suoduandao3

I think this headline broke Betteridge's law.

Probably from law 3: https://principia-scientific.com/the-5-basic-laws-of-human-s...

But it's an incomplete definition - Cipolla's definition is "someone who causes net harm to themselves and others" and is unrelated to IQ.

It's a very influential essay.

OTOH, there's a very good argument to be made that if you recognize that fact, your short-term priority should be to amass a lot of secular power so you can align society to that reality. So the best action to take might be no different.

Weirdly, there was a very similar story a few days before the OAI debacle. Some kind of Jungian synchronicity going on I think.

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-67348861

Two direct reports aren't getting along. Their work styles are both valuable but clash with each other. You need to ask one of them to adjust to the other's expectations.

I don't think "Purchase or sell insider services" necessarily means a conflict of interest, insiders could be winning the bidding process honestly as well.

I imagine HN in particular is also quite dominated by traditional US finance.

Of course not. But it's possible to catch the dishonest ones in a lie.

What if they aren't really familiar with what that is? I know it's associated with SBF's embezzlement somehow, but if I just heard the term I'd think, "It's gotta be better than ineffective altruism"

I found a good question to spring is 'name a time you had to make a moral decision'. If someone thinks about decisions in terms of morality it's a good open-ended question that'll lead into how they approach moral dilemmas. If you suspect you're getting a rehearsed answer, follow up by asking about a moral decision they made where they would have acted differently today. Anyone who rehearses an answer to that question is going to rehearse one where they made the right call, but anyone who actually thinks about things in terms of morality is going to remember a time they made a mistake.

What would you call WMDs in Iraq? Do you have an alternate name for this kind of mass deception if not conspiracy?

I would say your best case requires technological advances that won't necessarily happen. In a truly postscarcity future I don't think we'd have any use for UBI. I do think UBI would help empower everyone to work on hard problems in a way that maximizes our odds of getting there, but I'm envisioning it existing alongside scarcity. We're just thinking about very different scales of time.

UBI would likely only be enough for the barest of necessities of survival. Gardening in an empty lot would be an obvious way to supplement that income, with the same benefits of a gym membership.

The point of UBI is that via automation and reduction in cheap energy, opportunities for useful economic activity will be harder to find. In the best case, most people would have a mixture of reliable but marginal income (gardening) and high-potential but risky activity (inventing) with UBI allowing enough security to make crime a bad proposition.

Why dismiss conspiracy hypotheses out of hand? Conspiracies happen all the time. As Data becomes a more important resource, asymmetric access to data will become an ever more prominent feature of those in power.

I would say the important thing is to recognize that our pattern recognition overfits for malicious actors with hidden knowledge, probably for evolutionary reasons. The fact we evolved to have more false positives than negatives in this field is emphatically not a reason to dismiss all such hypotheses out of hand.

"I'd like to correct the record on this story. We do NOT sell kidnapping roleplay packages. The user paid for a premium Daring Rescue Package. These do not become available unless the user spends two consecutive months as a net cost to our company. The user was given multiple reminders that he might want to cut back on usage or purchase a premium plan. Even then, he could have opted for a free Daring Rescue package and taken his chances with the base 1% chance of untraumatized recovery this package offers. Shuffling user responses under these high-pressure conditions is vital to improving our training data, and helps our users learn to deal with loss of important relationships. We are a relationship training service, not a replacement for them, and this user wanted the equivalent of a college degree.".

On a more serious note, anyone know why unethical business plans are so much more fun to write? I always find myself giggling when these ideas come up.

Yeah, with a car and a cliff hitting the brakes is a good decision. Civilizations have a lot more momentum than cars though.

There's an analysis saying that if the Titanic had hit the iceberg head on, it wouldn't have sunk. I like the car analogy because there's opportunities for passengers to bail and thereby lighten the car for those who want to clear the cliff, but in terms of ability to turn or stop an ocean liner is probably the better metaphor.

I read a series as a teen that I'm fairly sure had some product placement - characters mentioned multiple times how much they liked Smuckers preserves.

Interestingly, the series had multiple viewpoint characters with each book narrated by one, and one of them had much more product placement than all the others - I only remember Cinnabon being mentioned outside her viewpoint books, or her being the one to mention a brand. I wonder whether it was a result of the author method writing, as that character was also the most ruthless of the group.

Let me rephrase - a protagonist society whose strategy is outgrowing rivals through less wasteful use of resources and peaceful coexistence only 'wins' on a time scale that's hard to write about.

Technology can also empower the individual though. Look at the gunpowder revolution [1].

[1] https://www.britannica.com/technology/military-technology/Th...

I like the accelerationist story and I don't think I came to that opinion through manipulation. If I did it was by the club of Rome.

The way I see it is - you're in a car heading for a cliff. You can go all in on the brakes and hope you stop in time, or all in on the gas and hope you can jump the gap. We don't really have enough data to know which is better, it comes down to feeling.

And the time to slam the breaks was probably about 40 years ago. Since people back then elected Reagan instead, I'm of the opinion it's worth keeping the gas all the way down, just in case it works.

People are working on it. I recently had an AI make this coloring book of solarpunk images. https://www.amazon.ca/Beautiful-Futures-Solarpunk-Coloring-B...

Artistically I'm more of a writer, but solarpunk is a surprisingly hard setting to write in. Not enough conflict.

I suspect that we need to go through cyberpunk to get to solarpunk. Cyberpunk is basically AI tyranny (corporations are just the oldest form of AI) and humanity needs to be humbled by encountering something smarter than ourselves before any kind of solarpunk can really 'stick'.

It looks to me like the best satire I've seen all day.

I think Colonialism is more of a neologism for 'imperialism' since the US empire has a pretty different form from the old European empires. In US Parlance it seems to refer to a wealth pump moving resources from the undernourished colonies to a corpulent administrative center. Cultural artefacts could be an example, though of course this doesn't refer to physical artefacts that the original owners lose. It's a bit weird to me as well, though I can see how stealing a cultural artefact to put in a museum and copying a hairstyle could feel similar to someone living with inherited trauma.

Couldn't your personal experience be a function of what Trump supporters make it through your filter bubble? We tend to see mostly the stupidest exemplars of our political opponents.

Do you have a theory why left-wing authors don't discuss luxury beliefs?

How is owning the fruits of your labour different from capitalism again? Something about how other people's labour is priced?

Has he? All I've heard are insinuations by the same institutions who covered up Saville's crimes.

What, that he was a sex addict for much of his career and made some regrettable choices during that time? I'm aware. He's mentioned it once or twice.

Here's a conversation between two British comedians I enjoy talking about something very similar, you might enjoy it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqZZ9uXomhg