the_Culture_is_great
No bio...
User ID: 3228
the_Culture_is_great
1mo ago
Are you denying that homeowners who have there house values massively increase aren't richer?
Sure the fact that you need to live somewhere does make that wealth harder to access, but HELOCs, reverse mortages, downsizing, purchasing a new house with a mortgage (rather than outright), etc are all options that are now available to you and give immediate access to that huge source of wealth, with many options both for where to live and how to structure your debt/asset mix.
My own parents, who bought their houses decades ago, leveraged housing price increases as collateral to purchase multiple rental and vacation properties. Sure the world didn't generate more wealth from this, but the point is my parents got much much wealthier at the expense of those who still need to purchase/rent, as they are the ones driving housing prices.
the_Culture_is_great
1mo ago
I didn't mean to imply that "beyond human level" meant "machine god". But even going just slightly past average human level has potential for massive societal upheaval as it would very quickly devalue much or most human labour (even if some number of high performing humans can still outperform AI, many of us aren't fully using our cognitive capabilities in our day to day).
the_Culture_is_great
1mo ago
ThisIsSin's argument is that the bar of what AI needs to do is low - not what it can do.
The idea being that even if the AI can't surpass the best humans, it can learn from them in order to be better than the rest.
the_Culture_is_great
1mo ago
Even with all labor automated, there could still be scarcity due to lack of resources.
Fairly valuing and distributing the different kinds of resources could be via some kind of currency issued by and accepted by the AI overlords.
the_Culture_is_great
1mo ago
By "human level" I mean an AI that can perform tasks at the same quality as a human, such that you could replace a human employee with an AI employee.
I actually think consciousness might not be required for this level of AI. It's like how chess AIs are superhuman at chess without being conscious (probably).
I'm also not a theist. Any arguments about AI that really on theism are not going to be convincing to me.
the_Culture_is_great
1mo ago
Metaphysics and fundamental axioms preclude human level AI? Can you elaborate?
the_Culture_is_great
1mo ago
there isn't an obvious mechanism for it doing so
It's obvious if you assume the models will improve up to, and then past human level intelligence.
At that point every job that can be done from behind a computer becomes trivial to automate. The remaining jobs become trivial once AI control of robots improve as well.
Now we're not there yet, and maybe we won't ever get there, but it's pretty hard to be confident one way or the other.
I am currently in a relationship with someone who thinks like your girlfriend - doesn't drive, likes the city, cannot even consider moving to somewhere with slightly worse public transport (if you're familiar with Toronto at all, she described Etobicoke as the "middle of nowhere").
If I tried to move us out to even the suburbs - we're splitting up. It would end up in one of two ways: either I can't convince her, and it's over, or I do, and she resents me.
Luckily we're on the same page about this - I also don't want to leave the city core. And maybe public transport is the most salient issue, but there are so many differences between living in a major metro vs even a suburb/small metro that she will be able to keep coming up with excuses.
Because the excuses aren't the real reason - she wants to live in the city. Even if that means living in a grungy, small walkup. Even if the finances aren't that good. ...Even if her boyfriend is hours away.
You've got options:
- Status quo
- you know this isn't a real option, either the relationship moves forward or it dies
- Figure out how you can deal with the city, and move in together there
- you have to figure out how to deal with your PTSD around moving
- you have to figure out what you can afford to buy, together
- or you have to rent, and accept that there may be more moves
- you have to do this, without resentment.
- Break up.
In the past... I have chosen option 1. (2) or (3) are both terrifying, but definitely, definitely better.
the_Culture_is_great
3mo ago
Okay, so I'm treating the fact that slavery is bad as a given here, and that certain societies can have correct or incorrect views on it. If you disagree on this we're not going to get anywhere. I'm not really interested in arguing this point, I'm sure many many others have done it better than I could.
With the benefit of hindsight, the North was correct on slavery, and the south was incorrect. This justifies many of the North's actions, such as the refusal to enforce the FSA.
Individuals living during that time are mostly blameless for going with the mainstream view, but they were still incorrect.
Note my caveat of "practical". Political pressure, or sanctions, or wars could be be required to fully stamp it out, but cause more damage than the slavery itself. That doesn't mean islavery is okay! It just means it's too difficult to fix or that free societies are more selfish than they'd like to admit.
the_Culture_is_great
3mo ago
For the most part yes, you shouldn't renege on agreements "you" made (I'm not fully aware of the history here, but the people who made the agreement, and the people who refused to enforce it aren't completely the same people).
But also it was slavery. In today's day and age the moral question is settled - it's abhorrent, and free societies should do everything practical to stop it. Breaking the agreement is much less morally reprehensible than actually keeping slaves.
the_Culture_is_great
5mo ago
I just think calling him neurotic, and referencing the cliff and chainsaw bit specifically was uncharitable. It was a perfectly good analogy about how he personally perceives the threat of guns, even if he knows nothing isikely to go wrong.
It's definitely different than a hat. If for some reason you get in a heated argument, a guy with a hat can't kill you with a twitch of his finger like a guy with a gun can.
the_Culture_is_great
5mo ago
Being wary around actually dangerous things isn't neurotic!
These things are reasonably safe as long as you pay extra attention, but carelessness can kill or maim very easily.
the_Culture_is_great
5mo ago
Why is "requiring outside subsidies" an issue?
What charities are more effective per dollar than PEPFAR?
the_Culture_is_great
5mo ago
If he had expressed basically any level of care, even a small amount I wouldn't have kept beating the dead horse here.
I also don't like these people! I also want the worst offenders removed from public spaces! Prison, involuntary commitment, etc are all valid tools here.
I think harm to them can absolutely be justified for the greater good of peaceful society.
the_Culture_is_great
5mo ago
My intuition is that the optimal incarnation rate is probably somewhere between Canada and the US. That seems likely even if you know nothing about the specifics given that Canada is on the low side and the US is on the high side.
It can be true that Canada should increase its rate, and the US should decrease.
the_Culture_is_great
5mo ago
I don't think you need to be a negative utilitarian, a lot depends on exactly how bad the person is vs how bad you think prison is. And as I mentioned elsewhere, prison is very very bad.
Wireheading city could be better than prison, but fraught with potential issues. Pure pointless hedonic pleasure isn't the same as utility. But honestly, less extreme versions of this are not particularly objectionable, and could even be compared to progressive harm reduction approaches (way way different in degree though).
the_Culture_is_great
5mo ago
modest increase in the prison population could fix these problems
It didn't work before, but it might work now!
Repeating that logic is how the US got into this situation.
I'm not saying don't lock the serial offenders up! But there needs to be better planning on how to target and convict them specifically. There's a high risk of collateral damage to people who are essentially harmless.
the_Culture_is_great
5mo ago
The US is both over and under-policed, depending on the exact time and location you look
Exactly what I mean when I say it's more complicated.
I do think that long rail of terrible offenders should be locked up, but identifying and punishing them is a more complicated problem than just "be meaner".
the_Culture_is_great
5mo ago
Some enormous societal failure has occurred.
Agree 100%
Step one on the long road to fixing it is institutionalizing the crazy homeless people rather than letting them self medicate with hard drugs while living in filth and stealing to afford more drugs
Also hard-agree (though I do think some consideration to their well being is still warranted)
And imprisoning the non-crazy ones.
I become skeptical that the problem is this simple. Maybe 8x Canada will fix it, but what if you have to go further? What if you have to get up to 10x, 15x 20x? Are you willing to pay that cost?
I bring up the comparison just because it seems like other countries do better, or at least not much worse, while having much lower incarceration rates. If you think that the nature of the US makes it impossible, what factors make it so?
the_Culture_is_great
5mo ago
Would you agree with the 4% if I softened my language from "rape" -> "sexual victimization" like the report uses? I suppose the "willing inmate-guard" relationships don't count for as much, but I still have concerns there.
And I would still argue that a 2.6% chance of "actual" rape is still very bad.
I challenge someone to refute the central point which is "Prison really, really sucks. Yes even if you're mentally ill and on the street." Any arguments would also have to explain why these people are not trying to get into prison with any regularity.
I think you're painting far too rosy a picture of prison, and eliding over massive potentially negative harms (such as the abhorrent 4% chance of rape every year edit: less abhorrent, but still bad - 4% "sexual victimization", 2.6% chance of what most would typically call "rape" ). I think treating prison as anything but an extremely negative experience for the majority of inmates is not realistic.
I agree that that mental illness and freedom have a complicated philosophical relationship. My general attitude would be results-focused:
- Would going to prison disincentive others from this behaviour? (potentially for the "just assholes", no for the crazies)
- Would it help this individual in the future (like you mention in your post, but I'm very confident the answer is usually no)
- Does it prevent this person from causing harm to others? (yes)
- Does it give satisfaction to the people this person has harmed? (Unlike other lefty leaning folks, I think retribution does have a place in criminal punishment, but there's a very very high bar for it. I don't think yelling at people on the street passes it. For murder, rape, serious assault? Yes screw that person. For yelling like a crazy person? Probably not, let's be calm and just try to help everyone involved as much as is practically possible)
- Does it harm the person in question (yes, definitely)
- How much is this going to cost vs just putting them up in a cheap room and telling them (forcing them) to go home when they get drunk/high/crazy?
This is a tough question, but the answer isn't to stop considering the rights of the homeless/mentally ill person at all.
Can I also ask, on a totally different tack, in what sense is it unjust to send a law-breaker to prison? Why would you be morally 'bad' to do so?
If you're getting the impression that I'm anti-prison or anti-punishment in general I'm not. But it has to be justified, and that justification should include the cost to the law-breaker themselves. It's the general idea of proportionality - it's pretty uncontroversial the the punishment should fit the crime, and if you're discussing changing punishments you can't just saw "whatever I don't care". You actually have to suggest what's appropriate.
I've mentioned in other comments - I agree the current level of tolerance and punishment for this anti-social behaviour is too low, and this is also an issue that affects me personally. The answer isn't prison forever, or forced labour, you have to have a limit somewhere.
the_Culture_is_great
5mo ago
But if my only 2 choices are "throw them in prison forever" or "build free mental health clinics and maybe they will choose to use them
I would argue that if you pick door 1 in this thought experiment, you are a bad person. Almost certainly from a utilitarian perspective (life in prison vs small annoyances * some number of people, unless the number of people is ludicrously high).
I also want to stress that I'm not really caring about root causes either. Another solution that solves the problem in 1-2 years, if there was political will, and is also not abhorrent is: Build cheap-ass housing, screw the NIMBYs (probably compensate them tho), force them off the street.
The primary purpose of the housing isn't to fix the root cause. It's to make the force them off the street part morally justifiable because you've given them another option. (Plus it is likely to help the root cause, but that's not a load-bearing part of the argument).
the_Culture_is_great
5mo ago
On a personal level prioritization of care is right and good. What kind of world would be be in if it was morally wrong to care more about your wife!
Buying jewellery for your wife instead giving change to the crackheads on the street! Sure perfectly fine! I never give change out, I too prioritize myself and very much dislike the incentives that giving change creates.
Shooting the yelling crazy guy on sight because your children heard him say the F-word? Obviously obviously wrong. You'd call the cops on someone who did that.
There's a bar between those two extremes somewhere, if you set it low enough, even for the street crazies, that makes you a bad person. It would actually help if you specified where exactly you'd put it.
(I also think my argument here is giving the impression that my bar is very high, but it's absolutely not. I think the tolerance level is currently too high, and should be lowered, but you just can't drop it to the floor).
the_Culture_is_great
5mo ago
If you're going to make this argument I you can't elide those details and still argue in good faith.
Actually spelling out at least the broad outlines like you did is good, it gives some sane limits and allows us to discuss actual tradeoffs.
all solutions that removes these people from the street are superior to those that let them there, including some that cross moral lines
This is exactly how I read what OP wrote, and it's obviously abhorrent if you allow solutions like "shoot on sight", or "Vagrant? Straight to the mines, no appeal".
Fully remote is worth a lot. I was able to switch via COVID and I never want to go back.
I've taken minor pay cuts for WLB + actual enjoyment of work, but never a major one (like -25%) one. Always felt worth it, and I made up for the cuts with additional job hopping and career growth. Missed out on one potentially giant payday though.
I think you know what the best path forward is - keep plugging away at your current job, but keep the hunt going on the side. If a new job sounds great, take it. Companies that are hiring are typically less likely to lay you off right away (though yes, it does happen).
More options
Context Copy link