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.
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?
I'm not talking about the dad telling Robinson to turn himself in. I'm talking about police reporting that the father said Robinson confessed. That is a massive distinction and the fact that Candace Owens continues to focus on the 'told him to turn himself in' while ignoring the whole part about the dad reportedly saying his son confessed makes me distrust her reporting on this issue.
Also, I am a criminal attorney. I would have the father sign and swear to an affidavit attesting to the truth, and then circulate that to the news media and immediately file it with the Court as part of a bond motion. I would also have Robinson's... (read more)
You seem to have left out the fact that Robin Hanson is a renowned economics expert and likely has more skill in deciding when to sell stocks than his spouse.
Your son has been arrested and the news media has all reported that your son confessed to you, you told a priest friend of yours, and that priest/retired Sheriff went to the authorities which is what led to your son's arrest. But this is a lie and the FBI is setting your son up as a patsy.
Do you either:
A) Give an unrecorded statement to an unknown source for a conspiracy-minded conservative journalist/podcaster and do nothing else besides that; or
B) Sing from the rooftops and to every single possible news outlet you can find that your son is being setup in order to free him.
To answer your question succinctly: I don't see or not see a rifle. The video is not clear enough to tell. And I think we should draw zero consequences from that.
I think trying to deeply analyze a grainy video to confirm or deny the existence of a rifle is a fool's errand when there's so much other evidence available. It's silly for the FBI to claim it's definitively a rifle, and it's silly to claim that not being able to see a rifle in that quality of video cuts against guilt.
There's a ton of other evidence, finding the rifle near the scene of the shooting in the woods, the other surveillance where... (read more)
Putting a finite value on both an infinite lifespan of infinite pleasure and an infinite lifespan of torture allows people to avoid difficult decisions in utility maximization such as Pascal's Mugging.
Maybe this is why so many people seem to naively express that they don't actually want to live forever because they would get lonely and all their friends would die and etc. They're actually enacting a smart strategy which provides protection from edge case situations. This strategy also benefits from having a low cost of analysis.
Real money prediction markets are biased towards outcomes that increase utility of the bettors.
For an example: there is a prediction market on who will win the presidential race, Alice or Bob. Currently the market sits at 50-50 and the payout for $1 on Alice is $2 and the same for Bob. Our bettor, Charlie, has internal odds that are the same as the market, however he also believes with an incredibly high certainty that if Bob wins the race then the buying power of a dollar will double. Therefore $1 on Bob is worth $4 if Bob wins, but the same $1 on Alice will only be worth $2. Because of this Charlie will bet the market all the way to 66-33 favoring Bob. This is despite the fact that his internal probability that Bob wins is only 50-50.
You woo a girl to fall in love with you, sleep with her, then abandon her? You're going to be run out of town as a rotten fool 100 years ago. Nowadays that communal protection is gone.
We are ancient apes who can say yes or no to humans evolving. Tough choice. What do you think the apes should have chosen?
I don't see how we could ever get superhuman intelligence out of GPT-3. My understanding is that the goal of GPT neural nets is to predict the next token based on web text written by humans. GPT-N as N -> inf will be perfect at creating text that could be written by the average internet user.
But the average internet user isn't that smart! Let's say there's some text on the internet that reads, "The simplest method to break the light speed barrier is..." The most likely continuation of that text will not be an actual method to break the light speed barrier! It'll probably be some technobabble from a sci-fi story. So that's what we'll get from GPT-N!
The future may have a use for frozen people from the current era. In the future, historical humans may be useful as an accurate basis to interpret the legal documents of our era.
Original pubic meaning is a is a fairly modern mode of legal interpretation of the US Constitution. It's basis is that the language of the constitution should be interpreted the way that the original meaning of the text was when it was drafted and amended into the constitution. A similar mode of interpretation is used less commonly for statutes. It's likely that this mode of interpreation would become more common in the future as a way to prevent value drift.
One... (read more)
You're playing a game against a simulator Allen the Alien. The game is that you and Allen separately choose one out of 10 paths. If you pick the same one Allen wins; if otherwise you win. With no simulation Allen has a 1/10 chance of winning while you have a 9/10 chance of winning. If Allen simulates you accurately he then has a 1/1 chance to win.
If you're fully able to notice you're being simulated... (read more)
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.