I read that section more as "go experience things, and participate in non-online activities and relationships" rather than "prove to strangers that you're human".  It's not "real vs AI", it's "real vs virtual".

 

At twenty years old, I recently gained my independence following a period of estrangement from my family. The heart of our conflict lies in my attitude toward the kindness they extend to me. I define all their favors as "actions of their own choosing," maintaining the stance that while I am grateful for their financial support, it remains their choice and not my responsibility. My family condemns this as an "inhumane selfishness" stripped of both gratitude and regret.

I'm confused.  "gained my independence" makes it sounds like you were being kept helpless, but if it was just optional financial gifts they gave you for their own reasons, didn't you already have independence?  My suspicion is that you were disingenuously accepting support when it was convenient, and are now trying to claim that there was no reasonable expectation of behavior that came with the support.

IMO, it's a dick move.  analogies to fictional dick moves don't make it better.

Upvoted, but disagree (well, kind of - I'd like to live in that world, but I don't think it's good advice today).

Once someone is well-known, and especially if they make a living and/or invest their self-identity in their public acceptance, they are well-advised to moderate themselves, and to stay in the overton window of their readers (even while pushing it in good directions for some readers).   Even if they are convinced enough to tell their family something, they may want to water it down a bit so the public doesn't turn on them.

Speech is an action, and public speech has consequences beyond conveying information.

I congratulate you on realizing that there is no fully-trustworthy writer or authority.  We're all humans, and we all have some motives that are not purely prosocial.   

Note that the risks of being modeled are EXACTLY the reasons that you want to publish in the first place.  You want other people to be able to understand you and to jointly update models with information each other provides.   And you risk that people will misuse your posts in order to hurt or manipulate you.

i'd argue that AI increases both sides of the equation - you benefit greatly by not having to re-explain yourself, and from people AND AIs engaging with you and helping you refine/update your models.  And the AIs have more time and focus to use it against you.

These may not be symmetric, so it may flip your personal equilibrium from public to private.   But it should never have been binary anyway.  What you publish has always been curated and limited to things you want in your permanent record, and that you expect more benefit than risk.  If that line shifts by a little, that's reasonable.  If it shifts entirely one way (or the other), you're overreacting.

It's bizarre how many very smart people fall into this trap.  I blame the long duration of peaceful mostly-stasis that most of the world has enjoyed for 50+ years, but even so, there's no excuse for failure to recognize that pretty much all ownership conventions are rooted in power and (deeply sublimated behind layers) threat of violence.  Oh, also, everyone watched adaptations of Dune, rather than reading it.  "He who can destroy a thing, can control that thing" is a deeply true statement that gets missed in the spectacle.

Really, at scales beyond individual residence and direct use of a property, all our abstract ideas of ownership start to fall apart.  What does it even mean to "own" a galaxy?  Does King Charles own England?  Heck, I am legally responsible for my house, though most of the value is held by a bank, and I'm heavily restricted on what I can do with it.  Do I "own" it?  Depends on what exact rights/responsibilities you're thinking of when you ask the question.

I think a lot of the debate would calm down and be more useful if they said "legally entitled to", and then could discuss how those laws are created and enforced.  "own" is a motte-and-bailey word.

There is no outside view for my experience of myself.  I am a singleton in the multiverse - literally there is exactly one set of experiences that I have access to.  One cannot apply probabilities to a singleton.  One cannot generalize from a single datum.

if I spill a box of 1,000 fair coins (an event which has already happened) and then look and find every one of those 1,000 fair coins has landed heads, is it not still stupendously improbable an occurrence?

Well, no.  it was stupendously improbable before I saw it, but once observed, I assign it p(1).  Reminder: probability is subjective - it's my estimate of what I might experience in the future.  I would need further observations to determine whether the box had fair-seeming coins or double-headed coins, but I'd assign much higher probability before that observation to the double-headed expectation.  Probability of that is also just uncertainty in my mind, which may or may not be reduced by future observations.

Fundamentally, rulers and politicians are human, no matter the system or justification.  There is no "outside" view, and no passive voice for decisions.  Politics is corrupt and hopeless.  But no laws can fix it - laws are made and enforced by the same critters as the laws are intended to constrain.

The question is not about what conditions are necessary and sufficient for a representative democracy to work well, it's about what conditions (including what participants) we could likely achieve, and why would that be better than today.

Do you distinguish skepticism from humility?  I'm pretty well aware that I don't actually know anything for certain, and Bayes proponents are always saying there is no 0 or 1.   At the same time, for most things, my best decision-making seems to have come from taking my perceptions at face value.  

Worthwhile reminder, and education for early-career donors, thanks!

I'd add that if this isn't a one-off for your lifetime (that is, you reasonably expect to have stock in future years, which you might use to fund donations in future years), it's worth setting up a Donor Advised Fund.  This lets you donate stock (and cash) without capital gains, but also without having to specify the recipient immediately.  You get the tax break in the year you donate, even if you make the donation in a future year.  It also simplifies recordkeeping, as all the tax-relevant activity is to your DAF.

"once LLMs write most code, there will be nothing left to do for the people with software development skills".

is a mismatch of quantifiers.  If LLMs write most code, there's no need for most of the people with those software development skills that are necessary and which LLMs can do well enough.  That doesn't say ANYTHING about the software development skills which LLM's cannot do well enough.

I can't tell if you're just saying "LLMs can't do this part well, yet", or if you're asserting that humans have some ability in assembler that LLMs won't match in the foreseeable future.