I think a shorter checklist would do (or longer, depending on how you look at it):
-
DO NOT DEPLOY THE AGI UNTIL YOU HAVE COMPLETED THIS CHECKLIST.
-
GO TO 1.
Richard_Kennaway
Karma: 2,408
I thought the fix was the wrong way round, but then I realised that you don’t say anywhere what you mean by “positive”, “negative”, or “cutoff”″. When a test judges a widget defective, is that called a “positive” or “negative” result? If the test involves calculating some score to be compared against the “cutoff”, does exceeding it mean that the widget passes or that it fails?
What are you using to access GPT-3?
The example it opens with is the absence of sabotage “proving” the existence of saboteurs, and the Salem witch trials are mentioned in the comments.
It could be called “witch-finding”.
There’s an article from the Sequences on the subject.
Google “A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy”. It’s a PETA slogan coined by its founder. Enlightened or not, there are people who believe this.
There is, but it sounds like something out of R.D. Laing’s “Knots” (which I would recommend to everyone).
“They are wrong.
Being wrong
is the wrong
that they are being.”
Why manipulate galaxies if you can build virtual worlds and new planes of existence that get you everything you really need at a psychological level.
It won’t work if what you really need at a psychological level is reality. That is, some of us reject wireheading and the blue pill.
(ETA: There is no red pill. Anyone offering one is selling a different blue pill, painted red.)
At the opposite extreme, it might be like trying to demonstrate to an anosognosic — or to be more even-handed, two anosognosics trying to demonstrate to each other their major impairments.
According to the OP, DiAngelo says the responses of “denial, withdrawal, deflection, conspicuous wokeness, emotional outbursts, and so forth” are “examples of white people not getting with the program” and “function to avoid confronting and dismantling white supremacy”. I think that’s enough to call Insanity Wolf on it.
DISAGREEMENT? GUILTY!
SILENCE? GUILTY!
WALK AWAY? GUILTY!
AGREEMENT? GUILTY!
TEARS? HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! GUILTY!
I doubt if a conversation with DiAngelo would get very far. There is nothing that a white person can say, including what I’ve said here, that her scheme cannot classify as “White Fragility” and therefore deem invalid. There’s probably someone right now reading this whole discussion and mocking the White Fragility on display. (ETA: Hey there! SMUGLY MOCKING ALL THIS WHITE FRAGILITY? GUILTY!)
The claims? No. The truth of those claims, their intended implications, whatever motte-and-baileying there may be around them, and so on — the things that actually matter, that is? Look and decide. There’s outside view, and there’s refusal to look at the inside.
If you automatically assume
That is an accusation of bad faith. I have not read the book but I have read the article and have said what I see.
I think the quoted passage does exactly that, i.e. get its readers to signal obeisance. Notice the presupposition worked in at the start: “you have been socialised into racism.” Therefore your opinions are invalid. Your thoughts are invalid. Your reaction to being told this is invalid. Every objection is invalid. You are invalid. Anything but immediate subservience is invalid. You must say “of course I was; I’m glad I finally found out about it so I can change.” No other response is valid.
That response does not get you off any hooks; on the contrary, it sticks you more firmly onto them. After confessing the original sin of “being socialised into racism”, which you were not responsible for but must take responsibility for, you must now change in the ways prescribed. You are not the judge of whether you have changed enough. You will never have changed enough. You must change. You can never change. You must absolve your guilt. You can never absolve your guilt. Must! Can never! Must! Can never!
This is the Gospel According to Insanity Wolf, who beats you with a club in one hand screaming “Must!” and a club in the other hand screaming “Can Never!”, and I have been furnished with rich pickings for the next time I update that page.
The key is to set things up once so as to hardly need to think about them again.
My iMac automatically backs up to a Time Capsule every hour. I hardly notice this happening (but I do know that it is happening).
Every ten days it reminds me to backup to an external HD that I keep hidden the rest of the time. When it does that I go get the HD, plug it in, and start the backup.
Finally, I have a contract with an online backup provider. This backup also happens automatically. I forget how often, but I get regular reports that it does.
All of these backups are encrypted. All of my computing devices need a password (or thumbprint, or face id) to log in.
I have only once needed to restore a whole machine from backup (which worked). I have more often had reason to go delving into the Time Machine backups to retrieve old versions of current files.
I have various other computing devices with their own backup provisions. In some cases that is none, by choice, because they are not places where “work” happens, i.e. places where I create things that I don’t want to risk losing. My PC, for example, only exists to be able to run VR applications. Pretty much everything on my iPhone exists in the iCloud and therefore on my iMac also.
To address your criteria:
-
All backups are encrypted.
-
The only thing that requires an ongoing subscription is the online backup provider, for which I pay $60/year. My backup with them is currently just under 2TB.
-
I’ve never had a flood come into the house, but all my computer stuff is upstairs anyway. If my house burned down and all that is in it, I’d be reliant on the online provider to get stuff back.
-
As the Time Capsule is always on and always connected, I guess ransomware would get at that too, but the external drive and the online backups would presumably escape.
-
I don’t have a solution to this. There are two passwords that I must not ever forget. One is the password to my iMac, and the other is the password to an encrypted file on the iMac (and backed up to a USB stick) containing all my other passwords. I use both of these daily, which keeps them in my memory, but I know that any password I don’t use for a few months is likely to drop out. Writing them down is vulnerable to forgetting where I wrote them, and to the house burning down, and to theft.
-
If we would like to have a philosophy for progressivism, we need to have an agenda.
I don’t agree with the necessity. To me it is more important that a glorious future arrive than how evenly distributed it is.
Happy to ignore them.
Sounds like the Kalama Sutta.
The very purpose of a control system is to pump information out of the relationship between the variable under control and the influences acting on it. This results in zero correlation between variables that are directly causally connected, and large (above 0.99) correlations between variables that are causally connected only via those zero-correlation links. I have a paper on the subject.
This remains true even if correlation (generally meant in the linear product-moment sense) is replaced by the more general concept of statistical dependence (non-zero mutual information).
The graphs describing such systems contain cycles, so the apparatus of causal analysis based on DAGs does not apply.
I would be interested to read a review of it on LessWrong. (I have also not read the book, and do not have the book either.) The only review I found that was not just a summary of the book described the authors’ recommendations as “Their alternative to probability models seems to be, roughly, experienced judgment informed by credible and consistent “narratives” in a collaborative process.” That sounds to me like dressing up the non-apple of “not using probability models” as a banana.
The random selector of old posts has appositely shown me this one from the Sequences: “Rationality and the English Language”.
These three enigmas are all instances of the same enigma, the impossibility of finding ultimate justification for anything, respectively knowledge of how to observe, how to think, and how to act; alongside the necessity to carry on with life anyway. Why not just recognise the impossibility of finding ultimate justification for anything, and carry on with life anyway, while studying these things at your leisure?
My house is not going to fall down just because I start thinking about why it has not.