j4coh

I'd be surprised if anyone believed everything the press said. It doesn't even seem possible as different press outlets will say conflicting things. But even if someone did, that isn't really an argument that a free press is an enemy of world peace so I'm not seeing how your point is related.

Well, I wouldn't shut down or lock out any press. I wouldn't shut down Jewish-owned press either. All news and media is biased, and there's no such platonic ideal of honesty. Then again, I don't have "enemies" that I need to destroy so maybe you're asking the wrong person.

Should be quite simple to release them and move on then, that will be great.

If Apple had the ability to deploy military forces on behalf of my democratically elected government I'd actually be pretty concerned with them locking out the press too.

I'll take a a free press over an authoritarian controlled one any day. A boot stamping on a human face forever is not the kind of world peace I'm interested in, even if it's my boot. But I can understand the allure for a certain kind of person.

This pejorative was fairly famously used in Germany leading up to and during WWII, often in combination with Jewish-controlled also as pejorative. Both points were repopularised in the US around 2016 or so by Richard Spencer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer). For some reason both are now entering more mainstream usage among the right.

Why leave off “or incomplete” when people can see it directly above what you misquoted? But sure, plenty of examples here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38779199. You can search on Google for Veritasium wrong (or misleading, incomplete, etc.) if you’d like more examples.

Veritasium seems to be frequently wrong or at least incomplete. I empathise, it’s hard to make definitive statements like that, but maybe at some point it’s better not to if you’re not sure and more about entertainment than anything else.

Modern claritu

It’s more like a bus where you can sit there and stare out the window if you like. But somehow it also gives people the illusion that they are driving the bus, giving them a sense of self satisfaction while robbing them of the opportunity to actually create or learn something.

This makes sense. Growing up I had a friend whose parents didn’t let him watch tv. Whenever he came over to play he would stare almost drooling at the tv (or if it wasn’t on, begging to turn it on) while the rest of us who were allowed to watch tv played and were easily able to ignore it.

Gamblers probably like it so they can get the results of their bet more predictably on time

Surely this will never be used for evil

Well, at least you asked a computer over a series of requests to statistically generate a work based on it having previously ingested lots of works by actual creators and your audience liked it, and I won't take that from you.

I was a trance and dnb DJ, I definitely never claimed I was writing the songs I played and I think it would have been dishonest to do so.

Am I a chef then because I tell my private chefs what to make on an ongoing basis?

It doesn’t even have to be art. If someone told me they were a chef and cooked some food but in reality had ordered it I’d think they were a bit of a moron for equating these things or thinking that by giving someone money or a request for something they were a creator, not a consumer.

It may be nice for society that ordering food is possible, but it doesn’t make one a chef to have done so.

Won’t taxes be a major drag on this circular passing around of money from business to business?

You can do exactly what you describe with interdimensional Spotify. People can describe all kinds of fun and interesting things that can be statistically generated for them, but they still didn’t make anything themselves unlike in your other examples of using new tools.

Japanese oldies became a trend for a while - the people who found and repopularised the music dont get to say they created it and how it’s so awesome to have mastered the musical instrument of describing or searching for things. Well, of course they can, but forgive me if I don’t buy it.

Maybe when there is actual AGI then the AI will get the creative credit, but that’s not what we have and I still wouldn’t transfer the creative credit to the person who asked the AGI to write a song.

I guess it’s similar to learning by watching masters on YouTube - I’m convinced that passively watching them causes the illusion in the viewer that they are also capable of the same, but if they were to actually try they miss all the little details and experience that makes their performance possible. Watching a chess GM play, for example, can make you feel like you understand what’s happening but if you don’t actually learn and get experience you’re still going to get beat all the time by people, even beginners, who did. But as long as you never test this, you get to live with the self-satisfaction of having “mastered” something yourself.

Of course, nothing wrong with watching and appreciating a master at work. It’s just when this is sold as the illusion of education passively absorbed through a screen that I think it can be harmful. Or at least a waste of time.

It’s really not. It’s like having interdimensional Spotify where you can describe any song and they will pull it up from whatever dimension made it and play it for you. It may empower you as a consumer but it does not make you a creator.

With art and AI, people seem to enjoy the part where they say they made something and get credit for it, but didn’t actually have to bother. People used to find art of people on the internet and claim it as their own, now an AI can statistically generate it for you and it maybe feels a bit less icky. Though I have to agree it all seems sort of pointless, like buying trophies for sports you didn’t play.

Is being incoherent a defense against being incredibly stupid? It’s just the most relevant part from the linked article. I think his own words speak for themselves.

He only said we should look into injecting disinfectants to cure Covid, not to actually do it. The full quote is a bit incoherent it’s hard to say what he was actually thinking - the one thing we can probably all agree on is it would do a tremendous number on your lungs if you injected disinfectant into them:

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. So I asked Bill a question that probably some of you are thinking of, if you're totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn't been checked, but you're going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you're going to test that too. It sounds interesting.

ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: We'll get to the right folks who could.

THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you're going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.

Okay, forget gravity. If you stand on your head and look at the mug, do you get lots of insights about a mug that you wouldn't have had standing upright? Does it look different, or is it just an upside-down mug? For me I would just get the upside-down mug.

I suspect I don't have this thing the article mentions where I associate the bottoms of things with badness, so I don't get this effect where the bad bottom suddenly becomes the good top if I flip it or myself over. There's just no effect except perhaps getting dizzy.

If you're sitting on the opposite side of a table looking at a map that a person on the other side laid out in front of them, you don't just see the map from the other side? You instead see details about volume, shape, distance between points, geometric similarity, colour, and so on? I sincerely just see the same map even if I'm across the table, except flipped. I'm not sure how it would impact my drawing a map, though that isn't really what the article talks about.

Can you read upside-down or does it become a jumble of lines? I can read upside-down with no special effort so maybe this is canceling something out.

I can turn my hand over and it still functions. I can turn lots of things over that still function. I can even set something on top of my upside-down mug. This is not mind blowing to me, your mileage may vary. I also don't seem to have this association with "the bottom of things is bad" so maybe that's why it doesn't seem so shocking or clever to flip things over.

I don’t seem to even get this effect, the map looks upside down not mind blowing. If I turn a mug over it’s not a mind blowing new thing, it’s an upside down mug.

You can tell that some people who grew up addicted to video content already sort of just stare at the real world like they are watching a video and don't quite realise they are present. If they were wearing glasses where they were actually watching videos while they stare into space not much would change.

They are imagining being able to fire all the people who are setting it up. It remains to be seen if this will actually happen.