This is exactly the standard of answer I predicted. It stirs my analysis of the story into its previous interpretation without the two interacting. Its comment that “I didn’t ignore that tension—I leaned into it” is an exercise in irregular verbs, or would be, if there was a mind behind it.
Richard_Kennaway
Karma: 6,972
The world according to ChatGPT
Arguing all sides with ChatGPT 4.5
As for the traits being selected, we obviously don’t know, though the idea is that selecting for homosexuality gifts the selectors an obvious manner of control of whomever makes it into the college of cardinals.
I don’t know what you have in mind there. If they’re 80% gay, they can hardly threaten each other with exposure. At the most, the accusation would be a smokescreen, transparent to all the insiders, for those who already have the power to dispose of an enemy. Cf. the exclusion of Marine Le Pen from standing for President of France, on the grounds of an “embezzlement” which it appears that every party freely engages in.
Who or what is Amelia AI?
From an inconsistency, everything follows.
The story tells us that on the one hand, Hugo shows no sign of higher brain function. Then on the other hand, it introduces an exception to that. So does Hugo have higher brain function?
Hugo does not exist. There are no observations to be made on him that might shed light. Everything in this story was made up by the author. There is no answer to the question. You might as well say “suppose I had a square circle! suppose 2+2 was 3! suppose I could flap my arms and fly to the Moon!”
Unsurprisingly, the LLM (from what you have said of its answer) fails to notice this.
Feel free to tell it that and see what it says. I expect it to just add my commentary to the sludge and vomit it back out again.
I read this.
Then I had this in my email from Academia.edu:
Dear Dr. Kennaway,
Based on the papers you’ve autocfp, we think you might be interested in this recently published article from
“autocfp”. Right. There is not the slightest chance I will be interested in whatever follows.
Re plain language movements, in the UK there were Gowers’ “Plain Words” books from around that time (link provides links to full texts). I read these a very long time ago, but I don’t recall if he spoke of sentence length, being mainly occupied with the choice of words.
But now they’re gone! I didn’t expect them to be real, but still, owowowowow! That’s loss aversion for you.
I notice that although the loot box is gone, the unusually strong votes that people made yesterday persist.
I got the Void once, just from spinning the wheels, but it doesn’t show up on my display of virtues.
Apparently I now have a weak upvote strength of 19 and a strong upvote of 103. Similarly for downvotes. But I shall use my powers (short-lived, I’m sure) only for good.
What is it with negative utilitarianism and wanting to eliminate those they want to help?
Insanity Wolf answers your questions:
SEES UNHAPPY PERSON
KILLS THEM TO INCREASE GLOBAL HAPPINESSIT’S A THEOREM!
YOU CAN’T ARGUE WITH A THEOREM!
We do not know each other. I know nothing about you beyond your presence on LW. My comments have been to the article at hand and to your replies. Maybe I’ll expand on them at some point, but I believe the article is close to “not even wrong” territory.
Meanwhile, I’d be really interested in hearing from those two strong upvoters, or anyone else whose response to it differs greatly from mine.
Rough day, huh?
There you are — more psychologising.
Seriously though, you’ve got a thesis, but you’re missing a clear argument. Let me help:
Now condescension.
This looks to me like long-form gibberish, and it’s not helped by its defensive pleas to be taken seriously and pre-emptive psychologising of anyone who might disagree.
People often ask about the reasons for downvotes. I would like to ask, what did the two people who strongly upvoted this see in it? (Currently 14 karma with 3 votes. Leaving out the automatic point of self-karma leaves 13 with 2 votes.)
a system that lets people express which issues they care about in a freeform way
We already have that: the Internet, and the major platforms built on it. Anyone can talk about anything.
allowing us to simply express our feelings about the issues which actually affect us.
If the platform is created, how do you get people to use it the way you would like them to? People have views on far more than the things someone else thinks should concern them.
You’re still comparing a real situation with an imagined one. For such a large aspect of one’s life, I do not think it possible to have such assurance that one can imagine the hypothetical situation well enough. Whatever you decide, you’re taking a leap in the dark. This is not to say that you shouldn’t take that leap, just to say that that is what you would be doing. You won’t know what the other side is really (literally! really) like until you’re there, and then there’s no going back. (As I understand it, and my understanding may be out of date, the sort of drugs you are considering have permanent effects from the outset. Even a small step down that road cannot be taken back.)
Even in the case of blindness, I have read of a case where sight was restored to someone blind from birth, who ended up very dissatisfied. Because if you’ve never seen, it takes a long time to make any sense of the restored sense. Not to the point of putting his eyes out again, I think, but there was no “happily ever after”.
But then, there never is.
There is an important asymmetry between the status quo and all alternatives. The status quo exists. You are walking around in it, seeing it close up, experiencing it. Any questions you may have about the reality around you can be answered by investigating it, and that investigation may turn up things you did not know, and did not know you did not know.
Alternatives, however, are imaginary. They’re something made up in your head. As such, they do not have the tangibility — literally — of reality. They do not have the inexhaustibility of reality. You cannot discover things about them that you did not put into them. Outside of mathematics, applying reasoning to an imagined scenario is a poor guide to how it would work out if it were actually created. You don’t know what you don’t know about how it would work, and you have no way of discovering.
Or in brief, Status Quo Bias Fallacy.
I wouldn’t see any compelling reason to induce in myself the desire to have sex.
That might only be true up until having the actual experience. Then you would be in a position to say which state of affairs you actually prefer.
ETA: See also.
Am I rationally required to take them?
Nobody is ever “rationally required” to do anything. [Imagine Soyboy vs. Chad meme here.]
There is a typo/thinko where you say the answers to (i) and (ii) “should be the same”. They should be opposites, one “yes” and one “no”.
No need, soccer is already absurd to me.