mcpackieh

Maybe you are. I am talking about all AI fear.

"The premise that AI fear and/or fearmongering is primarily coming from people with a commercial incentive to promote fear, from people attempting to create regulatory capture, is obviously false. The risks of AI have been discussed in literature and media for literally decades, long before anybody had any plausible commercial stake in the promotion of this fear."

Here's the list you've requested: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AIIsACrapshoot

Maybe in Eurostan, but not in America.

People have been spooked by the possibility for a long time. That's the point. If you really want to persist in arguing I can provide a long list of media in which AI is dangerous if not outright villainous. Will you make me do this, or will you accept that I can do this?

"People I like."

> trolls

"People I don't like."

Either of whom may or may not be constituents. In fact the people most motivated to 'troll' (give voice to dissent) will be the people who have a stake in the matter; constituents.

Yeah, I'm seeing a pattern here. On the bright side, at least Facebook has finally learned how to moderate consistently. /s

There's no meaningful difference here, particularly if you're a grad student. But I guess you'll now say that undergrads are allowed to ask somebody twice, but grad students must not ask more than once? Or maybe you'll just insult me and tell me to be miserable quietly like other people in this discussion already have.

In Neuromancer you have the Turing Police. Why do they exist if AIs don't pose a threat to society?

And even "engaged with" is bullshit. What the hell does "engage with" even mean? What you really should be saying is it gives you more of what you pause scrolling on. That is neither asking for something, nor "engaging".

A technological singularity is a theorized period during which the length of time you can make reasonable inferences about the future rapidly approaches zero. If there can be no reasonable inferences about the future, there can be no bravery. Anybody who isn't afraid during a technological singularity is just stupid.

Maybe Mom worries about any radical new technology because she lived though nuclear attack drills in schools. Or because she's already seen computers and robots take peoples jobs. Or because she watched Terminator or read Neuromancer. Or because she reads lesswrong. Why assume it's because she's fallen under the influence of Musk?

Go back and read cyberpunk lit from the 80s. Did William Gibson have some cynical commercial motivation for writing Neuromancer? Was he trying to get regulatory capture for his AI company that didn't exist? Of course not.

People have real and earnest concerns about this technology. Dismissing all of these concerns as profit-motivated is dishonest.

But as to the Gallic Wars happening at all? There is corroborating evidence. Other Romans wrote about it, often to damn it, and they treated the existence of the war as a fact. He brought tons of Gallic slaves back to Rome which would corroborate the most basic facts of the claim (e.g. that there had been wars with Gallic people) to other Romans who weren't there to personally witness it. Furthermore there is modern archeological evidence of battles and massacres which roughly line up with some of what Caesar claimed to have done.

I really can't wrap my mind around how he managed to get so many high profile guests so fast, except to guess that his father's connections had a lot to do with it. Every part of his meteoric rise seems inorganic to me.

>"You can watch the incredibly popular lecture series "Personality and Its Transformations", "Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief", as well as his "The Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories" lectures for free."

I won't pretend I ever watched more than a few minutes of any of this stuff, but isn't it a bunch of inane rambling about finding deep psychological meaning or universal truths in fairy tails? Nonsense along the lines of "Slimey the worm from sesame street represents the dragon, the great primordial evil which the warrior, the eternal hero, must slay to conqueror his fears..."

It's the kind of analysis that right/conservative people with 'pragmatic/common sense' self-perceived alignments would usually mock college professors for, except in Peterson's case it gets lapped up because he mixes it in with things like "communism is bad because it murdered millions of people" and "If you're feeling depressed you should try not living like a slob"

"We're going to use this robot to find people inside of urban rubble... uhh.... after earthquakes of course.."

Charitable explanation: Hollywood has become better at selecting for acting talent instead of beauty.

Uncharitable explanation: Fewer Hollywood casting directors are straight men.

A minority of those single men have numerous (sometimes >hundreds) short-term relationships. But far more of those single men have very few or even no relationships at all. I think this disparity is far more extreme for men than for women.

If that upper echelon of single and promiscuous men were socially pressured to stop man-whoring and settle into healthy long-term relationships, then the rest would have better odds. Of course those men will never voluntarily change their ways unless there exists a strong social pressure to change. In the past, this pressure existed in the form of men without partners [wives, but it doesn't have to be wives] being viewed with suspicion if they wanted to attain social standing at work or in their community. This pressure has all-but evaporated into nothingness.

I know these sort of tastes are subjective, but I've talked to a lot of guys who feel the same way. The women in media are mid, most women who are young and physically fit can match if not greatly exceed the looks of women in media. However I acknowledge that women themselves often do not feel this way; they compare themselves to the female celebrities and feel bad about themselves even though most men would rate them higher than the celebrities. They rate themselves lower than men would rate them because media is toxic and purposely makes women feel insecure to sell more beauty products, lifestyles, etc.

Possibly, the commercial incentives of these apps have them deliberately optimizing for short-term matches. Or it may be the case that the apps are doing as best as they can manage and the problem is simply very difficult to solve. If the former is the case, then removing or regulating the commercial incentive might help.

Two extra words. It's not so hard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_orientation