magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
No bio...
User ID: 1103
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
12hr ago
I wouldn't consider it so. Also, my read on Steve is that he's not even trying to bait a response, just lash out at people he gets mad at. Could you maybe link me some examples of Steve trying to bait people?
@SteveAgain, to be clear, I don't actually hate you. I see too much of myself in you to hate you. With that said, "you must learn control". I'd suggest putting some kind of spacer into your post routine so that you have time to calm down before a post goes live, because it's specifically your angry snarling at people that's causing the problems.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
12hr ago
Saya no Uta takes about 3 hours or so to read. Maybe more if you're a slower reader than I am, although probably not by much given the whole "voiced" thing.
I haven't played the versions with the sex scenes stripped out, but I'm not sure if they're fit for purpose; the sex scenes contain a large amount of character development and even a significant amount of the plot. I'd recommend a version with them left in if you're going to play at all. Related to this, it's a horror VN, and it needs a warning for actually being horrifying - I was 20 when I played it and I had a "wake up screaming" nightmare, although it's still #3 or #4 on my list of "best VNs" (I've played slightly over 50).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
18hr ago
After all these sorts of comments you make are obvious trolling.
Um, no they're not. Trolling is deceptive posting in order to bait a response; Steve clearly does think that netstack's action was "a joke". I do not get "troll" vibes from him in general; he appears to be a sincere, very angry, very radical rightist.
Steve is a frequent flamer (i.e. someone who insults others). That is itself against the rules, but it's not the same thing as trolling.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
21hr ago
· Edited 21hr ago
Is that a valid way to test your theory?
1994 is prior to SJ nucleation; I'd expect conservative names.
I do want to specify that SJ progressives are frequently six-foundationers who would prior to the 90s have become conservatives, and that I do think this has a lot to do with why SJ despises paedophiles. But that's innate traits that are largely genetic or from birth order, so this wouldn't go away if actual conservatives ceased to exist.
Also, I'm not sure if you missed my edit earlier, but I'm for the most part an unreconstructed 90s liberal; I actually am mostly on the pro-paedo, AoC-is-too-damned-high side of this issue, and I've been censured for this in SJ spaces.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
23hr ago
Ah, now I understand better.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
News editing just sucks. I think the idea is that nobody wants to read a news article with a bunch of legal citations, so we end up with headlines like “Elon Musk’s DOGE Delt Legal Blow by Federal Judge”, when the substantive legal issue is that their motion to change venue was denied.
There is an alternative, more cynical explanation, which is that news sites do not link to their sources out of fear that they'd then be competing for their readers with those sources.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
Could you elucidate? I'm lost.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
They involve teenage girls as well.
Remember that I'm talking about an "ick" from teenage girls, not an "ick" on behalf of teenage girls. It's not like mastectomies are being forced on unwilling teenage girls, after all, just given to willing teenage girls who are plausibly making bad decisions (and who do not themselves believe they are making bad decisions).
Was the pushback against pedo acceptance even driven by leftist normies, or was it a result of conservatives being stronger and better organized?
From my memories of SJ spaces, and from the way SJ works*, I feel extremely confident in saying it's the former.
*One of the most poisonous parts of SJ is that it considers those outside the movement to be hopelessly mired in false consciousness and thus incapable of having anything to contribute; this is exactly why it's so intransigent in the face of external opposition. As such, you don't see conservative ideas getting adopted by SJ; it kinda has to be independently rediscovered within the walled garden in order to be accepted there.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
· Edited 1d ago
Because the vanguard did try to push that particular door open, and they did refuse. Paedophile acceptance was part of the counterculture, but was kicked out of the coalition when SJ nucleated. This is an unusual fact pattern suggesting unusual forces at work; the about-face on nerds/aspies is the only other one I can point to. If I had to point to a suspect for the unusual force, it'd be innate "ick" responses of teenage girls.
EDIT: To be clear, I'm actually on the pro-paedo side of this fight, albeit not actually in favour of AoC abolition due to logistical concerns (in particular HIV necessitating sex ed).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
· Edited 1d ago
SALT/START seem like examples, albeit minor ones due to the difficulty of winning a nuclear war.
Also, I should note that a decent chunk of my P(~Doom) routes through WWIII removing AI as a thing-in-being-with-entrenched-interests.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2d ago
· Edited 2d ago
But the dynamics demand it. When considering the balance of powers involved, the most Yud and co can hope for is to smooth out the edges a little bit, don't go all in on a strategy with 0 chance of success.
From where I sit, hoping for neural net alignment is itself a strategy with ~0 chance of success. Reality is under no obligation to give you a "reasonable" solution.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2d ago
I know what he said, but I was deviating slightly; I think that given the Chinese IADS and given a committed-to-AGI CPC (note that this latter is a condition that I do not think is necessarily true IRL), there is probably no way to actually destroy the Chinese capacity to pursue AGI without nuclear attacks (against the IADS, but also against the datacentres themselves; it's not like the CPC doesn't have the resources to put them inside conventional-proof bunkers if it fears an attack, after all, and actually invading China to put an end to things that way is roughly in the realm of "either you drop a couple of hundred nukes on them first to soften them up, or this is as much of a non-starter as fucking Sealion") and even if there were a way to do it conventionally, this almost certainly exceeds the threshold of damage that would get the Chinese deterrent launched. Thus, it is a lot more pragmatic to simply open up with a nuclear alpha strike; you know that this ends in a nuclear exchange anyway, so it's best to have it on your terms. I would agree that it's best to keep to conventional weapons if e.g. Panama were to try to build Skynet.
I'm not advocating Nuclear War Now IRL, because the situation posited is not the real situation; the USA has not made the offer of a mutual halt to AI, and I find it fairly likely that such an offer would actually be accepted (it's not like the CPC wants to end the world, after all; they're way up the other end of "keep things under control and stable, no matter the cost"). To the extent I'm less opposed to nuclear war than I'd otherwise be, it's because I suspect that the gameboard might be in an unwinnable state - and mostly on the US side, because of too much of US discourse being held on platforms controlled by AI companies (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter are all owned by companies/people that also do AI, and devices themselves are mostly Microsoft/Apple/Google OSes which also do AI; the latter is relevant because e.g. the Apple Vision Pro is designed to function as a brainwashing helmet) and Andreessen Horowitz having potentially captured/bribed the Trump admin on AI policy - making a mulligan seem like it would probably lower P(Doom). I'm not going to go out and start one for that reason, though, even if I knew how; Pride is my sin, and it's not even close, but I still don't have that much of it.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2d ago
AI safety is myopic, obsessed solely with the dangers of race dynamics above all else. Besides the danger of decentralization, there's also the danger of losing the race. Who is to say that the US can afford to slow down with the Chinese breathing down their neck? They've done pretty well with the resources available to them and there's a lot more they could do - mobilizing vast highly educated populations to provide high-quality data for a start.
Eliezer Yudkowsky has explicitly noted* the alternative solution to this problem:
If intelligence says that a country outside the agreement is building a GPU cluster, be less scared of a shooting conflict between nations than of the moratorium being violated; be willing to destroy a rogue datacenter by airstrike.
Frame nothing as a conflict between national interests, have it clear that anyone talking of arms races is a fool. That we all live or die as one, in this, is not a policy but a fact of nature. Make it explicit in international diplomacy that preventing AI extinction scenarios is considered a priority above preventing a full nuclear exchange, and that allied nuclear countries are willing to run some risk of nuclear exchange if that’s what it takes to reduce the risk of large AI training runs.
That’s the kind of policy change that would cause my partner and I to hold each other, and say to each other that a miracle happened, and now there’s a chance that maybe Nina will live.
If you think China is going to destroy the world, the correct solution is not to destroy the world yourself as if RL is a game of DOTA; it's to stop China from destroying the world. Tell them that doing this will end the world. If they keep doing it, tell them that if they don't stop, you'll nuke them, and that their retaliation against this is irrelevant because it can't kill more Americans than the "all of them" that will be killed if they continue. If they don't stop after that, nuke them, and pray that there's some more sanity the next time around.
*To be clear, I was nearly done writing a similar essay myself, because I didn't think he had the guts to spit it out (certainly most top Rats don't). Apparently he did.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2d ago
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2d ago
There was a tagline on an old rationalist blog - was it Ozy's? - that I felt summed up this religion well: "The gradual replacement of the natural with the good".
It was Ozy's, and it's "The gradual supplanting of the natural by the just". I think your (mis)quote actually represents Rats as a whole better, though, because, well, Ozy's word choice hits a point that Scott's explicitly decried.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
5d ago
That's still incredibly flawed to assume reading through my limited postings on a single website make you meaningfully less of a stranger who does not know me or what I believe/have previously done.
100 posts would be enough to get a decent start on a picture of me. Not a complete one, certainly - even a hypothetical person who'd read all 35,000+ posts I've made on the Internet still wouldn't know everything, and I'm the sort to randomly admit to crimes if they're relevant - but it'd be meaningful.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
5d ago
Just for the record, going to someone's userpage by clicking on their handle does, in fact, allow you to see everything that person's posted on theMotte. Also, theMotte is small enough that some people (though not me) do read basically everything.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
5d ago
TBQH, I was actually one of the volunteers rating some of your posts in this thread, and one of them (four upstream from the one I'm replying to now) I did actually rate as "deserves a warning". Not so much because of the amount of heat (which was quite high), but because you went cross-thread to keep after CBNOS. There's this bit explicitly in the rules:
Please remember that you can always drop out of a conversation, ideally (though not necessarily) with an explanation; if a user follows you and harasses you, report them.
...which is intended to reduce yelling matches via giving an escape valve when somebody can't be civil anymore. I use that valve now and then, which is part of why I have zero warnings here. When you go cross-thread to keep after someone, you're jamming that valve.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6d ago
· Edited 6d ago
Time in this community will thoroughly disabuse you of that notion, presuming you can avoid the traditional leftwinger meltdown and flounce-out when you realize that other people are going to continue to be allowed to argue back.
No, I think people with that view do indeed tend toward liberalism.
The mistake is in assigning the word "liberal" incorrectly; social justice isn't liberal, it just (in the USA) has been wearing the word (and Officially Designated Intellectualism) like a skin-suit.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6d ago
· Edited 6d ago
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6d ago
Some further thoughts:
-
theMotte seems like it's kind of intended as a place for people to play on simulacrum level 1, not level 2 where you're telling lies to children to make them behave in the way you've explicitly reasoned about without (yet or ever) being able to do that explicit reasoning themselves. @Amadan am I barking up the wrong tree here?
-
I think "prison conditions" is much less susceptible to Ozy's argument than torture, because prison conditions up to a point have at least one tradeoff that is always in play i.e. expense. Like, at one end of the Pareto frontier you are basically Auschwitz, enslaving everyone who can/will work and incinerating those who can't/won't; this is maximally cheap (indeed, potentially cheaper than free) and also horrifying (though not maximally horrifying; you're not doing "rape them to death, eat their flesh, and sew their skins into your clothing, and not in that order" because holy shit that's a lot of extra work). At the other end, jail is basically a hotel, with maintenance; this is maximally nice, but also horrifically expensive due to all the stuff that gets broken or stolen (raising the cost well above the already-substantial cost of a hotel that can actually kick people out). Nobody can currently afford the good end; if you look back in history a lot of societies couldn't afford better than the horror end (though as you look back further, you don't have incinerators or scalable oversight, so this starts to tend more toward "summary execution, (mass) unmarked grave" which AIUI was nearly omnipresent in prehistory). Thus, any "though the heavens fall" seems like an obviously contingent principle which for most values of "okay" that modern Westerners accept would, if applied to a pre-Black-Death society, not work; you'd be overthrown if you tried to implement them by a) peasants starving from your taxation and/or b) other elites trying to avoid a) in order to save their own skins, and if you somehow weren't overthrown then the law-abiding populace dies in plague from undernutrition and the criminals either escape or starve. You are thus, in a sense, always talking price, in a way that doesn't play nice with injunctions; you can argue that 2025 El Salvador is wealthy enough to comfortably pull off better conditions, or you can argue that it's importantly not at the Pareto frontier ("these conditions are worse than death; summarily executing them all would be more humane" is an example of such an argument, because summary executions are cheaper than any prison where the inmates can just sit around) - and the reason I'd not have commented there is that I literally don't know enough about the particulars to participate in either discussion about this case - but if you think there's a one-size-fits-all correct answer you're committing the just-world fallacy.
-
You will note that I haven't contradicted the claim that there are things worth letting the heavens (literally or metaphorically) fall to avoid, because obviously there are such things even for a first-order utilitarian; the heavens literally falling is not maximally bad, and the heavens metaphorically falling (e.g. WWIII) is generally less bad still, so it's worth WWIII to prevent the Earth being destroyed and it's worth the Earth being destroyed to prevent Allied Mastercomputer.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6d ago
This is a better argument, and if you'd been plain about this rather than engaging in hyperbole I'd not have chimed in.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
8d ago
You said these:
[I reject] the assumption those arguing against human-rights violations are somehow responsible for anything that can be attributed to not committing them.
There are lines that one should not cross though the heavens fall
I responded to those, because they sketch out a policy which I think to be insane (i.e. "one should let the state fail rather than take the gloves off").
This is The Motte, where you're supposed to "always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed". Either defend your claim or retract it; don't deflect and yell at me for responding to what you plainly said.
Bonitas non est pessimis esse meliorem. (Being better than the worst is not goodness.)
I think you're misinterpreting me here. My point here was that if the only way to stop MS-13 from imprisoning sex slaves in abominable conditions is to imprison MS-13 in slightly-less-abominable conditions (which also stops a bunch of other crime), the latter option strictly dominates the former.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
8d ago
I can now draw a 75-lb. compound bow, although I can only manage a couple of draws right-handed (left-handed is easier). So that's what, 6 months from when I started out with noodle-arms? Practice makes progress, as my Mum would say.
Daniel Kokotajlo and the rest of the AI 2027 team are doing an AMA right now on ACX, in case any of you want to ask something. Ends half an hour from now.
NB: If you just want to yell "you're wrong" I'd recommend saying that at another time; the questions are coming in fast so I'm not sure they'll be able to answer everything.
More options
Context Copy link