locallynonlinear

Because we all know Bob won't just fuxking wipe his ass in private. He needs to know we saw it all.

Looking forward to when the grizzly bear grunts in his direction and he has to decide which reaction is the clear non consent one.

The irony in all this is that if they just dropped the utilitarianism and were just honest about feelings guiding their decision making, they could be tolerable. "I'm not terribly versed in the details of the gun violence issue, but I did care about malaria enough to donate to some functional causes." Ok, fine, you're now instantly just a normal person.

Statistical Geometric Quantum Information Entropy AI is, literally a healing crystal that grants immortality.

This whole, debate, is really just the question of closed systems vs open ones. That's it. If you want a dystopia because you see yourself as the winner of the final optimization, or you demand that outcome of the universe be knowable to you specifically, you will focus on closed system thermodynamics. If you enjoy the creative beauty of nature and have the capacity to change your perspective on response to the unforseen, you embrace open systems thermodynamics.

So yeah as with abuses of Bayesian logic, your desired outcome always reflects back on which assumptions you take. These takes tell you more about the person spouting then than any meaningful observations of life.

Takes like this are one of the many things I pull out to point out how naive and misguided most x-risk obsessive people are. And especially Mr. Altman.

Despite wide fears of synthetic gain of function attacks, as it turns out, it's actually really hard to create a new virus meaningfully stronger than the standard endemic ones that already exist. Many countries and labs have legitimately tried. Lots of papers and research. It's, really really hard to beat nature at the microbiological scale; Viruses have to not only be virulent, but it has to contend with extremely unpredictable intermediate environments. The current endemic viruses got there through many mutations and adaptations inside environments that they were already at least successful (and not in vitro). And in the end, what would be the point? Once a virulent virus breaks out, you have very little control. Either it works really well and backfires or, even far more likely, it doesn't do that much at all, but it does piss other nations off.

It's not impossible. But honestly, yeah, I don't comprehend x-riskers who obsess over this.

Desperation of delusion. "End of all value" => "I don't understand things, so I better at least have control!" I wonder if these kinds of people would send literal Nazis to my doorstep if I suggested that I don't have any stake either way in the "coin flipping on the end of my world view."

100% cross platform

also

Main downside is CSS and DOM.

Yeah should have just stuck with "at least it's a scripting language" (that doesn't support 64bit integers out of the box).

This is the push/pull abusive dynamic: feign sensitivity, deny negative implications as not their intention, but demand positive feedback for dangerous takes. EA believes that not being wrong or held accountable is the most important optimization, so all their positions come from having absolutely no stake in the real world consequences.

There's a difference between "can" and "cost". Code is syntactic and formal, true, but what about pseudo code that is perfectly intelligible by a human? There is, afterall, a difference between sharing "compiled" code that is meant to be fed directly into a computer and sharing "conceptual" code that is meant to be contextualized into knowledge. Afterall, isn't "code" just the formalization of language, with a different purpose and trade off?

We need to filter people who exhibit voice stress, because no one likes a person with the humility of taking uncertainty seriously.

Commoditization is a real market force, and yes, it will come for this industry as it has for others.

Personally, I think we need to be much, much more creative and open to understanding ourselves and the potential of the future. It's hard to know specifics, but there is broad domains.

Lately, I've been hacking at home with more hardware, and creating interesting low scale, low energy input systems that help me... garden. Analyzing soil samples, planning plots and low energy irrigation, etc, etc. It's been fun because the work is less about programming in depth and more broad systems thinking. I even have ideas for making a small scale company off this. At that point, purely the programming won't be the bottleneck.

If it helps, as an engineer, take a step back and think about nature and how systems and niches within systems evolve. Nature isn't actually in the business of replacing due to redundancy, it's in the business of compounding dependency via waste resources, and the shifting roles as a result of that. We need to be ready to creatively take our experience, perspective, and energy gradient to new places. It's no different for any other part of nature.