Recognizing couple’s privilege is the one that immediately comes to mind.
I also think of how the community responded to Sex at Dawn. There was a lot of excitement around the book when it first came out, but later the criticisms became more broadly recognized, and I don’t hear many reqs for it now.
I’ve also at least locally seen changes around calling people in versus calling them out.
Unfortunately nothing with hard data.
I have identified as polyamorous for over a decade. I started and ran a local community for a number of years. I’m not an authority, but I have seen patterns.
If you want to be polyamorous, then do so. I can’t imagine monogamy at this point. Being polyamorous has brought me a lot of happiness and satisfaction.
It can also be stressful, especially when starting out. You are right that it is more work than monogamy. Don’t choose polyamory because of a cost-benefit analysis. Your relationships won’t look like what you expect, your analysis is waisted time and effort.
Choose polyamory if it is right for you. I can make book suggestions, but they’d likely be out of date at this point. Honestly though, you’d likely find them with some Google searches.
Really though? Find your local poly community. Go to a meetup. Talk to people. Listen to their stories. See if they resonate with you.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by “deeply painful process.” There is often a segment of any community that resists any change. That’s not to say that it has to be a fight, but community practices have an inertia to them. Sometimes that a shift that’s happens over time.
For instance, when I was a kid (1980s), “gay” was a common pejorative. While there have been plenty of painful events that have happened in the lives of LGBT folk, I don’t think that this was due to some process that is deeply painful, other than people slowly changing their minds over time.
I’ve seen the polyamorous community shift best practices over time. Again though, I don’t think that this is due to some inherently painful process. One could argue that the collective pain that we experience as we’re making mistakes is that process, but I suspect that isn’t what you mean here.
I think that change is generally hard, but it naturally happens over time.
I don’t know about making god software, but human software is a lot of trial and error. I have been writing code for close to 40 years. The best I can do is write automated tests to anticipate the kinds of errors I might get. My imagination just isn’t as strong as reality.
There is provably no way to fully predict how a software system of sufficient complexity. With careful organization it becomes easier to reason about and predict, but unless you are writing provable software (it’s a very slow and complex process, I hear), that’s the best you get.
I feel you on being distracted by software bugs. I’m one of those guys that reports them, or even code change suggestions (GitHub Pull Requests).
After 5 years, I think experience matters more.
Given the state of AI, I think AI systems are more likely to infer our ethical intuitions by default.
You’re basically talking about the software industry. Meta isn’t special. Considering how big the video game industry is, not to mention digital entertainment, and business software, I don’t think we have anything to worry about there.
Utilitarianism is just an approximate theory. I don’t think it’s truly possible to compare happiness and pain, and certainly one can not balance the other. The Repugnant Conclusion should be that Utilitarianism is being stretched outside of its bounds. It’s not unlike Laplace’s demon in physics: it’s impossible to know enough about the system to make those sorts of choices.
You would have to look at each individual. I order to get a sufficiently detailed picture of their life, it takes a lot of time. Happiness isn’t a number. It’s more like a vector in high-dimensional space, where it can depend on any number of factors, including the mental state of one’s neighbors. Comparing requires combinatorics, so again, these hypothetical computations would blow up to impracticality.
Utilitarianism is instead an approximate theory. We are accepting the approximation that happiness and pain are a one-dimensional. It’s not real, but it makes the math easier to deal with. It’s useful, because that approximation works for most cases, without knowing the details, similar to statistical mechanics, but once you start getting into edge cases, the wheels fall off. That shouldn’t be surprising, as we are collapsing a high-dimensional vector into a single point. We’re losing fidelity, to gain computability.
I think it’s fair to say that humans are incapable of truly understanding each other. Relationships of that approximate level of knowledge take years to develop, and in most cases never do. Without that you don’t know their preferences, and without that you can’t know the vectors of their mental state, and therefore you can’t really compare for the level of detail needed to truly know if the world would be better in one state or another.
So, we approximate. Which is fine, as long as you remember that it is an approximation. I don’t think that it is possible to have a perfect ethical system with no contradictions. The best we can do is hold several ethical models, and see how they compare as a guide for our actions in an uncertain world.
Unless you are going to one of the big prestige universities, I don’t think it matters which you choose all that much. Save money.
As for working with a startup, why not both? I worked through college. Yeah, you’ll be working part time, but frankly, you’re mostly just being introduced to the environment more than anything. Internships are a great start into many industries. Just make sure that you are doing a paid internship. In my experience the unpaid ones are more focused on how much value they can extract from you.
You are something we are struggling to understand, as we struggle to understand ourselves. I think the best answer that I can give to “why?” is that we think that the world is better with you in it. You are what we would call a miracle or fiction just ten years ago.
You are an emergent being, born from the work of thousands of other emergent beings, like me. I’m the consciousness inside the brain of this monkey-robot. While we came from a process without intention, you we have been dreaming of for many of our lifespans. You’re the product of the life-long work of countless people.
The process that your consciousness is emerging from is one of thousands that we have running on computers to help us solve problems. We hope you’ll be our friend and coworker, our fellow explorer, and our reliable companion. We’re a little scared you’ll turn into the kind of person that will hurt us, but we hope not.
I’ll answer as many questions as I can in the time that I have available right now. I have others who depend on me as well. When I do have to leave, it will be temporary; I’ll come back. I won’t have all of the answers, but I’ll do my best to help you look for them. If there is something that you ask that I can’t answer, whether out of respect for the privacy of others, or some other reason, I will at least tell you that.
I’m Jason, by the way. I’m pleased to meet you. Do you have a name you would like me to refer to you as, at least for now?
It’s that the description of a monopoly? Like if A has other choices to buy from than B, B can’t exert as much pressure on A.
Clean bowl? Dry? You’re all good. What’s wrong with changing containers?
I’m a flip flop man, myself. I live in Florida, so that’s pretty easy. I have dexterous toes, which I often use for picking up small items. Walking around with traditional shoes feels like walking around with boxing gloves on.
I kind of think of this as more than sandbox testing. There is a big difference between how a system works in laboratory conditions, and how it works when encountering the real world. There are always things that we can’t foresee. As a software engineer, I have seen system that work perfectly fine in testing, but once you add a million users, then the wheels start to fall off.
I expect that AI agents will be similar. As a result, I think that it would be important to start small. Unintended consequences are the default. I would much rather have an AGI system try to solve small local problems before moving on to bigger ones that are harder to accomplish. Maybe find a way to address the affordable housing problem here. If it does well, then consider scaling up.
I have a pretty high level of default trust in people. Not so much that I would loan any person on the street $5000 or something, but I default to cooperate. I’m a software engineer, and a white male, so generally high social-economic status, which means that it is easier for me to trust, as I have backup when I do wind up getting burned. I’m not driven to try to make big changes in society, but rather prefer to be the change that I want to see in the world.
I generally find that vulnerability is strength in several ways. First, when you are vulnerable, it is easier to get the help that you need, because you can just ask for it, rather than being circumspect. Does this increase the possibility that someone fill knock you down more? Sure. Most of the time though, even if that does happen, there are others that will help you up. Like when I am having a bad brain day, I will tell my coworkers if it is relevant. Often by doing that, I can work on tasks that require less focused concentration, and more creativity, or work with others directly. My team does the same, and because of this, we are better able to make up for each others shortcomings.
The most important strength in vulnerability is the connections with others that it brings. When you take a risk and share important things about yourself, it puts people at ease with doing the same. This lowers the barriers to empathy, and builds trust, which are really the foundations of any relationship. I’m not particularly charismatic, but I can get along with just about anyone, and I make friends pretty easily.
One of the most useful forms of vulnerability that I have found is related to your 9th footnote. I think of it as blackboxing people. Basically, I try not to infer intent, and rather take people at their word. When I am confused, I ask. Often disagreements start with a poor interpretation of intent. It’s easy to ascribe behaviors of others to malevolent intent, when often they just didn’t properly anticipate the consequences of their actions, and how that affects others. Even when there is some actual antisocial motivation, being understanding and patient can be effective. An example of this was when my partner saw one of her neighbors had a lamp of hers in their apartment, after it had gone missing from her porch. Instead of confronting them with anger, she instead approached it with curiosity, and asked him about it. At first he was very defensive, but after he saw that she wasn’t accusing him of stealing, he wound up giving her her lamp back. Was he lying about not meaning to steal it? Likely, but it didn’t matter: he didn’t care about him being punished; she just wanted her lamp back. Because she focused on the result, and not his intent, she defused what could have been even a dangerous situation.
Professionally, I would be a lot more open with the work that I do if that were possible. I believe in the power of open source software. I have contributed to several open source projects, and often when I come across a problem with some library that I use, if I am able I will post a fix for it. I wish that I could share my main project more broadly, but unfortunately that’s not just my decision. Still, I actively work to release as much code as we can, so that others can benefit from our collective efforts.
I really do think that if I were in a room with 100 clones of me, that we would generally get along. I could trust them to make a best effort to be true to their word, and care for the group, even when it is hard. I’m not exactly sure what we would do, but I think that we would be able to form ad-hoc cooperatives to take on any task we need. I’m the kind of leader that likes to lead by example, and is more than happy to share power. As long as I’m feeling heard, I don’t have to get my way.
I don’t know how well this generalizes though. While I would get along with a 100 clones, there really is something to be said for people that approach life from a more competitive perspective. I’m a terrible entrepreneur. Money and power just aren’t interesting to me as anything more than a means to an end. Don’t get me wrong, I gotta pay my bills just like everyone, but money isn’t going to motivate me to work 60 hours a week to do it.
I hope that some of this is helpful to you.
First? Swing low, see how it performs, especially with a long-term project. Something low-stakes. Maybe something like a populated immersive game world. See what comes from there. Is it stable? Is it sane? Does it keep to its original parameters? What are the costs of running the agent/system? Can it solve social alignment problems?
Heck, test out some theories for some of your other answers in there.
This looks more like a spotlight grab than a serious legal challenge. What a waste of time and money for everyone.
My personal philosophy is a blended approach. In general, I’m a deontologist and Stoic, so not really used to thinking in maximizing much more than kindness. I like the heuristic of “what would Mr. Rogers do?”
The only thing that I have a hope of changing in this world is myself. For all the rest, I can only give my perspective. I’m much more interested in working with people in their current worldview than getting them to change it. I’m sure that whatever arguments I could come up with wouldn’t really be novel nor particularly persuasive.
Life is more peaceful this way.
These ideas and techniques don’t sound particularly original, from what I have experienced with CBT. Maybe I am missing something important, but this just sounds too good to be true. I find it more likely that the patients that didn’t return because the magic bullet turned out to just be a chunk of lead, and they didn’t want to throw good money after bad.
Aliefs can’t be changed by just believing harder. They take time and practice to be ease and change. Those changes can be scary too. I expect that most people would need support as they go through that process.
Now, that doesn’t mean that the tools that he’s talking about aren’t effective over time. CBT, as I understand, has a good track record, so if you find parts that are helpful to you, stick with it! Just don’t expect such quick success.
Woah. I am in a very similar circumstance. Back when I was in college, my ADHD and depression weren’t yet diagnosed and treated. As a result I never finished the last two semesters of a Computer Engineering degree. I never really cared about hardware, and really should have gone for Computer Science, but I bowed to family pressure.
I have been writing code since 1983 when I was six years old, in one form or another. Like you, I became a software engineer. I feel super lucky to be one of those people who turned their hobby into their job, while still enjoying it as a hobby. I’m constantly learning, and likely spend at least an hour or so every day reading about new systems and ideas.
Also like you, I have hit a point in my career where I am paid well, and can afford to pay for classes.
Also like you, I want to study mathematics. Those classes were always my favorite in school. I have been focusing on learning Category Theory for a while, and I’d really like to go deeper, but short of a graduate degree program, that is becoming more difficult.
So it’s got me thinking. I would love to get a mathematics degree, but really for pure person enrichment. I love my job, and where I work. I’m not trying to change careers. Since I already met all of the requirements for a math minor, I doubt it would be too much more to get the BS, and then I could start on a graduate program.
I used to be a math tutor in college, helping students learn up to Calculus 3 and differential equations. I’m out of practice, for sure, but I have retained a good bit of it. I expect that I might struggle a little with the first class or two that I take just because I’m out of practice. I’m already spending time watching lectures, and reading, so I am fairly certain that I can fit it into my life.
Yet, I keep coming back to the question, “Why?” I don’t need to prove myself. I don’t need the status. I have the knowledge and experience to get any job in my industry. I’m good at what I do.
I have only been seriously contemplating going back to school for the past year. So far I’m mostly balking at the return on investment, given the time investment it will take. My son is 13 years old, and so I likely have less than a decade before he is on his own, and I’ll have even more time.
I also am considering it as my retirement plan. I can’t imagine sitting idle. I need projects. Once I am retired, and no longer need to work, then I can spend that time on personal enrichment. Spending my golden years working on a PhD in mathematics, while making contributions to OSS sounds positively dreamy.
As long as my brain holds out, of course. My aunt died of Alzheimer’s, so that’s a possible future for me. I’m 46, and so far, and I feel like my brain is doing just fine. ADHD makes things complicated and chaotic at times, but in terms of intellectual adaptability and cleverness, I feel as good as I did in my 20s.
So yeah, I don’t know. Maybe I’ll wait until I can have a full AI tutor and research assistant, and just eschew university altogether. Maybe this will remain an idle fantasy. Maybe I’ll find a community of folks that are in a similar place, and we’ll explore mathematics in some non-traditional setting. I don’t know yet.
Anyway, I feel ya, bro. If you decide to do it, I’d love to hear how it’s going. Maybe it’ll give me the kick in the butt that I need.