Is this still true? I want to be gatekeeper, message me.
MixedNuts
Karma: 7,215
Just won my second game as Gatekeeper. Hungry for more. AIs, feel free to contact me.
I’ve read the logs of the SoundLogic vs Tuxedage AI-box experiment, and confirm that they follow the rules.
Did it once, binge-ate the candy a few hours later, bought more candy, binge-ate it again. Trying again in two weeks (or going to the doctor if still prone to binging).
If UFOs are controlled by a non-human intelligence, assuming they’ll behave like human schemes is as pointless as assuming they’ll behave like natural phenomena. But of course the premise is false and the Major’s approach is correct.
you wouldn’t like it if someone folded your ear over
That’s not particularly uncomfortable.
This sounds less like normal variation and more like a medical problem. Are there things you do enjoy?
Historically, we have dismissed very obviously sapient people as lacking moral worth (people with various mental illnesses and disabilities, and even the freaking Deaf). Since babies are going to have whatever-makes-them-people at some point, it may be more likely that they already have it and we don’t notice, rather than they haven’t yet. That’s why I’m a lot iffier about killing babies and mentally disabled humans than pigs.
There’s a certain breed of progressives that want to push widely-held positions out of the Overton window. While I feel a few shitloads more comfortable around such people than around people who are sympathetic to said positions, this worries me.
Shutting up debate (in every place Proper Decent People talk, not just specialised places where people want to move past the basic questions) is always somewhat dangerous, though admittedly that applies to every position. This can be circumvented by yelling at people who imply or baldly state these ideas are true, but not at those who argue them with enough formality and apologetic dances.
Condemning popular positions is going to make you yell at half the people you meet and isolate you from the mainstream. Inconvenient.
If we make it unpalatable to argue for one side but not the other, the goalposts shift to Crazytown quickly. Cull the least feminist person at every turn and soon enough Twisty Faster is sounding reasonable.
Relatedly, not having 101 debates over and over allows for semantic shift. It’s all very well and good to point at horrific things and call them “ableism”, but when the same word is then used to yell at me for saying “Crazytown” there is a leap in logic few think to plug.
Generic dangers of thinking people who disagree with you are evil rather than mistaken about what policies are helpful, and that there’s no value in understanding their model of the world. (Even though you have a whole body of work about how these mistakes are made and you are ignoring it in favour of calling them mean names, rarrr.)
Start out on a volunteer basis, use donations to accumulate wealth, and use that, rather than political power, as a lever to keep the Jews/women/poor down and make people have kids and other fascist policies? You can’t use violence, but you can get a monopoly on everything and make people obey or starve.
I’ve heard this joke before I heard of the paper, and found it funny. I’m surprised nobody’s come up with that one before.
But but peak/end rule!
Betcha it’d work. I’m going to set a piece of candy in front of me, work for half an hour, and then put it back, at least once a day for a week.
Empirically, heaping scorn on everyone and seeing who sticks around leads to lots of time wasted on flame wars.
Can you send me yours? Please PM me here or on IRC. I already know the most famous one here.
Thanks! You’re right, I don’t get it. I do have questions, though:
How do you recognise success? I don’t think I could distinguish it from giving up or going numb.
What do endpoints look like? Like, can I answer “I wish he wasn’t going to die” with “Because then he won’t be alive and that’s bad, duh” or do I need to find some way to pick that apart?
How does looping back work? “Why do I wish he’d sign up for cryonics? Because if he doesn’t he will die. I wish he wasn’t going to die.” works, but I don’t know what to do with “Why am I even acknowledging things? Because jimmy said I’ll be more effective at preventing things if I come to terms with them”.
It seems comprehensibly big. It would take between three and four years to walk around the Earth, walking for a sustainable number of hours at a reasonable pace every day, if you could walk around it in a straight line.
How does one go about doing that? I can tell whether I have a plan to prevent a bad thing or deal with its consequences, and whether I’m repressing thoughts of bad things happening, encouraging them, or letting them happen, but I’m not sure how I know I’ve come to terms with something.
What’s the downside of lust?
Gatekeeper looking for AI. (Won two games before.) I’ll pay zero or low stakes if I lose, and want the AI to offer as least as much as I do.
I don’t believe any human can convince me. I believe there exist possible defense strategies that protect against arbitrary inputs and are easily learnt with training, but I’m not confident I’m there yet so it’s quite possible a transhuman intelligence would find the remaining cracks.