The President posted in favor of data centers right in the middle of his base having a tantrum about them. Does this change your opinion on how important AI is in American politics?
frontier64
Karma: 571
I do not see how % of societies across all of history that have allowed polygamy is informative of what percentage of people across the world today polygamy is better than monogamy for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWtg7UoUNaw
Notice how many direct questions on Iran Rubio appears to answer with the information requested, but he doesn’t actually provide the info requested. The best one I think is:
QUESTION: How does the State Department interpret the President’s recent remarks when he said, quote, “The Iranian people need to have guns and I think they are getting some guns,” end quote? What did he mean, and do those comments relate to any ongoing or potential U.S. actions like supplying those weapons?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, I think it goes back to the question I was asked a moment ago. I think the President thinks it’s heartbreaking that the Iranian people are abused by this regime in the way they are. In the end, I mean, this regime is not – guys, I know I’ve said this – I think I said this in my hearing before the Senate when I got confirmed. I don’t know of any country in the world where there’s a bigger difference between the people and the people who run the country, okay? This country is run by radical Shia clerics, and that’s not what Iran and the Iranian people are. Now, they may be Shia, but they’re not radicals and they’re not clerics, and they just want a normal life and a regular life, and in many ways a very cosmopolitan country with an incredible history – incredible history and incredible legacy and the like.
So there’s this huge divide between the people of Iran, whom we sympathize with and who the President sympathizes with, because they’re the ones suffering. Look, the world is a victim of Iran, okay? The world is a victim of Iran because they’re terrorists, because of what they’re doing now in the straits. But the people of Iran are daily victims of the regime, and the President has deep sympathy for what they’re going through. And I think he’s just expressing that sympathy and that frustration that they don’t have the ability to do more to get rid of this regime that has crushed this country and isolated it from the world, which is a country that shouldn’t be isolated from the world, because its people are phenomenal.
I really think the effect that AI safety people’s short timelines have on whether or not reprogenetics research gets done is ~0. Human intelligence enhancement is illegal, and faces a massive social stigma. We could have cloned the smartest humans starting decades ago and we haven’t (at least publicly) because governments and the regulators seem to hate that idea.
We could have been doing selective breeding to foster intelligence since we discovered evolution in the early 1800s. We haven’t done it because of stigma and lack of government interest. Short AI timelines is just irrelevant.
If you have a good reputation this type of behavior will destroy it. If you work in a field that is tight-knit where word of mouth travels fast, this type of behavior will harm your ability to advance in that field. There is a reason your brain makes you feel embarrassed when you get rejected. It is not good to get rejected often because other people will see that you overestimate your own abilities.
One of the most common interview questions is, “Where else have you applied?” If I ask that and the interviewee responds, “Oh just like a hundred other places in the past month.” I will instantly reject that applicant.
Is there a benefit to teaching these skills if one parent is a full time care giver and doesn’t have to worry about waking up at 7am to go to work?
Evaporative cooling of group beliefs. If you dislike a moderator decision you’re more likely to leave that community or interact with it less than if you liked the moderator decision.
A lot of this is obviously correct, but also mostly pointless. Moderators that aren’t founders almost always run a site more for social status than following the site’s founding principles. There’s no reason that the moderator-but-not-founder of a rationality site should be substantially different than the moderator of any large forum. Rationality on this site is more of a theme than any real effort to have correct and effective ideas.
I would never agree to a fractional resignation. Games are about playing well and the thrill of the fight. Absolute surrender or nothing. I have a visceral disgust towards the concept of fractional resignation. I think many people who enjoy games for the competition feel similarly.
This exact point is raised and made in the original post, no?
What is the thesis here? I’ve read this through and I don’t get what the point you’re trying to get across is.
Does Nectome have any patents?
I was unaware anyone was alleging that Anthropic’s rights are being violated. Can you explain what right is being violated and where?
In cases where convincing is >>> costly to complying to the request it’s good form to comply
This is about the most untrue and harmful thing I’ve seen written out in a while. Alice merely making a request does not obligate Bob to comply just because Bob complying is much easier than Alice convincing Bob to comply. Just no, you don’t wield that sort of power.
The $100k iPhone does exist. It’s a personal assistant. No product could be as good as giving your phone to your assistant and dictating to them what you want to do.
I don’t believe that post says what you think it says.
There’s plenty of actions Trump could take that would make supporters view him as genuinely much worse than average. The below list is not exhaustive nor does it set a lower bound, it’s just examples.
Trump could personally shoot someone randomly walking down the street in the middle of Times Square
ICE could deport multiple confirmed US Citizens or deport one citizen willfully and knowingly.
Trump could explicitly defy a US Supreme Court order without any legitimate color of law.
ICE could shoot and kill a protestor who was not in any way hampering legitimate law enforcement activity and was instead merely protesting nearby.
Trump could withdraw all federal funding from a State that is fully keeping up with its legal requirements to get those funds and pull that funding for solely political purposes.
Support of Trump as not much worse than average is falsifiable for many Trump supporters. However, belief that Trump is much worse than average does not appear to be in fact falsifiable for a large majority of his detractors, including many detractors on this site
If this is your best theory of mind for people on the right, then yes you have little chance of convincing anybody that doesn’t agree with you.
I hope this isn’t your actual understanding of the world. If it is, then you’re lost and need to find the way.
It is a normal political position in America that there is no such thing as apolitical executive agencies under the US Constitution. I don’t understand why supporting that policy has anything to do with “eroding democratic institutions” from your perspective. Leaving unelected bodies using executive power to implement Policy A after the public voted for a political candidate who supports Policy B seems incredibly undemocratic actually. Can you explain that?
Why do you equate % of societies with common? Do you understand the difference between % of societies where polyarmory was allowed and % of people who practiced polyamory?