I feel like OP has not read the Unabomber’s manifesto, but has reached some of its’ conclusions independently.
Please don’t try to physically harm AI researchers like the Israelis are alleged to have done to Iranian nuclear / Egyptian rocket scientists. That would spread a lot of misery, and probably not achieve anything you think is good.
I was unaware that the rationalist/less wrong position is one of ‘AI Luddites’, but I guess it makes sense.
GPT-3 told me the following: Super intelligent AI presents a very real danger to humanity. If left unchecked, AI could eventually surpass human intelligence, leading to disastrous consequences. We must be very careful in how we develop and control AI in order to avoid this outcome.
GPT-3 told me the following: Super intelligent AI presents a very real danger to humanity. If left unchecked, AI could eventually surpass human intelligence, leading to disastrous consequences. We must be very careful in how we develop and control AI in order to avoid this outcome
Omg check out this AI written hit piece on you written with the prompt ‘an article the NYT published that got your name impeached’, I bet the NYT will run it if I submit it.
I just won an election using nothing but AI-written speeches
If you had a proposal that you thought could lead to superintelligence in the medium term (3-5 years), what should you do with it?
So basically, the CDC is indeed going in this direction.
Remember all the scary stuff the engineers said a terrorist could think to do? Someone could write a computer program to do them just randomly.
“We need free software and hardware so that we can control the programs that run our lives, instead of having a third party control them.”
“We need collective governance and monitoring arrangements to keep unfriendly AI accidents from happening.”
These statements appear to be in conflict. Does anyone see a resolution?
Assuming this is serious, have you reached out to them?
The salary offer is high enough that any academic would at least take the call. If they’re not interested themselves, you might be able to produce an endowment to get their lab working on your problems, or at a bare minimum, get them to refer one or more of their current/former students.
So you procured study drugs from an illicit source, took them, felt your body temp rise, stopped taking them, spent the next few days sleeping like crazy, and presented at the hospital?
Did they do a tox screen (meth and similar stimulants?)
I posted on another thread a while ago, according to dancesafe, counterfeit modafinil that’s actually low dose methamphetamine was being marketed in Berkeley. I’d expect this to be common, because the following reasoning is a ‘flash of inspiration’ I’d expect a drug dealer to have...
Nerds have money → nerds want study drugs → most study drugs are stimulants → pill press is cheap → meth is widely available → dilute the meth doses you’d usually sell to tweakers, put in pill press to look like study drug, sell to nerds.
Brilliant plan right?
What were the symptoms that led you to go to the hospital, and what did they observe there that convinced them to have you stay after the initial exam?
To summarize using information security language:
“Passive SETI exposes an attack surface which accepts unsanitized input from literally anyone, anywhere in the universe. This is very risky to human civilization.′
“how could it possibly be toxic in vivo, we had a scoring for toxicity in our combinational chemistry model!”
Usually when you’re screening for tox effects in a candidate you’re looking for off target effects (some metabolic process produces a toxic aniline compound which goes off into some other part of the body, usually the liver and breaks something), in this particular case, that isn’t the whole picture. Galantamine (useful drug, originally said memantine which is taken with it but isn’t in the same class) and VX (nerve agent) are both acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, a key difference is that VX is much better at it.
One way to achieve the aim in the paper would be to set the model to produce putative acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, rank them by estimated binding efficiency, then setting a breakpoint line between assessed ‘safe’ and assessed ‘toxic’. Usually you’d be looking under the line (safe), in this case, they’re looking above it (toxic).
My point was that in my opinion, being open to the possibility of the line having been placed in the wrong place (special efforts) is probably wise. This opens up an interesting question about research ethics—would doing experimental work to characterize edge cases in order to refine the model (location of the line) be legitimate or malign?
All biological sciences research is dual use. If you don’t see the evil, you’re not looking hard enough. More shocked at the tone of the paper, which implies that this is surprising to the model developers than the result. When you can do combinatorial chemistry in silico, you can make all sorts of stuff...
They don’t mention accident scenarios, as far as that goes, I imagine that some of the compounds they found by looking for bad stuff might show up if they’re looking for memantine (edit: meant galantamine, whoops) like Alzheimer’s drugs and don’t take special efforts to avoid the toxic modes of action.
I’ve looked at these postings a few times, I kind of assumed that the organization was being run as a welfare program for members of a specific social club, that they were specifically excluding anyone who wasn’t already central to that community, and that the primary hiring criteria was social capital.
So the perfect candidate is ‘person already in this community with the highest social capital, and a compelling need for a means of support’.
Thank you for taking a shot, unfortunately, I’m not moved.
My answer to your argument is that risk to me of damage from covid must be multiplied by probability of getting covid before being compared to the side effect risk of getting the vaccine as a healthy person.
If I thought that number was high enough to drive action, I’d have made the radvac and taken it by now. I tracked microcovids early in the pandemic, but my habits haven’t changed, and my risk profile was extremely low (lockdowns did not affect my life much, so I’m an unusual case, there were lengthy periods in 2020 and 2021 where my risk was ‘zero’ rather than ‘effectively zero’). If you’re assuming that the probability of getting an infectious exposure is 1, then the vaccines and NPIs will all look much better.
I’m willing to concede that I might be underestimating the risk of covid to me. Once I make that concession though, I would then need to be convinced not to a) make the radvac or b) seek access to one of the vaccines I view as having a nicer side effect profile (novavax, soberana, some others, I’ll likely get sanofi-gsk when it releases). So even if I accept your argument that I should have some sort of vaccine, I’m far from sold on the ones readily available in the USA.
I haven’t gotten any of the strains, so my approach has worked out thus far.
Strictly speaking, thalidomide was only authorized for some testing in the US and never received full approval, but there were thalidomide babies born in the US. There are plenty of examples of drugs and devices which were approved and later pulled. My favorite story in recent memory is the ‘Essure’ device, which was only pulled after a pressure campaign by facebook mom groups (you know, the kinds of purveyors of medical misinformation who get censored for antivax misinformation)
A more articulate thing to say on the second point would would be as follows: The US government passed laws to ensure that damages would absolutely never be paid out for a ‘false positive’ vaccine injury, likely at the expense of ‘true positives’ not getting justice, a better approach would be something loose like the paycheck protection program (which was gamed), where the standards for getting a payout for a vaccine injury are low enough that people considering taking the drug are fully confident that if they have medical bills due to side effects, the government will cover them. At present, I believe the opposite, and anecdotally, I know someone who had a heart attack within a week and a half of his shot; his medical bills are in the process of slowly destroying his life.
The presence of socialized medicine in other countries and the us military I think explains part of the higher vax rates in those places. If a socialized health system or the military medical system tells you to take something, it is implied that they have ownership of future medical problems related to it.
I thought about writing this when the vaccine trials were wrapping up, but was slow, and by the time I had it ready, I saw SSC say the overwhelming majority of people in this sphere were vaccinated so I figured it would be a waste of time.
I didn’t get one of the three vaccines available in the USA, if I were in a higher risk demographic/lifestyle/less lazy, I would have made the radvac. I would be willing to get novavax or soberana. I have no needle anxiety (if it’s relevant). I have studied this stuff on my own since well before the pandemic and am decent enough in the lab that I could probably do a lot of the work of making a recombinant vaccine with the correct equipment
I tried the inside view/outside view method of forecasting and am satisfied with the result.
Some things I view as the outside view:
-early years of mass vaccination campaigns are usually associated with disasters (1850-70s cowpox campaign, cutter/wyeth during polio, swine flu in the 70s, pandemrix in 2009, many others)
-the FDA is bad at evaluating new technology (they approve things that shouldn’t be, and block things they shouldn’t); as an example, it took five years to pull thalidomide.
-vaccines are safe drugs not because of anything inherent to the class, but due to the stringent standards to which they’re usually held
I saw nothing inside this situation which gave me unusual confidence about this particular mass vaccination campaign. I did see an apparent relaxation of the stringent standards usually applied to vaccine approvals.
I figured I’d wait a month, and if anything unforseen happened, I’d wait another month, looking for signs of toxicity of the payload, toxic vehicle effects, OAS, ADE, and more data on the estimated risk to me from catching covid. I saw the j&j pause for VITT, the pfizer data on ‘it has more of an antibody response than we expected’, then later the aspiration studies, the legislation making it hard to get side effects compensated (if it were safe, there would be the opposite, and people with visible side effects would be celebrated as heroes), the pulling of medical licenses of doctors who were public about the side effect risks...eventually I was just out, I’m not expecting data on booster #4 to persuade me to start the potentially multi year course of treatment for a pandemic that may be mutating away from them or winding down.
My standard for ‘this vaccine is safe enough’ is ‘more safe than the windrawn limerix vaccine’, which was pulled in part due to a 1/25000 probability of cardiac issues, and in part due to lack of success in the market (I’d have taken it). I’d view something with a side effect profile as bad or worse than that as unacceptable to me. I believe that there is enough data suggesting that the side effect profile of most of these is at least that bad, and that the true safety state is obscured by rigid suppression of negative information in the western world. I know it isn’t great, and assess that it’s probably worse than it looks.
I have plenty of reasons which have strengthened my opinion that not getting one of the three available shots was the correct decision, though I have some doubts about my laziness about making the radvac.
All in all, I’m not expecting to change my opinion, or regret my decision. I fully expect governments to back off the mandates and for side effects to get just as much public attention as the cancers SV40 contamination of 1960s polio vaccines caused, meaning zero.
I’d love for someone to tell me why my reasoning sucks, I’ll freely admit that I’m probably overly conservative about side effect risk, but for my demographic and lifestyle (I haven’t caught any of the strains yet and don’t expect to), I think that conservative approach makes sense.
Unfortunately radvac won’t be valid when it comes to vaxpass type policies.
Summary: We predict the extensive variation of Omicron will reduce the effectiveness of Spike-based vaccines, and substantially reduce the effectiveness of RBD-based vaccines and antibody therapeutics (other than GSK sotrovimab), yet have little impact on RaDVaC vaccines.