You can view them using Tor at https://www.facebookwkhpilnemxj7asaniu7vnjjbiltxjqhye3mhbshg7kx5tfyd.onion/valerija.pride/posts/10224966981020455
Edit: Evidently this doesn’t work anymore.
clone of saturn
Karma: 1,591
I don’t think any conspiracy is necessary, just information asymmetry. For example, suppose modern stoves are controlled by microchips, and microchips can be programmed to self destruct after X hours of use. The manufacturer can choose any value of X, and the consumer has no way to determine the value of X. Since every broken stove represents a new potential customer, (and especially when the largest “competitor” is stoves that are already installed and the user is happy with rather than new competing products,) each manufacturer has an incentive to choose the smallest value of X that the consumer will tolerate without resorting to extreme measures (e.g. living without a stove, or politically banning self-destructing chips). The consumer cannot “vote with their wallet” since each manufacturer faces the same incentive and will arrive at a similar value of X. Manufacturers also have an incentive to spread memes which encourage people to accept even smaller values of X, such as this very post.
(Possibly relevant: I don’t recognize the term “space monkey” and don’t know what it means either denotatively or connotatively, except that the connotation is clearly negative. Something drug related?)
I would guess it’s a reference to the movie Fight Club.
Could you explain what it means to be “infinitely” corrupt?
I read Anna’s request as an attempt to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s much easier to bully a few individuals than a large crowd.
I’m perplexed when you say the Doomsday Argument is counterintuitive. To me it seems extremely intuitive, almost to the point of being transparently obvious. So if SIA gets rid of the Doomsday Argument, to me it just sounds like I have to stick with SSA in spite of whatever other problems it may have. Has this been addressed anywhere?
I think to the extent that the Petrov Day game is training anything, it’s training the opposite of what we should want. In the game, all the social pressure is unanimously and strongly opposed to pressing the button (sometimes to the extent of ostracizing people and threatening their careers). But in real life, if everyone were unanimously opposed to pressing the button, the button would never have been constructed in the first place. The real Petrov was not rewarded for his actions but demoted and sidelined. In the real situation that’s supposedly being trained for, the social pressure will be ambivalent at best, but more likely telling you that you should press the button, and only your own moral compass and fear of death would be telling you not to.
I would suggest Common Lisp for this purpose—it hasn’t had a significant compatibility breaking change for over 30 years.
I think it’s important to keep in mind the reasons why Robin DiAngelo became a multimillionare. The value of her seminars is that they shift the burden of responsibility for “systemic” racism away from employers and onto employees as individuals. That is, diversity seminars are seen as an effective defense against discrimination lawsuits. But in exchange for protection against legal accountability for patterns of discrimination, an environment of paranoia and scapegoating is fostered, where individual employees are singled out for discipline or firing for perpetuating systemic racism through their personal interactions.
I don’t think Three Worlds Collide should be interpreted as having anything to do with actual aliens, any more than The Scorpion and the Frog should be interpreted as having anything to do with actual scorpions and frogs. TWC uses different alien species to allegorically explore human differences of opinion.
If you think dead people can do arithmetic, I think you need to explain how that would work.
The prompt is clearly meant to be a list of rules, followed by text which follows the rules. The rules themselves don’t have to follow the rules. So to pass the test, GPT-3 would need to write zero or more additional rules (or write gibberish preceded by instructions to ignore the gibberish) and then end the list of rules and begin writing text which follows the rules.
I agree that most humans wouldn’t pass this test, but I disagree that there is no possible right answer.
I think it makes a pretty good case for the anti-cooperation side: you might get to kill some of your enemies before you get killed in turn. However, the correctness of any argument can only be judged by those who remain alive.
Yes, but it’s also okay for the the rest of us to avoid them, warn others about them, or imprison them.
e.g. for a car ad they show happy people living exciting lives which have no relation to the car but make you associate the buying of the car with non-existence social fulfillment.
It’s actually worse than that—the way the manipulation works is to induce you to compare the people in the ad with your own life, causing you to feel ugly, unlovable, like you’re missing out on life, etc. and then to propose the product as a relief from this deliberately induced misery.
Advice from a person who doesn’t care about you and makes money when you follow it is useless at best, and likely harmful. Advertising from a friend who wants what’s best for you might be beneficial, if such a thing existed.
It doesn’t seem generally true that communication requires delicate maintenance. Liars have existed for thousands of years, and languages have diverged and evolved, and yet we still are able to communicate straightforwardly the vast majority of the time! Like you said, lying loses its effectiveness the more it is used, and so there’s a counter-pressure which automatically prevents it from taking over.
It seems to me that there are numerous instances, from the Challenger o-rings to Iraqi WMDs to Lysenkoism, where telling lies has become normalized. Usually followed shortly by catastrophe. You could argue (and I would agree) that such catastrophes are simply part of the “automatic counter-pressure” that allows language to continue to exist. But there’s an understandable desire to find other mechanisms that don’t require as much suffering and death.
Yes, but only in the sense that by my best efforts, using the brain I actually have, I believe the thing to be the case.
This all seems to rest on an idea that an empty box labeled “truth” was dropped in my lap in the platonic land of a priori mental emptiness, and I’m obligated to fill it with something before I’m allowed to begin thinking. But obviously, that’s not what happened. Rather, as I grew up, the abstract label called “truth” was invented and refined by me to help me make sense of the world and communicate with (or win approval from) others. So I end up at the same answer, pragmatism, but I deny that there was ever any problematic circularity. The problem instead seems to come from a notion of transcendent epistemic justification which is unmotivated and flawed—what good does this idea of justification do? What’s the problem if I do something without justification?
The meaning which makes the most sense to me in the context of this post is that a frame is just an ideology applied to a small interpersonal group, where an ideology is a set of ideas about what types of harms or disliked behaviors must be accepted as legitimate and what types may be responded to with self-protection or retaliation. When a political leader has ideas like that, it’s an ideology; when a meditation guru or father or boyfriend has them, it’s a frame. Or at least that’s how I’d try to steelman it.