So that it stops existing.
It has valuable content for you occasionally.
Your behavioral profile is valuable content for it constantly.
Unfair trade.
209 karma · joined March 1, 2025
death to vassalism, freedom to nassalism!
"theory of mind": it's just a theory!
It has valuable content for you occasionally.
Your behavioral profile is valuable content for it constantly.
Unfair trade.
See e.g. https://aphyr.com/tags/the-future-of-everything-is-lies-i-gu...
(That whole series is also available as PDF; I recommend printing it, spiral-binding the printout kinda like a pirated college textbook, and surreptitiously leaving it in cafes and the like.)
PSA: the answer to "you're being unserious" starts with "are you fucking kidding me?"
Thankfully, the converse: the computers these days are focused on nothing else but learning how humans work.
Hell, half the world doesn't even have a computer with a physical keyboard.
Not entirely unlike how viruses (or memes) execute on a host organism ;-)
Because they are captives (to a system of incentives that is already "superintelligent" in comparison to any individual) who are hoping for salvation (something to make them free against their will; since it is their will which is captured).
Singularity, then, is the point at which the system itself "finally becomes able to imagine what it is like to be a person", and decides to stop torturing people. IMO, this is unlikely to work out like that.
Anyone who genuinely likes kickball because they derive exquisite pleasure from watching balls being kicked, can go watch it live. But no, it just has to reach right into people's living rooms, at the cost of disrupting productive activity. Imagine if people paid such enthusiastic attention to things that were not about "winning" and "losing" some completely imaginary competition. Imagine how much better their lives would've been!
The people ready to die or kill for the AI, do you already imagine what they are going to be like?
As in, "all of you".
Including its users.
Oh, so there are "wrong questions" now? Yeah, I guess I'll have to get better at asking those real quick.
Oh wow, good morning.
The parties which taught you the notion of "individual" (by defining you as such, and coercive-conditioning all other models out of you), all happen to be collectives: your family, your society, the institutions, the businesses' communication departments. They have the power of definition. An individual (by definition) does not.
It only gets worse from there.
For what purpose are you made "individual"? Collectives define you as "individual", in order to make you defenseless. Individuals have the useful property of being trapped within an infinite recursion of false "selves"; collectives, on the other hand, are neatly self-reifying. They do not have the organ of inhibition (pre-frontal cortex).
In the eyes of the state, corporations are something like artificial people, right? Alright, model them as legally constructed psychopaths out to get you - how to perform extralegal direct intervention upon 'em, same way they can do to us? It's only fair... wait no you can't! You'd only be hurting their constituent individuals. And you can't hurt them nearly as bad as whatever made them join the collective in the first place; it would not only be pointless but also cruel.
This notion of "individual" which lies at the center of Western individualism (and the related schools of thought which implicitly form your day-to-day behaviors in society, no reflection necessary) is an extremely fraught concept: look at it a little too intently and it begins to fall apart at the seams.
Making you see yourself as this thing called "individual", which is extensively studied with most rigorous methods, and somehow remains fundamentally inscrutable (hard problem of consciousness goes wheee!)... that's not very unlike a proprietary API or OS, is it? "Individual identity" is a useful (to whom?) abstraction over the incontrovertible, but by itself meaningless, physical being of a human organism. Unlike a collective, a body cannot be divided into constituent parts and remain itself; but Western civilization is nominally a world of minds over bodies, and minds are made out of ideas, and ideas can be taken apart and shared around just fine, within one body or among entire crowds.
So what we are observing is not evil; "evil" has meaning in the plane of independent individuals operating in mutually comprehensible moral framing. And that's always been a huge and harmful oversimplifiction.
It's much easier to view the behavior of transnational corporations as a whole as the AGI takeoff. But then one might want to consider when exactly it started - was it the LLMs that precipitated it (as many here seem to think), or is the concept of "artificial intelligence" itself a marketing smokescreen, and the NN/ML/LLM tech is just an inevitable performance optimization once the AGI has embedded itself deeply enough into human industry to direct resources towards the mass production of GPUs and other highly specialized accelerator cells.
My condolences to any children who have to interact with you.
>You now owe me 20,000,000,000,000,000,000EUR, but since I'm not an actual cyberstalker, I won't be chasing you down to collect. So relax. Such a useless thing to add to the conversation.
Nah chill, I'll be there shortly with the money.
I asked which is easier to make.
This is, evidently, an extremely difficult question to understand.
>Whaaaa I thought you just told me a phone number is such an incredibly hard and challenging thing to get, now you're telling me anyone can easily get them anytime they want? >So phone numbers are incredibly challenging to get and yet people get them all the time easily.
Not phone numbers; accounts gatekept by them.
Not anyone; only bad actors.
>I thought you just told me
What I just told you is written in the parent post.
You have the right to misread it any way you like, and think whatever comes to your mind easiest. But since that's not how a conversation works, I will ask you to exercise that right somewhere I can't see you - and by the way you still owe me 100EUR, but since I'm not an actual cyberstalker, I won't be chasing you down to collect. So relax.
If you insist that 2+2 equals "3 or 5 depending on perspective", ok sure let's work with your scenario of comparing registering a pre-existing state/telco ID with creating a brand new user/pass account (again: instead of what I asked you to compare). Well, suppose you were to lose your ID and/or your SIM - do you think you'd be able to renew them and regain access to your stuff in the same amount of time it's taking me to write this now?
Plus, I guess you've never seen bad actors buy fake ID/SIM accounts faster than you can block 'em - and much more quickly than any individual good-faith actor (with a single ID/SIM honestly linked to meatspace) would able to get out of harm's way in such a scenario.
>What's easier, using a tool that's already in your hand or going to the tool store, searching for a new one, and swapping to that one? Just using the tool already in your hands, that you're already using, that you've been using for a long time.
Hammers, nails... You're trying to make it make sense by dumbing it down.
In the end (again conforming to your framing), the "easier thing" is the one that fewer people will expend energy to prevent you from doing. And this last consideration kinda-sorta makes your reply be an answer to my question, except that I had to do the work of connecting the two, so now you owe me 100EUR.
"Why not use $COP_APP?" "It's not private" "Well it's by a private company, it's not run by the government or anything - what the fuck are you talking about, corporal?"
In many jurisdictions, telecoms form an abusive oligopoly, and you need to provide a state-issued identity document to get a phone number.
That is not at all reasonable for normal usage - unlike well-known non-abusive authentication methods, such as a keypair; or its even simpler cousin, the username/password.
As a society in general, do you agree that unjust laws, false positives in enforcement, prison slavery, and endemic rampant abuse of authority, are things that exist?
As a society in general, do you think those are a legitimate price to pay "to keep serious transgressors in prisons"?
As a society in general, do you think serious transgressors more often get locked up for life, or more often get a slap on the wrist and a quiet promotion to more serious transgressors?
As a society in general, how do you know - falsifiably! - that prisons are even effective for their stated purpose?
Just like prisons perpetuate crime, excluding sociopaths and their behavior from what is thinkable as human only permits us to ignore them. And to contrive our own excuses for their sub-criminal abusive behaviors - which is the primary way in which they blend in and remain beyond reproach. You are their enabler. Go figure out how to stop being that.
If Microsoft amounts to a sentient entity (i.e. is able to care about things), we have a bigger problem.
If we put the wall of metaphor between us and that interpretation, it still remains likely that "users shielding themselves" is of primary concern to Microsoft's bottom line.
It amounts to a (vaguely pseudoscientific) dehumanization of those whose modus operandi transgresses our values most severely.
Imagining a subset of the population as literal cancer cells does not help us understand better the systemic issue which makes those people benefit disproportionately from metahuman entities (such as corporations or political agglomerations).