I like the dynamic of how the reacts make it easier to give positive feedback.
When reading the recent UAP betting threat, I feel like I would want to have a react to congratulate people for taking their beliefs seriously enough to bet.
Meta question: If you think there is a 1 in 1000 chance that you are wrong
I don't think that credence is well thought of that way. Attempts to change my mind might change my credence even if they don't change it to me thinking that a natural origin would be the most likely.
I don't trust Seymour Hersh's anonymous sources more than 70/30, even when The New Yorker publishes his pieces.
My own beliefs don't rest on a single piece. I don't think that anyone should hold credence that is as high as mine just because they read this article. ...
The WIV did not do any work on Coronaviruses under BSL4. They did gain-of-function experiments under BSL2 and BSL3.
What are some of the real-world consequences to this?
It seems that Fauci and Collins already saw the writing on the wall when the Republicans got the majority in Congress and decided to end their careers. That means they can't be fired for it.
After misleading the public in the Iraqi WMD case, there was some accounting in the media and an attempt to improve structures to avoid getting lied to by authorities. It's possible that our media institutions aren't completely lost and will do some accounting of why they failed to inform us.
only one would involve investigators missing something?
Investigators always miss something and we are likely going to find more information in the future.
That doesn't change the fact that we have overwhelming evidence.
If you look at the article in Public, it makes the case: We know that the people at the WIV put a Furin cleavage side via gain-of-function modification into a Coronaviruses and we know that they did their research without the safety precautions that you would need and we know that one of the first patients was one of the people wo...
I think the framing of focusing on public servants is one about obscuring responsibility for people on forums like this who went along with the disinformation campaign to suppress the lab leak theory.
That depends on whether users value privacy and might be scared about a device that has deep access or whether users have no problem with that.
When Apple spends its marketing dollars on speaking about how it should be scary when a device has access they might convince customers.
The word "disappointing" suggests that the action taken to suppress widespread concern (like overruling the intelligence analysts) are bad. Why wouldn't you want to blame those who are responsible for the disappointing state of affairs?
Don't confuse the headline with the resolution criteria.
The resolution criteria is:
This question will resolve as Yes if, between June 1, 2021 to January 1, 2030, 4 credible media sources report that non-human extra-terrestrial technology has been discovered in the solar system (within Neptune's orbit). This may pertain to current claims of UFOs/UAP, events between June 1, 2021 and January 1, 2030, or discoveries of archaelogical evidence (defunct or non-operational technology, found on earth or in the solar system).
The fine print is:
...for this question, cred
I bet that if an AI is observing your eye movements, which includes a lot of info on not only where you look but also in what ways you are thinking and your emotional reactions and state, plus your other movements and reactions, also it hears everything you say, even without you intending to tell it anything directly, and you’ll probably want to be helping.
One point made during the presentation is that they are big on privacy, by which they mean that your eye movements are private and apps can't just access them.
...All accounts agree that Apple has essentiall
It's easy to explain why people who hold beliefs for signaling purposes don't want to bet on those beliefs. It interferes with getting status points by exposing bullshit.
Rather, I'm saying probability theory points at a correct way to reason for ideal agents, which humans can try to approximate.
Probability theory does not do that. It does not make your reasoning robust against unknown unknowns.
In this case, I think there's already more than enough evidence available for an ideal agent to conclude from a cursory inspection that the observed evidence is not well-explained by actual aliens.
From my perspective it doesn't look like there is an explanation that well-explains the available evidence. That goes both for alien...
If someone explicitely writes into their consent forms "my participation was entirely voluntary" and the participation isn't voluntary it might be easier to attack the person running the trial later.
The standard way to run medical trial is to focus on people that are "normal". That usually means that people in clinical trials don't take other drugs that have side effects. From a clinical trial standpoint taking hormones is taking a drug with a lot of side effects that relatively few people in the population take.
The average clinical trial does not recruit an amount of trans participants to measure effects on those and running clinical trials is already expensive enough the way it is currently. That's extra true if you want to distinguish between...
There are free money scams where someone transfers money from stolen credit cards.
One way might be to agree to pay $1000 dollar and then "accidentally" transfer $2000 (from a stolen credit card) and then ask the person to transfer $1000 dollar back to another bank account.
I think RatsWrongAboutUAP did offer to pay in crypto which removes the option for these kinds of frauds. Otherwise, just avoiding transferring any money even if someone overpays you is also a good heuristic.
Instead, effectively there is a single Dial of
DestinyProgress, based on the extent our civilization places restrictions, requires permissions and places strangleholds on human activity, from AI to energy to housing and beyond.
If you have that model, how do you square the fact that Marc Andreessen is a NIMBY?
I think a good model of what Marc is doing is that he positions himself as a thought leader in a way that's benefitial for getting startups to come to him and getting LPs to give him money.
If he would argue for AI regulation that might give LPs ...
What's that from?
Fauci, Farrar, and a bunch of other people had a conference call after Andersen wrote his email that the COVID genome seems inconsistent with evolutionary theory.
Afterward, Farrar speaks more with Fauci and Farrar writes an email to Tedros who heads the WHO to propose how to move forward. That's one of the bullet points from that email. https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/timeline-the-proximal-origin-of-sars-cov-2/ gives you a lot of details about what happened in that week.
Farrar also has a good chapter in his book January 2021...
As for an example of Democrats not pushing their advantage like the GOP: the Supreme Court.
Not doing something to push an advantage is not automatically de-escalation. They didn't push Ruth Bader Ginsburg to resign for similar reasons they aren't doing it with Dianne Feinstein. The principle seems to be something along the lines of "it should be every politician's right to decide when they have to resign because they are too old or ill". While that isn't escalation I also don't see that as deescalation. political
...Point one: is the judiciary independent of t
Are you suggesting that you currently have a double digit percentage that there's clear evidence of some form of nonhuman intelligence in the next five years (which would warrent the 5:1 odds)?
When it comes to solution criteria, it might be useful to have a Metaculus question. Metaculus questions have a good track record of being resolved in a fair matter.
The OP takes Hungary and Turkey as examples of countries that went through the problematic transition. Vox has a long article on Hungary and it doesn't speak about thugs being used in a significant way. As far as my memories goes that wasn't the case in Turkey either.
When governments coordinate with corporations they don't need to surveil everyone themselves. If you look at China, they give the corporations a lot of responsibility to monitor their users to keep their internet licenses.
France is censoring Rumble. The "tiktok"-ban bill would have been ...
China builds a lot more buildings than they need, because the metrics around house buildings are easy to measure and the local committees goodhard around building a lot of things whether they are needed or not.
If you care about the numbers, why should I do the searching for them?
In any case, they are irrelevant to the argument about authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is about abuse of power coming from authority and protestors don't have power.
Death due to protestors and protests in general are bad, but they are a different kind of danger than abuse of government power.
Publically, AOC demanding that the Biden administration should engage in authoritarian behaviour provides very little use when she doesn't think that Biden will actually engage in those behavior while at the same time eroding the standards. If a future Trump administration will call for ignoring court orders, you can count on Fox News to air AOC's pronouncements that it's an acceptable tactic.
Even when your ethical system says that sometimes it's worthwhile to break rules because of utilitarian concerns, that doesn't make cases where you call for rul...
Stalin wasn't a populist either. He got to power because of how he interact with other elites and not because he had popular support.
Being a populist is not required to be authoritarian. In an important sense it's even worse if a leader uses authoritarian powers to pursue political projects that are widely unpopular than if the leader does what the majority of the population works.
And Germany is, due to their heavy censorship, worse at resisting fascist ideology than anyone with free speech, because you can't actually have those arguments in public.
The number of things you can't argue in Germany is tiny. You can't argue that there was no holocaust but that's not central to any ideological debate. Censorship is not preventing ideological debates in Germany.
Other rich people are there, which is good for networking.
I think a good portion of your argument hinges on whether this kind of networking is overall positive-sum for the economy or whether it's zero-sum or negative-sum.
Do you agree that this is a major crux?
The rules-based order works on following the law consistently and not when it suits you.
If it was between breaking procedure to spy on someone illegally and letting a nuke detonate in NYC
But that's not how real-world policy decisions look like. The OP did point to Turkey and the Kurds. Fighting Kurdish terrorism is a valid interest of the Turkish state but the means they use to do so are problematic and it's precisely the fact that they use illegitimate means that makes it sensible to describe the behavior as authoritarian.
...You don't know though
AI policy, strategy, and governance involves working with government officials within the political system. This will be very different if the relevant officials are fascists, who are selected for loyalty rather than competence.
The way you tell the story suggests that loyalty to the left is very important to prevent the political right from getting power. This dynamic means that people who sit in powerful chairs are more selected due to loyalty than competence.
The narrative of the importance of fighting fascism led to a media landscape where loyalty to lef...
There are reasons why Trump couldn't do a successful coup even if he wanted to. He didn't have the loyalty.
It seems that Trump's strategy to get more loyalty for the next time was to use claims that the election was stolen as a loyalty test.
The other candidates are just going to hire the traditional Republican establishment in a similar way that Trump did in his first term.
He said that people told them were the craft were but he had no direct proof of them. I don't see a reason to assume that there were Congressman better informed than him.
The issue it applies to matters, and this is a situation where there's a conflict between duties
You can argue that there's a conflict between duties in nearly every political conflict. If you take fighting terrorism, you can easily argue that there's a duty of the state to do so. That doesn't allow the state to do everything it wants in that goal.
In general, when it comes to new powers of the executive, once they are established in one case they are going to be used in other cases as well.
...she's inviting the POTUS to back her up (which doesn't mean he
AOC explicitly called for the executive branch to ignore the judicial branch because the judicial branch lacks the power to enforce laws. Calling for the government to ignore the courts is pretty far in the direction of dictatorship.
We do have the account from Harry Reid, who did decide to publicize that he thinks Lockheed Martin had the crafts and the military didn't want to give him the clearance to see them.
It's worthwhile to note that Harry Reid did not share that information this way before he retired. There's a massive stereotype against taking UFO's seriously and sharing such information was bad politics.
In recent news: China rejects nuclear talks with the U.S. as it looks to strengthen its own arsenal
There's currently that war going on in Ukraine.
I'd instead call for a simultaneous disclosure of superpower military R&D from all sides
When calling for action then it's worth thinking about possible next steps. I don't see possible next steps for simultaneous disclosure of superpower military R&D from all sides.
I haven't seen any civilians, including on LW, actually weigh the cost of assymetric disclosure of US military R&D, which this would probably require?
I do believe that it's good to empower whistleblowers. If certain secrets are very important to a country then it should be able to co...
I just tried to explain some part of my understanding of how new psycho- and social technologies are generated, and what conclusions I draw from that.
I think the problem is that some techniques that are created that way work while others don't.
When using techniques we care about whether those we use work. I personally do think that updating on evidence is important and if your goal is technique creation then it matters.
I personally think that making something a "licensed technique" is often a way to create an environment where updating on evide...
I think that public pressure has an effect on Congress and the depth to which it investigates issues.
Congressmen who drive such inquiries care about what their voters and the media think about them pursuing it.
Coworkers of people with schizophrenia usually pick up on it. The reporters did interview a bunch of people that David Grusch knew and they all spoke highly of him. When schizophrenics make reports the official institutions usually don't see their reports as "urgent and credible".
Right now the important distinction is "Is there an explanation that warrants further investigation" or "Is there no explanation that warrants further investigation". It's not "Are there aliens or not".
The stated goal of the current reporting is to get the Congress to investigate the charges. It's not to convince people of aliens.
I think Michio Kaku frames it well. "Now the burden of proof has shifted." Now is the time to demand answer from the pentagon and Congress.
Michio Kaku is a crackpot who used to be a physicist decades ago, so pay no attention to whatever he says these days. See the latest Scott Aaronson's piece.
The stated goal of the current reporting is to get the Congress to investigate the charges. It's not to convince people of aliens.
I am not sure what your point is. If there are no aliens, there is nothing to report. If there are aliens, what matters is the proof that is not words.
Plenty of "insiders" sometimes spout complete nonsense in order to get some time in the limelight.
The sources of Michael Shellenberger were not willing to have their names revealed. Even if you think that's the motivation for David Grusch it does not explain the other sources.
The big websites make more money by selling ads directly than by selling them over a federated system. If you pay the New York Times directly for your ads and the New York Times writes a story that annoys you, you can call the New York Times to complain. On the other hand, if the New York Times wouldn't sell ads directly but instead use some federated ad system, ad buyers couldn't do that.
We currently don't really have bands you have their own homepage where you can listen to the music of the band and the band makes money with selling ads.
There's Apple News+ that gives you one paid subscription and then allows you to access a bunch of otherwise-paywalled websites.