AntiDyatlov

AI safety is a completely separate question from the hard problem. Also a very tricky one, given these things are still black boxes.

Yeah, we're totally fucked, there is no scientific theory that can tell you what is and isn't conscious. For all we know, my laptop, not running any LLM is conscious and always has been. Or my chair. Or a proton. This consciousness thing is a nasty problem for the scientific worldview.

I can recommend Void Stranger. Real mystery box of a game. The first ending seriously hooked me into figuring out all its secrets.

So the power grid is having experiences? Computers too?

Well, actually, probably not. If you say we're made out of meat, you end up with the hard problem of consciousness.

I'm imagining a purple cube in this moment. Is the purple cube made out of meat?

A very good outcome for AI safety would be if when improved models get released, malicious actors use them to break society in very visible ways. Looks like we're getting close to that world.

How can human races not be a meaningful genetic category? Aside from the phentoypical differences, the prevalence of some diseases varies by race.

How can the service know that the users have really entered into a relationship?

If you have time to post on Hacker News, you definitely have time for proper grammar.

I think the contrived scenarios you come up with need to not have a trivial solution. Everything about my brain is optimized for KISS, it breaks everything to turn down simple solutions to reach for something more complex.

Well, dethroning the 0.01% seems more feasible than starting and winning a civil war against the right. I think the right is not so pro 0.01% as you think, the killing of the United Healthcare CEO had strong bipartisan support, at the level of ordinary people.

I wish AI written submissions were banned.

Man, talking to strangers in random places just feels socially uncalibrated to me, like I'm being retarded. The first time I across that idea was in the form of "cold approach", the idea of trying to score a date from a woman you see while out and about.

I wonder if anyone who did this had to start from a baseline of feeling this is straight up weird (I'm pretty sure it is weird in my culture).

"Anthropic wanted its product to not be used in ways that contradict its ethics".

"Impose" makes it sound like Anthropic is being hostile here. And also, I don't think this is a situation that calls for moral relativism.

We don't really have input on how the change goes down, and it seems no one is capable of sensibly regulating AI.

Google Maps calls it Gulf of America, pretty difficult to ignore Google.

It's not virtous to make a show of one's virtue, virtue signaling is a baplutely a real thing, and a defect.

In the case of nuclear weapons, we had a theory that said they were possible. We don't have a theory that says AGI or ASI is possible. It's a big difference.

This is so weird, this feels like an incredibly stupid bug that any average developer would've noticed, but Google is so incredibly selective with their tech screen. What exactly is the point of those if they're going to fuck up in obvious ways?

It's possible we actually never had good metrics on software productivity. That seems very difficult to measure. I definitely use AI at my job to work less, not to produce more, and Claude Code is the only thing that has enabled me to have side-projects (had never tried it before, I have no idea how there are people with a coding full time job that also have a coding side project(s)).

> Everyone being able to make their own apps however they want is a beautiful

No. Silence is better than noise.

I mean, if AI doesn't stall out, maybe there will be BJJ bots in 10 years.

I really don't think that's true, you can put a lot of effort into a wrongheaded strategy, netting you no or bad results.

Conversely, a good strategy can get you good results without that much effort.

It makes perfect sense as a comment, seeing the clip from the show doesn't add anything.

I haven't seen arguments that they're constitutionally unsavory, but I've seen arguments, that the President, as chief executive, does have almost CEO-like control over them. FDR did exert such control, in his case using it to expand the federal government, but he ran a fast-moving government.

So it's not like there isn't precedent for this, it's just that the consensus was as you said, the independent (some would say unelected) bureaucracy running things. But that was only ever a convention.

Might change it then. My original vision was just Vajra and Gnosis, but then I started feeling like maybe they're both too loud so I added the Simple style. But yeah, Vajra is the one I personally use.

If AI really is poised to automate away large segments of the economy, the correct answer is to bring on UBI, financed by heavy taxes on AI companies. If there's no work to do, it's time to chill!

Can you ask DALL-E to draw itself?

> Neuroscience doesn't have a stance on the philosophical questions of consciousness

Yes they do, I saw Stanford prof Andrew Huberman say we're just a flow of electricity. Read of another neuroscientist that claimed there is no such as reason without emotion. More generally, scientists wade into philosophical waters all the time.

> By concluding that humans are as real as dirt and bricks brings god no closer to evidence.

It does, because humans are only part dirt and bricks. Consciousness is the lynchpin, the thing that cannot be explained in terms of dirt and bricks. Hence, once you admit there is more to reality than the physical, it once again becomes possible to search for God/Atman/Nibbana whatever you prefer.

The arbitrary meatbag is not the whole story of the human.

Well, that is a real question. But that is not my argument. I point out instead:

1. The big arguments used to disprove God also disprove your own existence, as they disprove the existence of sentience.

2. There are religions centered on sentience, and who equate God with sentience.

3. It is manifestly absurd to believe one is not sentient just to hold to physicalism.

You can't ever be certain about the nature of reality but you can be damn sure reality is not solely square. It is important to look to, and study, the circle as well, instead of pretending it does not exist.