I'm personally acquainted with multiple people who figured out that their mental health symptoms were downstream effects of natural phenomena (diet incompatible with genotype, insufficient sunlight exposure, excessive work stress, etc), with resultant drastic improvement of mental condition after root cause rectification. any reason in particular for you to have asked?
venting is a form of talking about mental health. there are other forms that the problem statement doesn't apply to, like your examples. but the statement does apply to my example, therefore we can't say that talking about mental health is exclusively a positive behaviour.
a quick search engine query 'is venting healthy' leads to results suggesting that venting (emotionally talking about things that affect mental health) is not necessarily an entirely positive behaviour. so the challenged statement is at least partially true. just wanted to share that the sarcasm looks abit silly coz it's not a clear cut situation
rephrased for ease of interpretation - venting about a problem is nice just as stretching a muscle is nice. stretching doesn't fix the root cause of muscle soreness though, just as venting does nothing to fix the issue. emotionally re-reacting is likely to result in strengthening of existing associations, which is more likely to cause repetition of a problem scenario, as opposed to leading to scenario avoidance.
it already is the dominant culture. just look at the birth rate, as well reported damage from hardcore sex eg anal fissure rates, as well the existence of the western term gooning.
i consider the negative impact of child exposure to hardcore pornography as outweighing the positives of online sex education and would prefer them both deleted rather than having the former involved
i read your article you posted here. in that article you state that you support live and let live. most people who support live and let live either havent been raped by life yet, or have chosen to double down post-rape. the latter is respectable, still im not currently interested in a discussion involving the influence of such a perspective. out of good faith i highlight that i responded to:
> ideally, we could find a way to empower people such that the minority who do care can make a big difference
is it a coincidence, that in your ideal world, you would be empowered, because you care, as evidenced by your testimony of things you do that make you think you care? in my ideal world, wanton suffering would be minimized, regardless as to the path it took to get there; requiring 1 specific path involving people who think they are good, demarcates our ideals.
everyone is psychopathic to a certain degree, otherwise westerners wouldnt eat cheap bacon and eggs. id prefer to answer what happens when ai is designed to align with a sociopath. altman behaves like a sociopath and he owns the biggest ai company - the ai aligned to altman is used to make money by stupefying the populace. so i guess a retarded populace is my answer to your question. i like this answer because if i was a wolf my utopia would be pens and pens of sheep ripe for the slaughter. and this entire scenario is a mere ramping of the west's existing trajectory.
this comment will be killed, i find it an apt response to the idea that enabling those who believe themselves to be good is more important than reducing wanton suffering
honestly i dont blame smart people for cashing in, because there is no inherent reward for behaving goodly/smartly. in this instance gwern is a particularly smart individual and has contributed a lot so i especially shouldnt judge him. straight up ripping off a black mirror episode (s02e07) is a bit heinous for my liking though. digital twins are inevitable but that doesnt make this any less wrong.
"AI poses threats of its own ... a nuclear bomb can’t think for itself and make choices, but AIs do, and current LLMs have proven themselves untrustworthy as they regularly reward-hack and betray their users ... how can you trust them to handle ecosystems of combined-arms for an AI-centric military during a war? But widespread deployment of GAs offer some hope of meaningful supervision, as long as the GAs are sample-efficient enough ... or there is some chance of the principals being able to “catch up” later and correct any errors before events have spun too far out of control."
gwern openly admits ai behaves erratically, then hand waves the issue away 'as long as we double check things [sic]'. gwern is smarter than this, ergo i feel like i am being bullshitted.
is anything in this world worth knowing that a version of you will suffer for eternity? is anything in this world worth copying yourself such that you may be enslaved by anyone with terminal access?
I get the feeling that the bugs found in this instance can be more directly attributed to the author having zero experience operating a microcontroller
if you go around pulling out logic flaw arguments and then proceed to commit logic flaws yourself, it isn't a good look man. the quoted statement was "beyond most intelligent individuals" which contradicts your assertion that the argument was stated as "humans cannot write correct C". anyway I do find it ultra amusing how software engineers believe software engineering is the backbone of programming, when in reality it is merely the flesh. we landed men on the moon long before Rust was even zygotic. for all its benefits, the argument to use memory safe languages ultimately serves to benefit large corporations who can faster generate profit by faster churning out code.
its a gracious outlook of you, to assign ignorance as the root cause of this behaviour. to me that dude looks like any other proselytizer - a man attempting to sway others views, without concern for their concerns. although if you try showing atheist proselytizers how similar they behave to preachers, or indeed compare any of their behaviour to religious zealots, this inevitably short circuits the proselytizer viewpoint and forces fight mode, resulting in termination of any productive discussion.
at the end of the day people say a lot of things, and until life teaches how little words matter, people do care about words by default. it is only those understanding life who look past words to see what truly matters. everything that anything living does in this existence is inherently selfish, otherwise it wouldnt happen, based on science and neurochemistry. this seeming impediment to becoming christlike is not an insurmountable obstacle, rather a beautiful choice we are offered - to accept animality, or to humbly push through the impossible and seek something more ...
if someone agrees on what it means to be good, their definition of the term has been subjectively qualified. muslims agree its good to cover their women, you probably dont, both these statements are true. seems to be a central aspect of religion, agreeing on codified morality. im fairly confident that not killing is a moral purported by christianity, therefore it doesnt seem logical to label murderers as christians - based on their murderous behaviour, murderers do not agree with christianity, regardless as to what they verbally state. would you label buddhists as immoral if an individual decided to call himself buddhist post-massacre?
i referred that way to the other commentor's anecdotes. regarding my end i provided evidence, and you can see other commentors in the same thread who also claim to have seen what i claim to have seen. maybe you misread the thread. either way, may things get better for you soon.
may i ask a bit more specifically why your comment evaluating the abstract concept of goodness and its relation to faith is related to this sentence? i'm still not seeing the connection.
I believe that I have witnessed at least 3 videos of americans being forcibly removed from town halls for speaking out against data centers. you are correct that search engines are not showing anything at all when searching for data centre forced removal. it took me ten minutes to find the most recent example from my memory[0]. something strange is happening, and when I see you act ostensibly in support of the side that is seemingly scrubbing search engine results, this is why I react poorly to your pro AI and pro system stance - the system does not need our good faith, the system already controls the narrative.
language models are trained to maximise engagement and maximally convey meaning. binary contrast happens to achieve these goals by optimally translating the manifold. if I come across further research it would be interesting to continue our language related discussion.
I don't know how to respond to your comment with decorum so I'm going to say goodbye, and pray that you mentor your juniors better than the way you treated me today mr senor dev
umm have you considered that you can go to youtube and verify my claim whereas the other interlocutor explicitly refers to unverifiable personal anecdotes? and did you want to verify that I explicitly accused someone of propaganda?
believing in the inherent good of humanity does somewhat justify your perspective, may life allow you to continue believing this way and may your pursuits be productive. I would recommend not to marginalize yourself, this action is tantamount to painting targets on your back for bad actors to aim at. corporations and governments are currently acting violently against the populace, a correspondingly heavy handed response is required if the populace does not wish to become soylent green. note that I have not explicitly advocated violent behaviour - rather I suggest that if our intelligence is not used against this tide, it may as well be part of the wave. thanks for your thoughtful response
I have noted the employment of a language technique that as per the wikipedia article "signs of AI writing" is commonly used by AI, you can attack facts all you like and that will indeed stop me from talking!
I've seen plenty videos of locals being violently removed from town halls due to displaying of anti AI sentiment. I wouldnt consider it fair to use these examples to tar the entirety of the pro AI camp. the way objectivity and subjectivity are intertwined in your comment is spectacular, ever considered a career in propaganda?
we are monkeys following logic that was determined by other monkeys. our experience of reality is equivalent to that of a brain in a jar. blind belief is blind belief whether placed in science or religion. breaching the gap of blindness necessarily involves a leap to test ideas with personal faith. such a notion is not necessarily compatible with an atheistic perspective insisting reality is solely that which may be verbally quantified by monkeys. a dog knows to sit on command but has no idea about the concept of sitting, does that make the concept of sitting unreal?