58 karma · joined July 30, 2026
They'd write a limited test for a feature based on an ask from the software team garbled by a five layer game of telephone. Claim that the module passed validation. A few months later the software folks would have to pull a few all nighters to figure out how to work around the resulting turd during bringup.
This is it precisely. Thank you for stating this so clearly.
And I am not. Practically speaking, invasion of privacy from the government or private companies affects me not at all. Petty crime does make daily life unpleasant. And before you say "but you don't know how that'll turn out" - we do. There is China, there is Russia, there is Dubai. These are places where a female can walk around safely in the middle of the night.
And yeah, there will be bad apples. On the balance, I think these bad apples are better than the ones they replace.
At the same time though, if a car that's obviously "not from around here" were to do a drive-by looking for open garages to grab some tools or a bike - I'd want that to be recorded and flagged.
I'd get lynched for sharing a thought like this from a non-throwaway account, but: I don't get the ultra-liberal folks obsession with the skid row. For whatever reason they seem to think that low rank criminals should be allowed to continue living however they please. An attempt to clean up crime in Oakland - for example - is met with cries of gentrification! Think of the families! Somehow everyone focuses on the family of the drug dealer and not of the hard working single mom who doesn't want her kids to join a gang. Is seems that only those involved in petty crime are considered to be the valuable members of the local community, and only their values need protecting.
By that definition maybe even "loving my kids" wouldn't pass the test, as Viktor Frankl explains better than anyone could.
As for immigration, it is no accident that anti-immigrant rhetoric is on the rise precisely when the economy is doing poorly. When there were enough resources to go around - there wasn't nearly as much reason to oppose immigration. Which means that "my family is financially secure" is a much more core value for most people than being open to the world (even if they'll never admit it).
You say "values like how you treat people who are NOT close to you". Which is really code for "people who like open immigration policies are virtuous and people who oppose them are bad and/or less intelligent". But once you drill down to details - the picture changes. This kind of sentiment is used to drum up support for very specific pieces of very questionable legislation. Why should a specific ethnic group with a large and powerful diaspora get a free pass to ignore immigration laws, but other ethnic groups get the book? How is this about being virtuous and treating people NOT close to you equally? Well, you aren't allowed to ask these questions - you don't want to be a part of the dumb racist outgroup, do you?
This would then let you see your neighbors as people. What you claim are core values are nothing of the sort. They are misconceptions invented by your in-group to dehumanize the out-group. In reality people's core values are: their kids, their health, love, belonging, a sense of purpose. The rest is just a puppet master hijacking these core values for organizing a crowd.
So, in 1841 Sutter bought Fort Ross - and failed to pay until 1849, a year after the USA officially took California from Mexico. And by incredible coincidence - a year after gold was discovered at Sutter's Mill. The existence of gold was likely already known for some time. It's simply too perfect.
Also, the Americans used their favorite weapon against the colony - sanctions! Prior to Sutter's arrival, Fort Ross could trade with Mexicans and the local Indians. Sutter forbade this - America would not trade with anyone involved with Fort Ross. The more things change the more they stay the same :)
Is my reading comprehension just completely broken or something? The above certainly sounds like "the powers that be want us to believe that attention is all you need".
The rich and powerful do have the power to shut people up you know.
Think that's what an out of touch techie would say? May I remind you that just a few hundred years ago the best philosophers were debating whether the world would descend into anarchy if more people realized that the big monkey in the sky doesn't exist. Just because philosophers talk about something doesn't mean it exists in reality.
As for same output - there's a parameter called "temperature". It governs the random wandering in the output of an LLM. Reducing temp gives more deterministic output, but also reduces the capabilities. Is it possible that randomness is also precisely the mechanism behind human creativity?
In the same vein, airplanes can't fly because they don't flap their wings.
As for ignorance: have you tried to make an LLM produce the same output for the same input (as you state above)? Give it a shot, you'll be surprised.
These appeals usually go like this: we should stop providing more free money to the people who are strong enough to go and take it. Individually we are weaker, so let's stop this collectively. But someone needs to lead the collective. And just like that - you have created another strongman who will just take what he can. In other words: Communism.
Besides, as soon as you introduce this kind of checking, you'll just cement the oligarchy. The winning strategy would be for a billionaire not officially in government to work their magic through a puppet with a clean tax report.
A real GLP-1 slows down digestion so much that if you try to overeat you'll regret it. You'll still be uncomfortably full and ready to throw up on day 2 after that big meal.
Here's a random Internet troll's theory (mine): there's a kernel of truth to the whole "patriarchy" thing. It's just that most men aren't part of it.
Hold that pitchfork for just a moment! What I meant was: the entire economy is controlled by a very small number of people. Most of them are men, and they have very particular preferences. Assuming the majority of them are straight, it would make sense that they prefer women they see as pretty, and don't care much about men. If anything, a good looking man might be a competitor.
I don't think this idea is completely nuts. Think of the few times in history when a woman had real power. For example, Catherine the Great. Who was suddenly promoted to positions of influence? Sexy men, her "favorites" (yes, that's an actual term).
Joining these editors used to take years of training in order to write like they do. Now we have their wisdom available on the command line.
Apparently living on the net still doesn't guarantee that one has heard of the Streisand Effect.
In any case, my first association with LessWrong is Zizians, not Roko.