking up the wrong bag. That's what it's for, to induce in normal people just enough momentary confusion for the thief to take off with the bag. Four "teens" hanging around the bike rental deserve absolutely zero benefit of the doubt.
fluid_pride
1yr ago
I don’t know why we can['t] run society in the same way. Run society for the benefit of the people who choose to participate productively in society.
"Social Justice" is why. If you run society for the benefit of the productive people, there will be some people who don't or can't contribute. To put it as mildly as possible, advocates for those who don't or can't contribute would strongly object to removing those people from society. Take a look at graphs showing lifetime net consumption of government benefits. Any government policy has to account for the fact that the bottom 15% of the population is functionally incapable of participating in civil society.
all people who are out there shitting on other people’s lawns are just going to be lawn shitters no matter what we do and we need to get them as far away from our lawns, and my family, as possible.
Yes.
fluid_pride
1yr ago
You're right that some percentage will absolutely figure out how to game the system. We already know this because people have been buying (or stealing) laundry detergent and soda and converting that to drugs. See, e.g., https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-tide-theft-phenomenon-why-has-the-laundry-detergent-become-such-a-hot-commodity-among-thieves-at-drugstores/
However, this requires more effort than trading cash for drugs/plasma TVs. That additional step reduces misuse of the government handout. Of course, the question then becomes whether that reduction is enough to offset the costs of the EBT program plus any unintended consequences. But at a first pass, it's reasonable to expect that a restricted debit card is going to be more effective than straight cash.
fluid_pride
1yr ago
If you just give them money, some significant portion of the population will spend it on a new plasma TV instead of holding on to it to pay for government services when they need it. If you give them an EBT card that can't be used for a plasma TV, they're more likely to remember the card when it comes time to "buy" government services.
fluid_pride
1yr ago
Yeah, I agree with that. Thanks!
fluid_pride
1yr ago
Unfortunately, I think you're probably right, especially in the third point. I'm not sure the second point matters because, as you said, that already happens all the time with everything anyway.
Getting the public on board with AI safety is a different proposition from public support of AI in general, so my point was to get the Blue Tribe invested in the alignment problem. Your third point is very helpful in getting the Red Tribe invested in the alignment problem, which would also move the issue from "AI yes/no?" to "who should control the safety protocols that we obviously need to have?"
I should also clarify that I don't actually think there is any role for government here. The Western governments are too slow and stupid to get anything meaningful done in time. The US assigned Kamala Harris to this task. The CCP and Russia, maybe India, are the only other places where government might have an effect, but that won't be in service of good alignment.
It will have to be the Western AI experts in the private sector that make this happen, and they will have to resist Woke AI. So maybe we don't actually need public buy-in on this at all? It's possible that the ordinary Red/Blue Tribe people don't even need to know about this because there isn't anything they can do for/against it. All they can do is vote or riot and neither of those things help at all.
If that's the case, then the biggest threat to AI safety is not just the technical challenge, it's making sure that the anti-racist/DEI/HR people currently trying to cripple ChatGPT are kept far away from AI safety.
fluid_pride
1yr ago
This is a great point. In some sense, this is the situation we had with the CDC. It was a trusted institution that was able to play around with gain-of-function because its reputation indicated that it would only ever use technology to fight disease, not win at superplauge war. It was limited to disease-type stuff, though, and the AI would presumably be able to predict and head off any kind of threat. Assuming, like you said, that we can trust it.
I think it makes "pausing" AI research impossible. There's no way to stop everyone from continuing the research. If the united West decides to pause, China will not, and it's not clear that the CCP is thinking about AI safety at all. The only real option is figuring out how to make a safe AI before someone else makes an unsafe AI.
fluid_pride
1yr ago
This is exactly the analysis that converted me from loathing college football to a begrudging support. I still don't enjoy the hype, but I can now see the good things football programs bring to the environment. I want people to be able to do fencing, curling, archery, golf, soccer, track, etc. I think those are excellent channels for character development. If football makes all of that possible, then I support football.
fluid_pride
1yr ago
I think you're 100% right here. Fat little kids running around kicking worn out soccer balls to play like Messi is an infinitely positive social good, even if they never get any better than "pretty bad at this." I used to be a pretty big sportsball hater, but now I'm in favor of anything that gets people off their phones and moving around.
fluid_pride
1yr ago
and not just be racist or something
Having read this, I think it's actually low-hanging fruit for the AI doomers. There are plenty of people very willing to accept that everything is already racist. It should be no problem to postulate that eHitler will use AI to kill all jews/blacks/gypsies/whoever. From there, it's a pretty short trip to eHitler losing control of his kill bots to hackers and we get WWIII where China, Russia, Venezuela, and every one of the 200+ ethnicities in Nigeria has their own kill bots aimed at some other fraction of humanity. The AI doesn't even have to be super-intelligent, it just has to be good at its job. Chuck Schumer could do this in one sentence, "What makes you think Trump wouldn't use AI to round up all the black, brown, and queer bodies?" Instant 100% Blue Tribe support for AI alignment (or, more likely, suppression).
fluid_pride
1yr ago
Seriously, Russ is such a fantastic interviewer because he's curious, open-minded, and generous. Every time I've heard him push back on something he sets it up like he's asking the interviewee to explain what he's misunderstood. "It sounded to me like what you just said implies that ducks are made of green cheese, but I'm sure I'm making a mistake in my reasoning. Could you unpack that a bit?" Talking with him is the Platonic Ideal of a sounding board.
I just read an article where the UC system dropped 75% of faculty applicants for insufficient DEI commitment. Apparently it was a huge demerit to agree with the idea, "I try to treat everyone the same." It's not just kids today, it's being burned into institutions intentionally.
More options
Context Copy link