This seems to me to be simply you preferring your Principle of “Democracy,” which is currently incumbent, and the “greatest harm” you complain about Unilateralism causing merely the threat of another Principle displacing it. You further don’t seem to even recognize your own as a Principle no more privileged than anyone else’s (except perhaps insofar as it’s currently the dominant one), since you criticize others for “bypassing democratic compromise.” Do you think that means any more to them than them criticizing democratic processes for producing less of what they care about would to you?
Shankar Sivarajan
Karma: 1,205
Why not the more obvious solution of simply charging an application fee?
Since you mention “race relations,” if you mean antisemitism as a kind of racism, no, not really. The Groypers remain a fringe group of internet trolls without any real influence; they’re useful to both sides, to either trigger the libs or make the Republicans look bad, so they get hyped up far out of proportion to their actual importance.
What is ascendant on the Right is America First populism, a combination of anti-elitism and anti-globalism, both of which might be mistaken for antisemitism if you engage in reckless noticing, but they hate Fauci and Gates as much as any comparable Jew[1].
There’s also a much more recent anti-Israel sentiment due to concerns they might drag the US into war against Iran, but I expect that to be transient, and not worth much discussion here. This might eventually become antisemitism of the kind you’re asking about if the war comes to pass, but at the moment “anti-Zionism” seems almost exclusively a cause of the Left (proximately driven by the Gaza Genocide™ in their case).
- ^
With the one exception of George Soros, whom, yes, they have a particular hatred of. But come on, he’s personally working towards to the utter ruination of all they hold dear.
- ^
The old SSC essay, How the West Was Won, seems relevant.
I am pretty sure there was, at one point, such a thing as western civilization. I think it included things like dancing around maypoles and copying Latin manuscripts. At some point Thor might have been involved. That civilization is dead. It summoned an alien entity from beyond the void which devoured its summoner and is proceeding to eat the rest of the world.
Well, you could make it so the only plausible path to career advancement for women beyond, say, receptionist, is the provision of sexual favors. I expect that will lower the status of women in high-level positions sufficiently to elevate stay-at-home motherhood.
Of course, all strategies to achieve what you’re asking will by necessity lower the status of career-focused women, so I expect you’ll find them all unpleasant.
EDIT: From the downvotes, I gather people want magical thinking instead of actual implementable solutions.
Even EY didn’t expect it to look this bad this soon
The doctor says, “Cheer up! The great AI Safety researcher Yudkowsky is in town. Attend his lecture, and you’ll feel better.”
Worse then merely immoral, “air con” is considered American. The proud people of Europe would die first.
Oh cool, if we’re deciding it’s now virtuous to ostracize people we don’t like and declare them evil, I have a list of enemies I’d like to go after too. This is a great weapon, and fun to use! (Why did we ever stop using it?) Who else can we persecute? There are several much weaker and more-hated groups we could do to warm up.
I don’t have a detailed writeup, but this seems straightforward enough to fit in this comment: you’re conducting your moral reasoning backwards, which is why it looks like other people have a sophisticated intuition about neurobiology you don’t.
The “moral intuition”[1] you start with is that insects[2] aren’t worth as much as people, and then if you feel like you need to justify that, you can use your knowledge of the current best understanding of animal cognition to construct a metric that fits of as much complexity as you like.
- ^
I’d call mine a “moral oracle” instead. Or a moracle, if you will.
- ^
I’m assuming this post is proximately motivated by the Don’t Eat Honey post, but this works for shrimp or whatever too.
- ^
If you’re concerned about deleting negative comments, you should see blocking the people making them as effectively deleting their comments from every future post.
all genetic mutations are bad.
You might be rediscovering Fisher’s geometric model. A refinement to your current model you could consider is that close to, but not exactly at, the local optima, sufficiently small mutations have a 50% chance of being beneficial.
This proves too much. If you consistently require there be no “serious personal and professional consequences” before you trust a source, you’d have to dismiss almost all of them.
And outside the US, statements the government finds offensive often run the risk of criminal prosecution as well. The existence of “stable rule of law” doesn’t preclude this.
I’m on the lookout for more models like this
Here’s a recent one where the quality is pretty good: f-lite. They say, “The models were trained on Freepik’s internal dataset comprising approximately 80 million copyright-safe images.”
I really like the title of this post!
two students did that stronger version in one or two days.
I believe this was just a call to PimEyes.
Yes! Here’s a cool example of precisely what you’re describing used in practice: Lavarand.
What you’re describing is not really different in principle from using specialized hardware like GPUs for rendering polygons instead of running everything on the same general CPUs. There are ASICs for hashing (used for Bitcoin mining), FGPAs (real-time signal processing, I think), and of course, TPUs for AI inference. And with cloud-computing, would you even know if your computation was actually being done with different physics than you thought?
If we’re doing our utmost to avoid creating them, then the likelihood of having to destroy one is minimal
This is an unwarranted assumption about the effectiveness of your preventative policies. It’s perfectly plausible that your only enforcement capability is after-the-fact destruction.
No, if one does not “approve of destroying self-aware AIs,” the incentives you would create are first to try to stop them being created, yes, but after they’re created (or when it seems inevitable that they are), to stop you from destroying them.
If you like slavery analogies, what you’re proposing is the equivalent of a policy that to ensure there are no slaves in the country, any slaves found within the borders be immediately gassed/thrown into a shredder. Do you believe the only reasons any self-proclaimed abolitionists would oppose this policy to be that they secretly wanted slavery after all?
Update: there’s second breach, this time including DMs.