whack

> Why did we consent to live in a system where the worth of our bodies and lives were so negligible as to be exchangeable for dollars?

> polling showed that a third of Americans who had faced claim denials said they viewed Mangione positively. Some saw this reaction as sociopathic, but its extremity was the very point. How far must someone go in order to be taken seriously by those who adjudicate access to life itself?

> there is no justification, ever, for denying a sick person care

Everyone above is justified in their outrage, but they have picked the wrong target.

For-profit companies exist for the purpose of making profits. They will never offer services that produce sustained losses. It's weird to blame the CEO for this - he's just doing what the shareholders hired him to do. Blaming the CEO for denying you healthcare is a bit like blaming a real estate agent for not giving away an empty house to a homeless man.

You're better off blaming the shareholders for being selfish... but that too is a bit like blaming every single person you meet who chooses to buy an iPhone instead of putting that money into a GoFundMe for a sick patient.

The real blame lies with the government. It is the government's job to give everyone a baseline level of healthcare. Taxes exist for the express reason of overcoming collective-action problems like the above. And yet, our government refuses to provide better healthcare, because a large fraction of voters prefer lower taxes over better healthcare access. if you're looking for someone to blame, blame them

> When was the last time you downloaded a model and it suddenly decided to book you a hotel room? AI doesn't do anything until you ask it to... The blame is always on who's using the tool. We should not seek to flee from our responsibility.

When was the last time you hired an Uber driver and they suddenly decided to drive you to a hotel? Uber drivers don't do anything until you ask them to. Therefore, they aren't autonomous. If your Uber driver decides to drive through a red light and kill someone in the process, the blame is on you for hiring them. You should not seek to flee from your responsibility

> ...the festival I helped invent 36 years ago. Curiously, I get this interest even though I haven’t set foot in the Black Rock Desert since 1996.

Not doubting the headline conclusion, but I would have expected a better source than someone who hasn't been to Burning Man in literally 30 years. AFAICT, Burning Man was still very well regarded ~20 years ago, long after this founder stopped attending

Can't this also be used to justify things that are obviously nonsensical. Like for example: "I possess an immense undetectable sphere. How can I prove this? Well, any proof I offer you would by definition violate the undetectability of the sphere. So there's no way for me to prove it, I guess you'll just have to trust me bro."

Funny how you're echoing exactly what the author said in the article

> This is not precisely 2008. GPUs are not houses; take-or-pay contracts are not mortgage-backed securities; OpenAI is not a subprime borrower in Stockton, and artificial intelligence may well be the most consequential technology of the century, which is more than anyone could ever say for a McMansion in the Inland Empire.

> The bear case in this piece is not that artificial intelligence will fail, or that the demand is fake, or that the technology disappoints. It is narrower: that the financing structure can break before the demand arrives, because the obligations are fixed and front-loaded in commencement while the revenue is variable and back-loaded in adoption - and a fixed obligation meeting a lagging revenue stream is a solvency problem regardless of how transformative the underlying technology turns out to be.

> The industry will spend the next eighteen months debating whether artificial intelligence is a bubble, which is the wrong question, asked at the wrong layer. The technology is real; so were the houses. The question is narrower: what happens when instruments underwritten at the teaser meet their reset schedule, and who is holding the paper when the obligations cannot be met as written

Ie, if you spent $10M buying a house, it doesn't matter if it will be worth $100M in the future. If you're unable to make your mortgage payments in the interim, you're going to lose everything

Wow, that thread is a piece of work

> Gofmt was written to reduce the number of pointless discussions about code formatting. It succeeded admirably. I'm sad to say it had no effect whatsoever on the number of pointless discussions about syntax highlighting, or as I prefer to call it, spitzensparken blinkelichtzen.

> When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.

I sincerely hope Rob Pike was being sarcastic/ironic, because otherwise, he sounds insufferable

"The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter. ’tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning." - Mark Twain

"Just flip a coin to pick a random synonym. Who cares?" - AI Labs

> But I really would have liked for them to state explicitly that entirely false positives where a piece is fully human-written may still be marked as generated

Are you talking about pieces that were fully human-written with zero AI editing/rewriting etc? If so, what makes you think that false positives will happen there? They aren't looking for "writing styles" or emdashes etc. They are using watermarks and metadata.

If you're talking about people using AI to copy-edit text they manually wrote, this was explicitly called out in the article:

> A detected mark provides a signal that content was processed by Claude, but is not fully conclusive. Detecting a Claude mark tells you that the content may have been processed by Claude. It does not, on its own, confirm the full provenance of the content. For example: Claude may not be the original author. People often use Claude to proofread, translate, summarize, or convert files. The output can carry a Claude mark even if the underlying ideas, text, or data originated from another source; The content may have changed after Claude processed it. Marked content may be modified, excerpted, or combined with other material after Claude processed it.

My comment was indeed inspired by Hanlon's razor. And I generally do agree with Hanlon's razor. I just think there's a distinction between malice and selfishness.

- Someone harming you because they expressly desire to harm you? Unlikely

- Someone harming you because they are stupid and don't realize what they are doing? Maybe.

- Someone harming you as a side-effect of pursuing their own selfish interests? Most likely.

Never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to self-interest. It sure looks stupid when you look at America or the Roman Empire as a whole. But when you look at the specific individuals doing these "stupid" things, and the individuals enabling them, it is perfectly aligned with their own best interests.

> I don't think you can just look at the statistics though. What I mean is that, the main issue is that the category of mistakes they make are going to be inherently different from the category of mistakes that humans make

Would you rather have a X% chance of a loved one dying from a human-category mistake? Or a 0.5X% chance of a loved one dying from a ML-category mistake? I would take the latter in a heartbeat. Why waste time optimizing for "categories" when you can optimize for your loved ones not dying

I'm not claiming that OpenAI is worthy of trust. The safest course of action is to either stop all AI research immediately, or have it be highly regulated by an international body. The most dangerous course of action is to give every single individual the ability to create their own variant of an ASI

> US citizen charged after GrapheneOS phone wipes during airport search

> It's concerning – and sends the message that [GrapheneOS] is criminal by default

What's with this sensationalism? The GrapheneOS phone didn't just wipe itself - the defendant actively took steps to wipe it. The defendant isn't being prosecuted "by default" for having a GrapheneOS phone. He is being prosecuted for what he actively chose to do with that phone.

If your argument is that the search and seizure was unconstitutional, and you're within your rights to wipe your data, then argue that. I'm very sympathetic to such arguments. But stop with this "they prosecuted me for having a GrapheneOS phone" misdirect

The most compelling argument against Open Source AI: it is analogous to "open sourcing" nuclear weapon technology. Or an how-to guide for making meth/bombs/bioweapons. There is a high risk that we will one day achieve ASI or something close to it. When that day nears, if even one open-source AI user handles their AI in an irresponsible way, we are all FUBARed. In the same way that one irresponsible person with a nuclear bomb can FUBAR the entire world, hence why "open sourcing nuclear weapon tech" is not even a subject of debate.

You don't have to believe that ASI is 100% likely. People like Hinton believe there's a 50% chance of existential risk from AI, but you don't have to go that far either. If there's even a tiny chance of ASI posing a threat to humanity, that's reason enough to lock it down

> the U.S. homeownership rate is 53 percent

I hope this number drops below 50%. Well below 50%. Maybe then we can finally vote down the NIMBY regulations and NIMBY politicians. And start rapidly expanding our housing supply. Given our current political system, it seems high homeownership rates are the root cause of the housing affordability crisis

> Most unfortunately, it’s the truth value and the understanding which drive applications of mathematics, not the proof work itself. If the AI revolution decapitates the institution of mathematics which produces the understanding, and is unable to replace it, then the applications will cease as well.

In a world with no AI, it is vital for humans to understand math, in order to derive practical applications. But in a world where AI is able to both produce math theorems, and figure out practical applications for them, human understanding has minimal practical value to society.

The core thesis seems to be that the "real value" is not in producing/proving theorems, but in understanding them. AI might be good at producing and proving theorems, but it fails utterly at getting humans to understand them. Even worse, humans have no interest in working on theorems that have already been proven, so we end up with theorems that will never be understood by humans.

I can understand why this is a major concern for mathematicians. They got into their field because they love the beauty of mathematics, and the intellectual satisfaction of understanding non-obvious insights. But to put it crudely, this sounds like a you problem. As someone who isn't a mathematician, the main value I get out of math is its practical applications in science and technology. And their practical applications in human life. I have zero understanding of the math behind cryptography, but I still deeply appreciate the practical value they have provided humanity.

If AI systems start churning out accurate theorem-proofs, and we are able to use those theorems to build things that improve human quality of life, it doesn't bother me one bit that those theorems have not been understood by humans. If this offends your aesthetics, you are certainly entitled to your opinion and your preferences, but that does not make it a societal problem

There are 2 very different kinds of arguments. Arguments where you're trying to convince the other person. And arguments where you're trying to convince bystanders. These require completely different tactics.

If you're trying to convince the other person, be humble. Be gentle. Be subtle. Ask them questions. Let them think they came up with the idea entirely on their own. If any bystanders are watching this discussion, they are more likely to think that the other person is right, or that they are "winning". But this will give you the best possible chance of convincing the person you're talking to.

If you're trying to convince bystanders, project confidence. Present compelling evidence. Pick apart the other person's arguments and show why its flawed. Chances are, this will make the other person dig in even more strongly and resent you. But this will give you the best chance of convincing neutral bystanders.

Use the right tool for each job. If you're using "debate tactics" in a 1:1 discussion, you will never get the desired results, no matter how data-driven and logical your arguments are. I've made this mistake far too many times, and this seems to be what OP is getting at as well

This is a curious phenomenon that I've started to notice. People often post extremely aggressive comments... but it is still socially acceptable as long as their aggression is directed towards an abstract figure, or a specific person who "isn't in the room".

Whereas if someone replies to that aggressive comment with an equally aggressive comment, that is far less socially acceptable.

Once I noticed it, it's blindingly obvious. It's like going to a dinner party and complaining about your boss being a moron vs calling another guest at the party a moron. But for the longest time, I viewed internet forums as a place where everyone is "equally abstract" - and where the focus is on the exchange of ideas, not your personal relationship with the people behind the ideas. Hence why it took me an embarrassing amount of time to figure out this most basic of concepts

> I don't see why having ASI would make the top 0.001% less interested in using the energy, minerals, and land on earth. Just because they have no interest in your labor doesn't mean they have no interest your house or your energy supply

If they have zero need for human labor, that implies that they have a limitless swarm of AI powered machinery that can build and do anything they want. Why bother trying to take your oil, when they can build a massive solar farm in the sahara desert. Why bother trying to take your house when they can live on a completely deserted private island

Imagine if the top 0.001% build and jointly own an ASI that makes human labor completely obsolete in every single way. This seems like the worst case scenario for the rest of us, right? Wrong. In this scenario, these 0.001% would not interact with the rest of us in any way. They will not hire us, they will not buy anything from us, and they will not sell anything to us either. After all, the rest of us are completely obsolete to them, so what benefit could they possibly have in interacting with us? They will just disappear to their own private heaven - perhaps in Mars, Atlantis, or the Metaverse.

At that point, from the perspective of the rest of us, they simply don't exist. And their ASI wouldn't exist either. We would get back to the world as it was pre-ASI. One where all of us need stuff that others among us can offer, and we hire one another and buy stuff from one another. Sure, things aren't as great as they could have been. But the status quo isn't the worst thing in the world either.

The scenario that is a lot more concerning/weird is the more realistic one, where ASI makes 99% of human labor obsolete - but not the remaining 1%. At that point, the ASI owners will hold American-idol style auditions where thousands of hopefuls vie for the opportunity to be in that lucky 1%. Auditions where we beg and plead shamelessly to be chosen by the ASI owners. Auditions where the losers are left to scrounge for the 2nd hand, 3rd hand, and 4th hand scraps, that trickle down from the 1%.

I hope to god that when an ASI is built, and in the unlikely case that it doesn't simply overthrow humanity, that we will have a political structure in place that gives everyone a meaningful share in the fruits of ASI. Or that the owners of this ASI consider every other human to be utterly useless, f off to their Randian paradise, and leave the rest of us completely alone. The middle ground between these two is where dystopia lives

> the French said - something like - they should punch the police more and light things on fire.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this as well. Do these people want "punching the police and lighting things on fire" to be a freely permitted form of free speech?

If so, should anyone be legally allowed to destroy any amount of stuff, for any reason they feel unhappy about? Or is this a case of "blowing stuff up should only be permitted for causes I like, not for causes I dislike"?

If not, do they see the irony in endorsing behaviors that they simultaneously believe should not be legalized?

Yup. Like I said, I'm not arguing against any of it, or justifying what the cop did. Just funny that the article starts off by saying that the system is stacked against the accused, and immediately presents an example of a 100% guilty defendant getting off scot-free

> I earn a small fraction of what NYTimes earns. If I'm not desperate, why are they?

With all due respect, you are not responsible for covering every single thing the Trump administration is doing and ensuring they are held accountable. While simultaneously satisfying customers who are used to getting endless content for free, and sniff their noses at paying $2/month.

The journalism business is a hard business. I may not agree with everything NYT does, they are most certainly not perfect, but they are operating in good faith and trying their best. Give them a break

Imagine being Andrew Tridgell and watching your inbox blow up today with thousands of emails from complete strangers, all just saying hi and wanting to casually chat with you. He's probably scratching his head right now and wondering what is going on

> As a way around the constitutional requirement that they get warrants to search houses, the police were claiming that they were simply walking down the hallway when they looked in the window of our client’s apartment and saw him weighing and packaging cocaine in plain view. They also claimed that he was doing this with his apartment door open, so they hadn’t needed a forced entry.

> Our client didn’t deny he was packaging cocaine at his kitchen table, but he insisted that he was not doing it brazenly in the open; that not only had he covered his windows with taped-up sheets and garbage bags, but he had closed and locked his door, as you might expect for someone engaged in illegal activities. We went to the CHA management offices, where they had records of giving Deuce citations for repeatedly covering up windows. We also talked to the maintenance man who had been assigned to repair Deuce’s door after his arrest. The maintenance crew had taken pictures that clearly showed damage to the doorjamb, backing up Deuce’s claim that the door had been kicked in.

> We proved that the search and arrest were done in violation of the Constitution, and so the evidence collected during the arrest could not be used at trial. The charges had to be dropped.

TLDR: our client was guilty as sin. He admitted it. He was caught red-handed. He still got off scot-free.

Not arguing against any of the above. But this example hilariously contradicts the claim that "the system is stacked against the accused"

> They (we) have to believe human brains still have value and find a way out; for otherwise there'd be no point to try anymore.

Our value isn't predicated on our utility. The simple fact that we are sentient beings, capable of joy and suffering, gives us value. This is why we continue to support and care for the elderly and the disabled - we value them regardless of any practical utility we may derive from them.

If you go through life believing that your value depends on your practical utility, then things like AI are an incredibly scary existential threat. But denial is not a healthy way to cope with this threat. The solution is to recognize the value inherent in us as humans, and to demand public policies that reflect this fact.

Let me guess. Anyone who hasn't been avoiding AI isn't "truly smart"?

There is a problem with the thesis that consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon. It implies that someone writing the "wrong" sequence of 0s and 1s, by hand, on a completely private journal, has committed a moral crime on par with slavery and genocide.

Full proof: https://outlookzen.com/2017/04/03/philosophical-proof-for-th...

People talk about AI sycophancy, but there are plenty of human sycophants as well. If you're an extremely rich/powerful person, it is very easy to inadvertently surround yourself with sycophants who tell you how amazing and ground-breaking all your ideas are. I wonder if this is the reason people like Musk engage in such bizarre behavior and radical personality shifts over the past decade