Okay, thanks for the context. I appreciate the effort you’ve taken to collate information.
FWIW the information you have presented makes it seem like you are building a case against Sam Altman moreso than Annie herself is. And looking at the information without consideration for the identities of the alleged perpetrator and victim, I would conclude that the allegations are more likely non-credible than not. (I can elaborate further on why I think so).
I think that there is a good idea here. My first thought is that debt requires an authority to enforce on collection of debts. For communities where accounts can be pseudonymous, there is little at stake and therefore little that can be staked.
Another thought is to make a comparison with free markets. Is it a duty or privilege to buy or sell something? I think this is highly context dependent.
Out of curiosity, is the motivation of this post to try to collate/figure out the truth/rationality of what actually happened? Or rather just a convenient place that is less susceptible to (alleged) censorship compared to other sites?
Thanks for your reply! What is “Mallet” in this context?
Steganography of the seeming void.
Suppose I want to send a secret message.
Encrypted messages arouse suspicion because they look like noise, and sending noise is suspicious.
Steganography allows for sending messages hidden inside other messages. So now I am not sending noise, but an innocuous message. Which could still arouse suspicion, but less so.
So sending encrypted messages is suspicious not just because it is noise, but noise in the contrast of the previous lack of noise (the void).
So one way would be to establish a continuous channel of background noise to the other party, and send encrypted messages to them when we need to. Of course, the establishment of a continuous channel of noise is still suspicious.
However, if this background noise was always present and assumed by our adversary, it would not be as suspicious. This is the “seeming void” of our adversary—Noise with zero perceived meaning, but through which we can exploit to send secret messages through.
So what is my seeming void? By definition, I don’t know. But could I?
I really like your posts about Simulacra levels, and I feel that they are a great lens to view human behavior through. I jotted down my interpretation of them here a while back, happy to hear any thoughts/feedback if you have any.
I meant to convey (reassure?) that others acting as if you do not exist is more likely due to their lack of imagination that it is likely due to your lack of presence.
In that sense, I was intending to say that your suffering is not your fault.
However, I also admit the implication that “because it is not your fault, you should not be suffering, therefore the suffering is your fault”, which was not my intention, as I recognize that we cannot control what makes us suffer.
Why let the lack of imagination of others impinge upon your happiness?
Does this mean that Sazen(s?) can be used as Shibboleths?
“I know that they are a bad influence on me, but I still want to be with them.”
Is there a difference of this from “The horror of what must, yet cannot, be false”?
I owe the past my forgiveness, and the future my learning.
I wanted to substantiate and boost this comment with some data from the Princeton’s admissions office article on its aid program :
Admission is need-blind for all applicants, including international students.
Princeton financial aid is awarded solely based on need; there are no merit scholarships. (If you are good enough to get in, they will ensure that you will be able to afford it)
The full need of every admitted student is met through grants.
The link also has a breakdown of how much aid is provided depending on the student’s gross family income.
In terms of economics, such elite and wealthy institutions are playing a different game—Their endowments are on the orders of tens of Billions of US Dollars, and so they are not trying to make money off their students, but instead trying to admit students that they think will be promising and capable enough to boost the institution’s prestige and network much later down the line. This means that the focus is on the admissions office (instead of the finance office), which you can also guess is subject to no small amount of scrutiny and drama as well.
Anonymity reduces iterative prisoner’s dilemma (staked on reputation) to one-shot versions.
The externalities are offloaded onto the platform providing said anonymity.
If I am randomly put into a 2d grid of rooms, assuming that “random” means that I have an equal probability of ending up in any room, then shouldn’t I be equally likely to end up in the border rooms as in the middle rooms?
Good point! If one wants to privately discuss a taboo truth, should one equally emphasize both the “taboo” as well as the “truth” of the matter? On first thought, ethically I would say yes.
Yes, “taking the risk” was what I had more in mind, but essentially so.
Thinking about it, it seems that if a person desires to point out a taboo truth without being exposed to the potential social/political repercussions, a safer way to do so would be to privately point out the taboo truth to another person who is unaware of said social/political repercussions, and encourage them to point it out instead.
Well-put! Your comment was valuable because I tend to think / read about problems in a particular field that were able to be solved in a unique / unorthodox fashion due to skills acquired in another field (discovering new solutions), but your point about discovering new problems that only can be realized by having expertise in multiple fields is something to think about as well.
I do not know what are your definitions of “intelligent” and “stupid”, but I have found the following quote to be insightful and generally true so far :
The difference between stupid and intelligent people—and this is true whether or not they are well-educated—is that intelligent people can handle subtlety. - Neal Stephenson, The Diamond Age
If we take this to be our definitions, then the question is whether a person that cannot handle subtlety (sees things in black and white) be able to do so.
I feel that this is mostly dependent on the plasticity of mind and stickiness of mental habits. I think that the ability to be aware of our mental models, and judge when they are useful and when they are not, can be taught to most people. However, whether or not they are able and willing to adopt this mindset of constantly looking for subtlety and contradiction is another matter.
If you think about it, “intelligent” and “stupid” have subtleties to them as well. Let’s assume that intelligence is distributed across the population on a bell curve—What percentile do you think you fall into?