suoduandao2

when it's layoff season.

I think ultimately, we're going to have a dark age where the AIs are driving for a while. My prediction is that it'll last until society learns something we're overlooking about intelligence unlike ourselves. I prefer the open-source scenario, not because I'm sure it would be less pleasant but because I'm sure it wouldn't last as long.

There are apps that change a smartphone screen to be greyscale only. Probably not as good as not having one but it might reduce the addictive quality substantially, worth a try in any case

Solar hot water would probably be a better fit for your situation.

Explanations like what? Op didn’t put forward much in the way of hypotheses. If you have a good explanation of the mechanism by which attention accumulates around topics that doesn’t require orchestration it would be interesting to hear, it seems like a poorly understood phenomenon.

Aurors?

Would make for a great TV show...

India seems to genuinely embrace Democracy though, which tends to stick in Western minds much more than the complications of Realpolitik.

Funny, I was just listening to Naval Ravikant talking about it being better to seek wealth than status, because the latter is a zero-sum game. hard to unsee that dynamic once it's pointed out.

I think airmule does very close scrutiny of its importers, which is why it's limited to one air corridor. I'm more imagining a small-business owner putting out a call for something they want to sell in their store, the app user buys it on vacation, and sells it to the store owner after landing. a ratings system like uber or airbnb would likely take care of the bad-actor problem for something like that.

A couple. Just in the software space:

-When I was single, a dating app that uses a gene sample like 23andme produces plus deep learning to predict pairs that will find one another attractive.

-Another gene+AI startup, something that analyzes my DNA and suggests a healthy eating plan tailored to me.

-Something like the above two, but taking the state of the immune system into account (not sure how hard this would be to implement, but I know it makes a huge difference to the pheromones we like and the food we should avoid)

-something like Adnauseum (bots that click ads for you) but positive reinforcement so I can tell an ad I like what it showed me. I keep thinking that if advertisers knew my long-term goals they'd have a relatively more easy time selling me things, the only downside being they'd not be the things their customers would pay the most to move.

-Something like Airmule (sell your empty checked-bags space to the highest bidder) but not limited to the Shenzen-LA corridor.

Interesting. I see that 'subsidized' renewables are broken out separately from non-subsidized in one of the charts, are there similar subsidies for conventional energy sources?

Because when I listened to him speak with enough time to give as much context as he wanted, it was clear that's not a claim he makes. He may have said something to the effect that he did a lot of early research in the field, possibly something that, if interpreted uncharitably, could imply he was taking more credit than was due him. But falsely attributing an untrue statement to someone and then calling him a liar for the thing he didn't say is precisely the kind of skillful misinformation I've come to expect from corporate journalists since the Iraq war. How someone can say 'trust the experts' in the morning and trust the New York Times over a widely-cited scientist in the evening is beyond me.

And please, tell me where in this account's relatively short history I've ever agreed with a corporate journalist on anything. While you're at it, tell me whether you're for or against informed consent for medical procedures.

Sarcasm received, and reciprocated for your own attitudes towards the New York Times and Washington Post.

I think, based on statements I actually heard him make and my Bayesian priors towards corporate journalists, that articles like this one grossly misrepresent the substance of whatever he was actually saying.

I find that about as plausible as the other side's claims about Dr. Fauci's role in the AIDS crisis. In the (lengthy) interview I linked I never once heard him make those sorts of claims, he just hammered the point about informed consent. Which I'd really like those who agree with his deplatforming to stop dodging.

Is that what corporate journalists say about him? You'd do well to go to primary sources when there's misinformation about. His publication history is a matter of public record.

He's actually pro-vaccine as a personal choice, his objection to the public policy at the time centered on the need for informed consent to medical procedures. What well-meaning people find so dangerous about that I'd love to know.

public transport works well in dense urban centers. It makes no sense in rural areas where frequency of trips is low and distances high. And simply saying 'tough for the bumpkins' doesn't really work because the cities need the same roads to bring in resources.

Well now, Robert Malone was recently deplatformed for his views on the Covid Response[1], despite being an expert in the sort of tech used to build these vaccines with citations going back to at least 1990. I'd hardly call his opinion 'irrelavant'.

[1]https://open.spotify.com/playlist/0ZCLBEbktYqp1lSheZS81E

Relevant:

https://hwfo.substack.com/p/a-new-unit-of-measure-for-civil-...

My experience (possibly biased by my model) has been that it's a generational difference. Based on the fourth turning model Boomers are 'Prophets' while Millennials are 'Heroes'. No one cares if a prophet correctly predicts seven weeks of great weather if they miss the one hurricane that wipes everything out. And no one wants to hear a hero (which, let's face it, is a polite synonym for 'cannon fodder') give a realistic assessment of the odds. So this model would predict Boomers are culturally pessimistic while Millennials are culturally optimistic (both to an irrational degree at times).

Which has been my actual observation - has anyone here had corroborating or counterfactual experiences?

>we can hope that by then AI and other technological advances have made what we consider "economics" mostly irrelevant.

Is there a serious hope that AGI will invent a replicator soon after coming online? It seems likeliest to me that if a greater-than-human intelligence comes online it won't have a circumvention for the laws of thermodynamics and there still won't be such a thing as a free lunch.

I think the GP is saying, 2008's money printing did cause a burst of inflation in stocks, which would have otherwise fallen even further. Measuring CPI by excluding assets like growth stocks hides the true effect of this money printing by glossing over what most already wealthy spend money on.

I genuinely think Tesla's done good work in the field despite all transactions it does being voluntary.

I'll add two book suggestions:

How to fail at nearly everything and still win big by Scott Adams. Good for reframing the jumping around you're prone to from goals that you succeed or fail at to systems that simply work.

The War of Art by Steven Pressfield. Good for sticking with a project when the going gets rough (and understanding why it will).

communication becomes impossible in extreme cases - there are too many prior assumptions in a typical conversation between humans for it to occur without the ability to orient in a shared reference frame.

Looking at the comments of the people who hate MrBeast, I suspect a large amount of them do disagree with compensated labour. It's like MrBeast has become an avatar for capitalism in people's minds.

I've simply asked candidates 'tell me about a time you had to make a moral judgement'. I'm kind of surprised that it's not a more common question, but of course that makes it work - truly immoral people would have a made-up anecdote if it came up regularly.

>But I am saying that it is unlikely that being an entrepreneur causes mental health concerns on its own

Surely it causes higher than average levels of stress?

You talk about wanting to find a solution, so I'd like to share where I think one might be found. Not that I've found it, I just think I know where to look.

The problem with books is that we live in a partially post-scarcity society. Star Trek envisioned post-scarcity everything, but we live in a partially post-scarcity society: Food, pure metals, clean water etc. are all still scarce, but anything that can be digitized is not. Books can be digitized, so they are subject to post-scarcity economics, but most of the author's needs are subject to scarcity economics.

What bridges the these two economies, and where I believe the answer can be found, is in attention. Attention is scarce, but it is also necessary to consume anything in the post-scarcity economy. It exists in both worlds somehow, and I therefore believe it's closely related to the problem of how an author can get paid.

Sorry, I'm still confused - isn't everything bringing in 8% more $ than last year?