morlockabove

Given that's the same culture obsessed with traps, it's pretty clear that it hates fags, not gays.

They're not 'pro-LGBT' because that language is stultified, boring, soul-rending mainstream corporate-speak. Speaking that way is beneath human dignity. "Are you pro-LGBT?" "Do I have a problem with gays, you mean?"

Better to be a human wallowing in the filth than a socially correct bugman standing clean, sterile, toothless to attention when the commisars come by.

The kinds of people who like building things will be less sympathetic to environmental concerns when those concerns are 'don't build that, leave the world untainted by human hand'- there's a difference between polluting by building/placing something of value somewhere and polluting as a pure stupid ugly externality. Engineer-y people might be inclined to hate the latter but not the former.

Each electron present in one of the atom's orbitals is a bit, so yeah.

More realistically, the simplest atom- one proton, one electron- has 3 integer numbers associated with the state of the electron. You need more than a bit to describe the state of that system, so yeah.

The website is a disaster. Fucking with the back button to trap you there, INSTALL THE APP!!! popups- how hard would it be to use wordpress, or just a static site?

Seems awfully convenient that the universe would look identical to us in particular, as opposed to any other observer. Or being computronium.

Would covid have been made in the wuhan lab without computers?

It does, you just have to dress it up correctly.

You have incentives to want people to be personally weak and historically ignorant, but still able to shuffle papers and make new widgets to make gdp line go up.

It's in your best interests for the country to despise you, and the other half to despise your counterpart- so that both halves despise each other and can't coordinate toward their common interests.

You want the subgroups motivated to vote for your side by problems they face to keep voting for your side next time around, so you're incentivized to make a big show of trying to fix their problems, but not actually fix them and blame the failure on the other side.

And when the day is done, you and the opposition leader can have a drink in your mansion.

This is all evil in a molochian sense, and it all makes sense.

That's all well and good, but I'd still rather not see a bunch of autistics fired and unpersoned for unwittingly questioning modern dogma. We live in an increasingly religious time; better to go into questioning the orthodoxy with your eyes open.

A lot of it is cynisism about people complaining about bad actors. The sorts of people who would build an anti-censorship tool are likely to be motivated, at least partly, be disdain for the censors of the day.

'Oh, now you want thoughtful dialogue, and a discussion. And then, when the reins of power are installed and your ilk have taken them, you'll be sneering as you kick me out.' - Something like that is a relatively common sentiment. Assuage this sentiment, and you might succeed.

Free speech isn't synonymous with the first amendment.

"Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences!" is one of the most infuriating lines I've ever had the displeasure to hear parroted. What else could it possibly be, but the general idea of not being punished for saying things? The only thing that matters to the principle of freedom of speech is those consequences.

Who cares whether it's a government that decides that when you express a certain opinion, you lose your job- or twitter?

Funny, but not surprising, how even self-proclaimed leftists will side with capital when it's treading on the right people.

You might say "but you can't force people to platform/associate with those they find odious!", to which I reply 'of course you can'- there's laws against unlimited free association, with the argument that bulk group dynamics end up diminishing individual freedom on net.

You might say opinions are a different category from e.g. ethnicity, as they can be changed, while race can't.

In that case, in the future when we can change our bodies in a day, will it be alright if 'race', no longer existing as such, becomes as acceptably targetable as speech?

You think they don't want to implement it in the US?

It's from a time when the university system worked better. Now, to be a Real Scientist, you have to hire someone to churn out the meaningless papers for you or not be an academic- just be independently wealthy and stick your results on your website.

Then when the lease expires, they can downsize. Or if they're growing, they can not lease additional space when they otherwise would have.

What exactly does 'emergent concepts' mean, in this context?

Hiring/acceptance is zero-sum. Privileging one group is taking spots away from another.

At this point, everyone should just say they're a woman.

Keeping your commenter-base small and elitist seems like a good thing. That's the point of moderation, right?

How is that not what humans do?

Unless the AI was formed under a selection mechanism that rewarded something like kin preference, there's no reason to think it would care. The orthogonality principle is that you could have any level of intelligence furthering any particular goal/utility function; there isn't some level of computational complexity where e.g. a paperclip maximiser's utility function magically changes.

In the particular case of humans, our utility function(s) is(are) so complex that what we think of as our 'true values' can change (because our True values are some inscrutable tug-of-war between all the parts of the brain), and also we're hacked together by evolution, so just blindly trying to make a human smarter might change their values (or turn them mad, or cause seizures, or...).

But this doesn't have to be the case in general for intelligent agents. In principle, you can build an AI whose terminal values remain stable as it improves its intelligence. (If this is impossible, we're doomed.) So unless you explicitly built an AI to care about all humans, there's no reason to think it magically would.

Brilliant scientists tend to be insane weirdos. Newton was into alchemy. The kind of personality that's willing to break one orthodoxy won't stop at the next; all great new ideas are plucked from the midst of mad ramblings.

Why would an AI start with a human utility function? Why would it care about that if it wasn't explicitly built in?

I'm a lot more sympathetic to someone who manufactures their own drugs for personal consumption, yes, but only because the difficulty involved means you need a minimum of discipline to get there which would hopefully meliorate the negative effects of the habit. It's in the same vein as writing games being more virtuous (to yourself) than playing them.

Anyway, my vision of the future is hundreds of millions of obese NEETS who spend their entire monthly UBI check on overpriced insect-protein food, clothing, video, porn and AI girlfriend-as-a-service products. Pigs at the trough, given just enough slop that they don't kill themselves, while the people who can resist temptation (say, helped along by their upbringing) get to be human.

You mention "horribly dysfunctional" further down. That's what I have a problem with.

I see these cardboard sex-simulacra trapping, for example, young men in local optima where they never go and talk to a real girl- even young men who could, if they tried, and who'd be happier in the end for it.

Anything that increases the number of incels in the world is a bad thing, for everyone.

Yeah, I know it's big. I just don't like it. I guess I'm raging against the future that seems to be coming- I'm finally old!

Good for individual women who genuinely want to work, bad for women as a class when everybody does it because now even those young-ish married women who would have been happier raising the kids have to work because of the incrementally lowered cost of labour.

Some people making a choice causes a cascade, taking the choice away from everyone else, kind of like car ownership in the mid 20th century.

(And bad for all the men, too.)

Modus tollens, modus ponens; my quality of life is vastly improved by not dying of smallpox and equivalent improvements to the world would be very valuable. I think going back to a situation with smallpox would be a big decrease, so that argues against things not really getting better.

Building god's just the end-example, even if you never get there you can keep making things better.

(I should say that by "build god" I just mean build a friendly AI, i.e. automate science. If that's impossible, just try and do what it would do.)

(Hard to enjoy your sex toys when you're coughing your lungs out!)

Of course! There's good uses for everything.

It's all this talk of poorly susbtituting emotional bonds with simulacra that annoys me. Seems like a motte-and-bailey.

Oh, it's for couples! Now let's go back to selling our subscription model AI anime girlfriend

Some people need heroin. I'm against the war on drugs, but I still despise dealers.

Sounds like hell. Nothing personal, but I really hope your enterprise fails miserably.

mobile nuclear power