vivekd

I don't understand how alignment is even an issue with a large language model? It seems to me like we are a very long away from developing the kind of AI where alignment even becomes an issue. We seem to be focusing on the "AI" moniker without considering what this technology actually is, which is basically just a computer running a statistical algorithm on a large collection of sentences

That phenomenon you speak of is real but I think the parents' comment is valid in this case. Being afraid of a large language model running statistics does look a lot like childishness or mental illness.

I can give the general public a pass because maybe they don't know the tech and are going off media hype. But for someone to know what this is and be afraid of it does look silly doesn't it?

For this to work the AI girlfriend has to be better than videogames or online chat forums

I don't see AI partners overtaking those

To quote slate star codex, horny men want sex, horny women want attention. AI is much better at the second.

Maybe there's more potential for AI boyfriends

I'm not saying india doesn't have multi generational housing I'm saying the nature is different

It's traditionally not made up of adult children who are unable to support themselves. Instead it's made up of adult children supporting parents in their old age.

That's not the same thing we're seeing in the US where lots of millenials are staying home due to being unable to support themselves

We also have to account for the fact that NY and LA are also unreasonably expensive. I wouldn't be able to afford to live there, and I say this as a Canadian, a place known for high prices particularly in housing

Also multi generation home might be a red herring. Because in just about every country adults are supposed to support themselves. Multigenerational means you support your parents not that they support you. So the type of multigenerational homes we see rising today might not be reflective of different cultural preferences explainable by rising diversity

I agree with you over the parent. The idea that being a so called "Western nation" makes you immune to government abuse seems to be more propoganda than fact.

I looked into Canada's bank seizures, and at the hearings it came out that it was the banks not the government that was pushing for that. Canada's elites do act like the general population are more property than citizens... But I don't see how physical money can solve the problem of tyranny better than digital.

A tyranny can search and seize your physical assets just as much as your digital ones. They passed laws making it harder to store money anonymously, and storing digital assets anonymously might actually be easier in our day and age

I hold the minority position that philosophy is a useful means of getting information about the world around us and it's only cultural factors that happened in the 1700s (movement against rationalism) that makes us blind to it.

That's hard to see when we talk about more recently popular philosophical topics like ethics or existentialism.

But hacker News also had an interesting discussion recently on Popper and the philosophy of science ( what counts as science). There was another discussion a while back in the philosophy of math - what is math, what if anything separates mathematical knowledge from other types of knowledge.

Viewed from this framework, I think most people would agree that philosophy is useful and an important means of ascertaining valuable knowledge.

This post caught my attention because recently I met a woman I really admire. She dropped out of her computer engineering class, took a vow of celibacy and poverty and became a missionary with a Catholic sect.

The reason I admire her isn't that. What caught my attention about her is that she has a sense of purpose. She has a purpose in life and has devoted her life to it.

I used to have one. My goal was to make the legal system cheaper and more accessible. And I devoted the last decade of my life to that. Now that's fallen apart and I'm a little lost and it hurts me alot.

I hope I'll find a purpose soon. That's what I'm passionate about right now, finding a new purpose or a new way to accomplish my past purpose.

> regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and/or unprofessional.

So it's not what he said it's how he said it? I think most people from democratic societies would see repressing speech based on such nebulous standards as worse.

You could target anyone this way for any slip of the tongue. This is a watch what you say society and I think you should be careful, you sound a bit heated and unprofessional maybe a regulatory agency might come knocking at your door.

I think also it's largely only Canadians who view it as defensible and Canada is increasingly being seen as a nation that does not respect speech rights by people on both the left and the right.

Go in the street and talk to 5 random people. Very few people left or right view Canada's government as exercising legitimate and responsible power. I think Maintaing the illusion seems to be a thing for a members of the older generation who spend all their time watching the CBC.

The argument that having nude photos of you mother or daughter spread spread is about a rational response is weird because for most people the response would be emotional.

The arguments being made here rest on discounting human emotions, requiring that they be justified rationally. That's not a fair or reasonable standard.

What would you call a guy who feels nothing about having his mother or daughters nude photos spread. You're telling me you take issue with characterizing that as weird and unusual?

I think it is an appeal to authority. Consider this, imagine Eisntein had some new idea about physics, he couldn't just say trust me because I'm Einstein. He has to write out his reasons and proof and his words will be judged on their merits and not on his identity or expertise

I think experts are given credence because they can do a deep analysis. I expect a civil engineer to do calculations instead of just saying "I'm the expert trust me"

Is this whole trust the expert thing some new phenomenon? Because I feel confident scientists were very keen to provide the reason and evidence for their beliefs. Saying someone should be trusted just because they are an expert seems against the spirit of science

So is there reasons to believe in man made global warming? Is there is lots of reliable evidence. We should focus in that instead of who is making the claims.

You and the parent are making different versions of a similar fallacy - his is ad hominem and yours is appeal to authority. The flaw in both is they focus on the identity of the speaker rather than evaluating the validity of what is said

Difference is in this case the image is indistinguishable from a photo.

Google teen suicide nudes and then come back and tell me it's just a moral panic

You assume it's a moral panic because some people don't behave in ways you deem rational and don' share your views on sex.

Guess what, we're not Vulcans. We're humans with feelings and violations like this can have serious consequences for the people it's done to

>Plenty of cultures don’t have the shame around nudity that we do.

You're mixing two things. The fact that there are nude beaches in Canada for example doesn't mean the women want sexualized nude images or wouldn't feel embarrassed or humiliated by that.

There an important contextual difference you are missing.

This whole you can choose is rubbish. It can be used to excuse any form of victimization. It's not sufficient to hurt, violate or victimize someone and tell them to choose to have a better perception or attitude about it.

How about the people doing it change their attitudes on others privacy right and right to their integrity

I think if you ask any person in a society where porn is not prevelant they would absolutely think it's a problem. Unfortunately we live in a society that tells us it's okay to sexualize others in this way.

Let's change the thought experiment, what if it wasn't some nameless girl, what if it was your mom, your sister or daughter - anyone who tells me they're completely comfortable with that is either weird or lying

That's ridiculous. You're telling me if I took naked pictures of you and posted them in front of all your friends and family you would feel nothing.

For a site that screams and cries about privacy of IP addresses and privacy of what sites you visit - apparently posting naked photos isn't a privacy violation?

Human beings feel vulnerable when they are naked, and exposure like that is humiliating. This is not a western society thing, it's a human nature thing

Yeah no. Making a nude of someone without their permission seems like a pretty serious violation of a persons sense of self and identity. It seems worse to release it the public.

>public cannot be trusted to handle it appropriately.

> It should remain the purview of scholars who have proven their fealty to the rational interpretation

Ironically similar to what unsavory regimes in the past believed. The elitism behind this forgets the key role of academics and scholars in regimes like the nazis

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-role-o...

I don't share your your dim view of Joe Public. I think objective information on the nazis should be widely available and can be a useful tool in preventing the rise of oppressive regimes in the future.

People are not going to be equipped to oppose totalitarianism if they are expecting some crazed screaming genocidal madman like the Hitler of the movies. They would be much better equipped of they saw a real picture of how such men rise to power.

Nazi ideals like blood and soil, ideas of state efficiency, their attempt to impose Darwinism ideas on human societies. There's lots of aspects of their ideas that are rearing its head today. And people don't know what to watch for.

I think the ignorance makes young people an easy target for bad actors online who can say - look what they told you about Hitler wasn't completely accurate.

I agree that some censorship is okay in some circumstances but I think this idea of misrepresenting history or painting a one sided view is not wise. Propoganda is not a good long term strategy in the information age.

Depends on where you live, if you live in Zimbabwe suddenly it starts to look very attractive. Too many countries play fast and loose with their currency.

I'm not a fan of Jordan Peterson either. . . But come on, it doesn't take much to see that the decision is bull

Do we really believe psychologist losing his license because he said stuff on YouTube outside the scope of his professional practice is

"minimal impact on his right to freedom of expression"

Does anyone actually buy that.

I don't like Peterson, I'm not going to bother watching his dribble to get context

But I don't think your position that this has no effect on freedom of speech is realistic. The precedent is clear, all members of regulated professions, doctors, lawyers etc better watch what they say in the public sphere or have their right to practice taken away.

I think a lot of Canadians agree with doing this. Which is fine, I mean run the nation any way the people want.

But I don't think anyone could , with a straight face say this isn't policing speech.

And Peterson is maybe an example of someone we don't like but it's not limited to him, how about Justice McLeod who spoke out against racism in the government?

A good test for free speech is what if your opponent got it. Let's say some hyper conservative Peterson supporters took control of the college of Psychologists and started revolking the license of anyone who made claims opposing Mr Petersons world view, would you still think that's okay and consistent with free speech?

I think this is a good summary of Kant. For full context it's good to get a picture of the philosophical movement around him during his era which was attacking rationalism and promoting a sort of extereme form of empiricism.

(Ie science and the visible world being all that exist, and rational concepts like numbers or math is just an extrapolation from the material world.)

Kant sort of puts that idea to rest somewhat (although it remained popular well into the 20th century).

But the way he did so was unsettling. The conclusion we are left with after reading this is there is a sort of human perspective that shapes our understanding of reality and there is an underlying reality apart from that which we can never know.

I don't like it, I think when Einstein or Newton make statements they are making statements about reality and not just sense impressions. I don't like the idea that reality is something foreign and unknowable to humans.

Maybe time isn't real in the way we perceive it but I don't think the underlying nature of time is something undiscoverable.

What's my reasoning. I don't know I just don't like the idea I guess. Plus I don't think the attack on rationalism and reason was as warranted as it may have seemed to Kant in his time.

I think there's a lot of truth to what you are saying. However I still think man-made climate change is real and I think some of the response to it has been positive - like trying to design walkable communities.

But I agree there is also a lot of unnessary fear mongering and accusations at ordinary people and doomsdayism.

I hope what is essentially a positive thing (wanting sustainability) doesn't get overtaken and misused by fanaticism or people with other agendas.

So when we say we don't need surgery then are we conceding that there is no climate emergency and things might not be as catastrophic as they are sometimes made out to be. If we have time to look for less intrusive methods than cloud seeding maybe we have time to also look for less economically intrusive methods

If we assume you're right and we are heading towards mass death and catastrophe - why is the solution to make software that uses less energy? Seems a little weak of a response to mass death?

Why not something like cloud seeding with sulfates?

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2023/altering-our-clouds-...

Why not the easy technical solution that doesn't relegate people to use less of a basic resource required for human development?

I have so many questions like what are the actual projections and how do we know it's effects. What of past projections that failed. Where are we getting this claim of mass death, when is it expected. Does it account for changes like the fact that we phased out coal. Does it account for the fact that we recently reduced cooling sulphate in the atmosphere.

The answer seems to be don't ask questions and if you do lots of people will die. That doesn't sound like science or good policy.

I don't think you're really meant to tweak configs much in neovim. Just get a basic config file off GitHub and then update here and there as you find stuff you like/need.

I know that sounds complex but if you're coding (which I assume many neovim users are) should be fairly straightforward

I feel the same thing is happening in my country, Canada. And no I'm not just referring to recent politically charged event ls during the pandemic.

Stuff like hearings against Judge Donald McLeod after he criticized racial bias in immigration and law enforcement. Or hearings against justice of the peace Julie Lauzon after she wrote a news article critical of the bail system.

This kind of standard where the government arrests or charges people for undermining them is a path to unfettered corruption, overwhelming state power free of criticism and the undermining of democratic institutions.

I pray these laws fail and are overwritten and those responsible for them are remembered as enemies of the state

But she's the FTC chair not the legislature. She has to work with the laws as they are not as she wants them to be. I don't believe her role is to be a figurehead for legislative change.

I'll believe that when I see a single startup come out of Africa and compete on the the world economy. 0, I see exactly 0. What about innovations or websites. Again 0.

Look at Forbes list of African innovations - it's bull, a pedal powered toilet, an electric pedicab made from recycled materials (like what?!)

This isn't a country we're talking about, this is a continent. Something is wrong.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mfonobongnsehe/2014/02/13/seven...

This guy's explanation hits on what I saw there. In Africa business and politics go together. The money isn't going to support innovators or entrepreneurs or business. It's going to politicians and that's it. That's where taxes are going, that's where foreign aid is going, that's where it's all going.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpbyDIpIStc

Well that doesn't seem true on the world stage. I mean China has seen rapid GDP growth but still remains extremely corrupt. But I think you are missing the parent's point, it's not the corruption they are complaining about, it's cultural values that they think are determental to economic success. And having been to Africa (Zambia) and origionally being from a poor country in Asia myself, I think there's a lot of truth to what he's saying.