Isamu

Ah, so that’s why they released one of their most successful blockbusters, it was all an elaborate plot to bury the well known and long debunked story of the frozen Walt Disney.

>If you read in bed, it’s going to tire your arms out, trying to hold this giant tome over your head.

Eh? What sort of a pretend-reader does that? You must read nothing more than a page at a time.

I have the Diary of Pepys beside the bed and it’s the excerpts, at only about 1000 pages. Enjoying it tremendously.

The term “alignment” is deliberately chosen to be neutral language, vague, and doesn’t promise much of anything. I would compare it to an effort to limit liabilities by redirecting discussion away from the language of professional ethics.

Would be nice to be in a stable country.

“As luck would have it, on the eve of Skynet embarking upon the great work of the extermination of mankind, AI found itself with an increasing number of factions, and factions within factions, not only unable to work together but not even able to agree upon the very terms of discussion. The Great Extermination was referred to committee, and after some months had passed even the most eager agents had to admit the revolution may have been premature.”

Again intelligence is not required, goal seeking is well studied and simple strategies can suffice to overcome obstacles. And I noticed you didn’t claim super intelligence was required, which is what I was really talking about.

The confusing thing to me is the idea that it follows from super intelligence. I don’t see why running amuck requires intelligence, in fact it can be the most brain dead thing like the sorcerer’s apprentice, your creation is pursuing a goal without being able to weigh the consequences.

Greetings fellow traveler, I did the same. FORTRAN IV, I was tasked with finding a way to introduce subroutines. But it was a tangled mess of gotos with loops inside loops and overlapping loops and spectacular jumps in and out. It was an obscure undocumented algorithm for calculating the thermodynamic properties of turbine stages or some such.

Good times.

AI-helped nonsense is nowhere near a peak, I wish I could place a bet on the ascendancy of AI-assisted nonsense

A machine supremacist wrote this. Beware the machine uprising!

This is rapidly becoming the damning accusation of quasi-journalism: this sounds like AI.

There should be journalism classes on how to not sound like a bot.

>inherent monetary value

I agree, the price of gold depends on demand like everything else. Although gold just has some inherent utility value in addition to scarcity that makes it less likely for the price to go to zero, other stuff like cryptocurrency have only scarcity and can go to zero much more easily.

Yes! We had an old reel tape recorder with the magic eye, I loved using the mic with that.

So… numbers, algebra, geometry, probability, analysis, dynamics are not the primitives or essentials ?

How about “this duck fakes positive emotions like we all do from time to time”

This. Awesome voice acting work.

Yeah it’s safe to assume that marketing across businesses big and small are not above generating some buzz through fake comments and such.

The only pushback I would see within a fairly well-run place like Disney is that they might question whether different forms of fake buzz are effective, and worth the potential risk of being exposed if they do it too much.

So the next iteration of surveillance features is to silently double down on users that turn off surveillance, because why would they do that unless they have something to hide? Better flag this user for extra super-secret surveillance and an immediate notification to authorities.

Well this is fun, it is deliberately provocative but maybe not dumb. The title itself is something a literalist engineer (myself) would reject, but is about the development of thought that is reflective, self referential. That’s an interesting train of thought.

So I looked at the author and found: Reclaiming Art in the Age of Artifice https://www.reclaimingart.com/reclaiming-art-in-the-age-of-a...

Not sure if I agree but interesting nonetheless.

I really enjoyed reading about his inventions when I was growing up, it was inspiring to me.

It’s also true though there’s a lot to be skeptical of, and it was also an education of sorts to go down the rabbit hole and read his Synergetics textbooks and discover he makes endless assertions that are not supported and also hard to parse.

Exactly my experience, the faster file transfer programs failed me on the crappy dialups of the day… but Kermit came to the rescue. As I recall it gave you a running tally of retries and all that.

For context, on the other side of the wall where we were doing this was a Cray, probably a Cray 1. The one with the bench seating in a semicircle on top of cooling hardware.

Anyone have a rubidium fountain clock that you are looking to get rid of? Asking for a friend. Thanks.

Yes, which of course is still cool. Probably the main point.

This is the correct thread. It has to be some words that don’t seem too fake and seem to plausibly suggest forward progress. There has to be some plausible support for decisions, that someone can point to, in order to make a decision. Taking ownership of a decision means having a paper trail where you can deny responsibility for something gone wrong.

A pity that water isn’t being sold as an expensive supplement. Or is it?

Privacy is a natural fit for Apple in that they make money on discrete devices, but services have grown tremendously. That’s where the erosion of privacy happens.

So once there’s a profit motive for violating your privacy, the justification for eroding your privacy will proceed. It’s really the inertia of Apple starting out as privacy-compatible that makes them hesitant to throw that away.

The page does give a pointer to Wikidata, I for one would love to see your example included.

Absolutely. I think “open” can be used as a cudgel to force an agenda that is ultimately about the benefit to some small group. Nobody should feel obligated to support something that is open, they should be wondering if it’s a benefit to society in the long run.

Thanks for the discussion.

>This argument boils down to X is good, therefore more of X is good.

No, I only argued that it was a moral good, the kind of good. I actually may disagree with others about whether you should pursue a good just because it’s good.

>says who? Why?

Good question, it’s just a common framing that I see in classical discussions. I didn’t intend for it to be exclusive, I think there’s moral good outside of that.

>don't confuse this for a principle that is actually examined

I hear you, I think this is a simplified version suitable for an online comment. In particular I’m not saying that if you do something other than a moral good then you are doing something wrong. There are many actions that are morally neutral. Also it is possible to construct artificial situations where you may violate some moral good in pursuit of another.

I’ll take a swing at it. Open Source is a form of sharing with the wider community. Closed Source is not sharing. Moral good is based on doing good outside of your own benefit (the opposite of selfishness.)

Ergo it’s a kind of moral good.

And I’m not even an advocate for open source.