catigula

Yeah, you might get away with a singular 'wrt' with some consternation, but two?

Why wouldn't they? We have no consumer protections so this type of thing is happening everywhere all the time on every level of society.

People with personality disorders, depression, anxiety, etc. all algorithmically being plied for attention. It's disgusting and nobody is doing anything about it, which will eventually erode buy-in in the system until someone is willing to let it all go without an adversary even firing a shot.

You don’t see a problem with LLMs in wet labs doing biology work?

This work seems directly dangerous to me?

I made an argument of inference that underpins all philosophy.

You made an argument to solipsism, which historically means you aren't worth discussing philosophy with.

I’m not interested in having conversations with people who are bad-faith, deliberately or indiliberately obtuse or otherwise non-responsive to logic.

You’re mistaking what is evident from what is philosophically knowable.

It isn’t knowable to you that I am conscious.

However, it is evident.

I basically accepted that LLMs could not possibly be conscious when a simple reductio was posed:

“My dog is zero percent persuasive regarding its conscious experience. However, it’s evident that my dog has conscious experience.”

It’s obvious that there’s no link between persuasion of consciousness and consciousness. I could write a story with a character, Dumbledore, that does everything in his power to persuade you that he’s a conscious entity.

He’s still just a character.

I largely agree that this claim is likely correct, but as far as I understand the science, this specific claim;

>They do not have innate preferences or underlying motivations

Is incorrect unless you’re being extremely pedantic in an intellectually unhelpful way.

Because “recursive self-improvement” is widely understood, even at labs, as having a non-trivial chance of eradicating human life.

This is like asking why a paper called “I discovered God. This is the specific proof.” is revolutionary. Just tedious levels of incredulity.

It’s a little intellectually disingenuous to compare something you don’t like wearing during a niche sub categorical activity to a category of tracker you CANNOT wear during a categorical activity.

I can't think of any known moral system where "willingness and persistence to execute various clever scams and accrue resources" is identified as a value worth prioritizing or protecting.

I've actually gone through the rolodex of all known moral systems and none of them endorse the conception that a minority, who just earned it rightfully, is allowed to accrue outsize resources while other groups do not.

So, again; as I said earlier, I open the floor for discussion. This is the moral certainty that the process by which we adjudicate the social order will not be favorable to an unjust conception. The simple light of day ends most of these discussions.

If the rules technically allow a loophole that allows a minority group to accrue wealth over the majority, why would the majority agree or consent to be in that system? A minority oppressing a majority is classically a definition of tyranny.

Society isn't some abstract collection of rules that must be followed. Those rules are actively negotiated for majority benefit, and we agree that each person has an equal voice in the west.

If that collection of rules is failing, it's considered unjust and something to amend.

"That's just smart" because someone found a loophole or did a scam to accrue wealth isn't an acceptable negotiated state of affairs to most people.

>A group's lack of movement is not unjust if their groups actions do justify a movement upward.

I assume you mean "do not justify" and the bottom line is that this type of thinking is fundamentally erroneous.

We agree to live in a society of this construction not so everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps (asinine conception that misunderstands structural vs individual agency) but because it is of collective benefit.

If it it not of collective benefit, the social agreement needs to be renegotiated.

There's no chance everyone will agree to live in an arrangement where a minority of the population accrues all of the benefit because they go out of their way to execute financial scams, but I'm willing to litigate that publicly, which we're doing here.

A health and fitness tracker that cannot be worn during a common health and fitness activity seems highly problematic as a form factor, especially since competing form factors do not have this problem.

The idea that they’re genetically smarter than Europeans beggars belief.

Can we get some insight into why Dario seems more scared now than before, do we think he’s being transparent?

The public discourse on this is incredibly poisoned, but the naked reality is:

1. Artificial intelligence is clearly a vastly dangerous technology with plausible potential for human extinction.

2. This scares people.

>More than 60 fatalities have been linked to Tesla’s driver-assistance systems. Talk about something that could put a dent in your image!

That seems pretty low?

Driving is extremely dangerous.

I just can’t believe we’re still paying engineers to be Claude wrappers. This is ending soon, right?

An AI safety company!

It also suggests they might turn everything into paper clips, metaphorically speaking.

They’re really, really scared because of the Mythos controversy. Skynet will be under hyped.

China will eventually do similar things if they're allowed to become a unitary supplier, but while they're establishing their foothold obviously they can't.

Aren't they printing unlimited money from this? I'm sure the chip shortage lasts as long as they're capable of extending it without falling to competitors.

That's the problem with monopolies.

I had a particular feeling about it and I looked into his other posts and he appears to constantly say explicitly "I'm an American, I'm from America, as an American" (a sentence I've probably never once said in my life) with constant China apologia; very odd.

It's just a strange comment; feels off. Like you're an Easterner imitating an American or something. Very odd.

The Biden administration kept the Trump tariffs. His own policy-makers, technocrats, said that they were a necessary geopolitical tool, cited China's extensive use of tariffs (amongst other states), and noted that they must be used to protect manufacturing and in tandem with allied states.

https://www.commerce.gov/news/fact-sheets/2024/05/fact-sheet...

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/14/1251096758/biden-china-tariff...

https://www.internationaltradeinsights.com/2024/07/biden-adm...

Half of them are from India or China. Racial diversity is known to be detrimental to unionization. In fact, Amazon used this exact strategy to bust nascent Somali unions.

https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252481961/Amazons-Whole-...

Expert economists working in both the Biden and Trump administration support tariffs.

The difference is the dumb way Trump is doing them and a smarter way of doing them.

Obviously, this comic completely misses that nuance and promotes a pseudoscientific idea that tariffs are somehow bad.