int_19h

> Would the new amendment apply to the government, or to private sector, or to individuals?

It depends on how it's written, but there are no inherent limits here. You can make it do either.

> In any case, the 1st and the 28th? would continually be butting heads, since the 1st prohibits congress from passing laws that would enforce the 28th

Amendments, by definition, amend the constitution, as it was prior to them (meaning with all the previous amendments applied) so a later amendment can always override an older one explicitly, and even if it doesn't do so, the plain intent of the new amendment would likely suffice.

Not necessarily. It may be well-understood but still require judgment calls.

They are "System 2" in humans, because we haven't evolved the necessary wetware circuitry for it to be "System 1".

But with models, we can train them to answer such questions without verbal reasoning.

You get a lot more inference on OpenAI plans dollar for dollar even before accounting for the regular resets that they do.

You can embed much bigger models into web apps with wasm and WebGL or WebGPU. I have a web app running a 0.6B embedding model client-side.

Catholics literally believe that Pope is infallible when he speaks on matters of faith ex cathedra. If that's not a cult then what is?

Or how about Mormons? Are they a cult or not? If not, were they a cult at some point, and when exactly did they stop being one?

The sad thing is that I would actually trust a chatbot more. Not because they are that good, but because the bar for good governance is that low, especially of late.

LINQ was very intentionally designed to use SQL terminology for this because at the time (to remind, this was 2007), your typical C# or VB developer had no clue whatsoever about functional programming and the usual terminology there, while SQL knowledge would be much more widespread.

> Doesn't even need to be a different model - just make sure it has a different context.

I find that the number of issues discovered is noticeably higher if you do use different models though. I'm doing some very finicky things (formal semantics) and find that there's value in review panels as large as 5 different models from different families. It gets even more profitable if you set it up as a truly agentic panel where after writing their own separate reviews they get to see what others have said, and adjust their positions or defend them etc. Some models are not that good by themselves but can be surprisingly good at finding flaws in others' reasoning (Grok for example).

> I'm surprised there's no actual commie coming out and claiming the end of capitalism is near. (except maybe me in my personal socials, only larping as a hobby)

I'm a (libertarian, free-market) socialist, so not quite communist, but I think the differences are not substantial as far as everyone outside far left circles is concerned. And I've been saying this exact thing since this whole AI wave started.

If there was ever a time to seize the means of production and make them commons, this is it.

The question, of course, is why should it inevitably lead to that kind of world, rather than The Culture? Or, to give a more realistic and likely example, something like the Colligatarch from Alan Dean Foster's "The I Inside".

Models have been trained on synthetic inputs for over a year now. Collapse only happens in very specific circumstances, it's not a limit in practice.

No, we should advance to a post-scarcity world where everyone can do research, teach, and promote the wonders of creativity because no-one has to work for a living.

I don't expect Sam Altman and his ilk to deliver such a world to us, but the problem is Altman, not the tech itself.

Mostly the fact that the ultra-rich always inevitably give in to greed over caution, reach too far, and trigger a revolt.

And in this case it can go as far as "y'all can starve, we don't need you anymore". Which is perfectly true from a pure capitalist point of view, but also I can't think of a better way to get people to move on from Flock cameras to bigger things.

The only question is, how bad it will get before society snaps. And you can already see many prominent figures among the tech elites promoting UBI as a palliative - basically giving people just enough of the wealth that they won't revolt. And it would even work if they kept it up, but, again, greed always wins over prudence in the long term with these people.

I don't think anyone is doing that? The value of entertainment is obviously not zero from the perspective of life quality. The point is that we should be honest about what is done for the sake of output, and what is done for the sake of entertaining the people doing it. If math becomes a hobby, then it's entertainment. There's nothing wrong about it as such (indeed, the ideal world is one where everyone only does things because they are fun for that person to do, not because they have to). But the people who are paying for it deserve to know.

There's an obvious bias in focusing on retirees though. I mean, the whole notion of retirement exists for a reason.

But also, in all honesty, if we can feed and shelter everyone on the planet with only a small proportion of the population engaged in productive labor, what's the problem with most people walking the dog, drinking coffee, and reading books?

> Are you proposing that humanity should rely on AI to determine the fields of study that should be perused and those that should be defunded?

We already have examples of politicians relying on chatbots to understand problems. I wouldn't be at all surprised if, given a few more years, the above will be effectively the case without any deliberate effort.

If we all die because of AI, it will be because of the uses that people like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel and Palmer Luckey put it to, not because of a robot uprising.

These people are more like creationists, in that they assume that their intended conclusion is true, and then argue backwards from that.

If anything, what we saw in those transcripts is the opposite of "weird alien intelligences" in many way, because of how human it all is.

The only thing there that's weird from a human perspective is that all this effort was for the sake of passing a test for no clear gain.

He is, though. It's just that this particular cult has been around for so long that it's "traditional", kinda like tobacco and alcohol were not counted as "narcotics" in most jurisdictions.

One example that I had personally run into is when the person was offended when they were referred to as "them" because being gender neutral is, apparently, "erasure" (I didn't get a chance to ask what they think about languages with no gendered pronouns).

"Enemy of the people" is also not inherently illegitimate - I mean, the people can surely have enemies, right?

But words and phrases like that have a history of actual use and the resulting connotations.

There's no good ending to this, and you're probably correct that we're likely heading that way anyway, but the only rational choice at this point is to resist as much as possible - best case, it buys us time for some way out to appear; worst case, it delays the shitshow.

Anything that can be done to frustrate both the government and the private companies pushing for it should be done. Every lever should be pulled. No compromise should be accepted, because it's just setting up the stage for the next compromise where the other side stays where it is and the "middle point" just gradually moves toward them.

The thing about most US protests is that they are almost entirely performative by now. Marching with a sign simply doesn't do anything.

Actual serious protests would involve stuff like massive strikes, for example, and other disruptions that actually hurt.

The government employee at least earns their salary by actual labor.

Whereas anyone on the "top N richest" list is a parasite on all the people who produce wealth.

Renting tokens is exactly what I had in mind, and I don't see how it has the same issues. Sure, if you go for absolute bottom of the barrel than you can expect "changes in model quality", but in general that is not so, and you can pin specific model releases etc. Inconsistent speeds and service outages apply to your own hardware as well (say, power goes down). This all isn't even unique to AI, it's generally why cloud compute quickly became dominant.

Wince and shrug is a politely expressed ridicule, yes.

And yes, common norms are a social phenomenon (and that is exactly what the "collective preference" of society is). And yes they do change. However they are not completely random, either. And if you have had something being pushed on people for well over a century, to the point where most experts insist that it's better, but your average person from the street still thinks it's ridiculous, I think the reasonable conclusion is that it's not completely random.

As a Satanist, I am very much in favor of rejecting norms in general. But that doesn't mean that literally anything that is outside of the norm is better!

Different cultures of course have different norms. There were even hunter-gatherer societies that practiced extreme forms of pacifism - Moriori would be one example (and their eventual fate shows why this isn't more common).

In general, though, pre-agricultural societies tend to have very high mortality rates from armed conflict with outgroups. In PNG in particular, as I recall, it gets to the point where >20% of all males die from enemy action. Similarly, pre-agricultural societies rarely take prisoners, and often target what we would consider non-combatants (i.e. there's no separation between "enemy warrior" and "enemy civilian", even in principle).

And this makes a lot of sense when you consider what motivates this warfare. Pre-agricultural societies are bounded by the output of the wildland that they forage on, and a single human requires a lot of land to live off in this manner. This is why those bands tend to be small - very few biomes can sustain a foraging band of even few hundred. But conversely it means that any other band of humans foraging off the same land is literally starving you out. It doesn't matter if they are otherwise hostile or not, and there's no potential compromise to be achieved even in theory if you have a plot of land that can sustain, say, 100 people, but now it has 150 feeding off it. The only way for one group to survive is to either kill or drive off the entirety of the remaining group, so it doesn't matter if it's women or children that you're killing. The point is to convince the other group that they are more likely to survive by going elsewhere by making it so precarious for them to remain, or if that is not possible, then to wipe them all entirely. Raids do exactly that.

This is also why prisoners are rarely taken and often ritually killed right away - every prisoner you take is an extra mouth to feed. In an agricultural society, an extra mouth can feed itself because it requires comparatively little land to do so, but for pre-agriculturalists an extra pair of working hands is worthless if the land is already at capacity wrt what can be extracted from it (which is usually the case since populations grow until they reach that point).

Stuff like ethics of warfare, spiritual tradition, reputation etc is derived from all this. Cultures that practice this kind of raid warfare generally glorify it. A war leader who leads a successful raid to massacre an unprotected enemy village is a hero, not just to his own people, but more broadly as a model for other aspiring warriors in the larger culture. So things that we might consider as "disreputable" are not necessarily seen as such there.

It is the norm for pre-industrial societies.