Just thinking out loud here wondering how true this is, because of course incremental games are not quite the real world, and having unbelievable hours of 'content' often with stalling and offline time is the norm. Things are quite complex, but if you buy that it's "easy" for someone to make money in a guru-style way (which I can get if people don't, because of how many get rich quick scheme course scams there are) you probably believe more in RSI. Because you believe "oh you can use the money to easily automatically make more money". The real world is of ...
I believe the reason people at the top keep saying stuff like "democratize AI" is because the concept of democracy has good mouthfeel and PR optics, even if heavily eroded by platform censorship, algorithms controlling what you see, news narratives, marketing-and-ads-to-push-perspectives, think tanks and PR teams coining phrases like 'carbon footprint', etc.
I also think it provides a feeling of "this is just normal technology, totally will not displace jobs or cause catastrophes".
That being said, as other comments here say that "liberalism" is more exact a...
That article is great for touching on the subject but I feel like it's horribly missing a way to propose reversing such things. I am unbelievably against how many social landmines this has all caused (especially for a movement where people supposedly should be understanding of people of different mentalities and backgrounds who have to learn an ever increasing pile of things).
Also I wonder what happened with the comments in that article, like the top 10 top level replies are deleted on there...
I do find myself think about how this is such a high-trust vulnerable thing to do (especially the info dump and concept assumptions), if anyone has even really done such in 'public'. Mine would probably have so many "childhood experiences" narrativized, certain people blown up into some platonic ideal of patterns, especially listing out "this annoyed me so I didn't want to associate" is pretty vulnerable. I don't disagree with this comment at all so it's interesting that I think this I guess.
I happen to have known of your writing before but honestly this comment gives me a bit of pause lol. I would have considered an em-dash in online text "not getting the memo" as often other "AI-ish signs" are not as clear and blatant. Random people who see your writing won't know you (generic you) used it back in 2015.
And yes I find there is way too much spam/scam/AI generated text online nowadays to not skim over a lot.
'parrot' is taken an insulting term to seem like it's a repetitious mixer with nothing new. Now with coding agentic capabilities + the coiner of the term appearing smug/ignorant in interviews, it seems very empty now. I'm not even sure "markov chains are powerful tools" would be agreed upon much either, back then when that was the best we had, it was impressive to make only a semblance of sentences but mostly used for parody purposes.
Put in another way "parrot" < "just autocomplete" < "super autocomplete" in that clearly emotional connotation in the first two is misleading (as in, you wouldn't be able to realize its power in computer use/hacking, unless you already had some intuition for this).
Well, you say "risks confusing someone into agreeing", but I bet someone using this tactic thinks of it as a positive outcome, "even though" it's dishonest if they gave it some thought. Or maybe not even considered fully dishonest, in the sense that whenever some 'unpopular' topic can come up (especially in a public online environment) things can get very easily derailed by other participants to latch onto (if you believe this unpopular thing is true then it is unpopular due to some 'currently dominating' negative connotation or view you find unjustified).
I find this unsurprising and it's odd to even pose as a question. Reading older confident GPT-3-quality LLM's that don't know what it's talking about, reading tons of mediocre spam by online people copypasting LLMs, plus of course the default style being close to journalist quality sludge that was already mediocre when humans were writing it, don't give a good impression of the quality. If you actually want to read it request a denser or different style.
Count me (level 2 aphantasia, vivid dreams, if that matters at all) as no mindscape as well I guess. I feel like my mind is supposed to be this excellent thing that can get any info at any time (even if this is not true in ways like, I don't think I could list literally every aspect of a game without forgetting a little bit), if you asked me about a game mechanic or anything, so dimensionality feels like it's not how I'd picture it.
Despite being recent, this article feels like I could have read it before, and I don't really agree with it overall, it's written in like, a vague 'bothsidesist' voice, for giving examples more specific would make the article or author's viewpoint appear too obviously slanted. (and you can write these articles in ways that respect their viewpoints more...) like for example, very commonly "anti-education" and "anti-science" are specific claims of corruption and mismanagement that people also believe spoil the entire group.
Because like, for me it's very emo...
Hey, glad you saw my post and all that. Yes, I know about religion and people having unexplainable supernatural experiences. I don't have anything like that, and I think people who daydreamed up a supernatural experience shouldn't have literal certainty, just high confidence. (you'd also expect some high inconsistency in people who recount supernatural events. which unfortunately is probably true for qualia currently too, due to similar levels of how society spreads beliefs)
There is irony in using 'convert' when I was unconverted from believing these thing...
Hi, I was doing research on consciousness-related discussions, blah blah blah, 3 months old, would just like to reply to a few things you mentioned.
I know for certain that consciousness and qualia exist. I used to 'fall for' arguments that defined consciousness/qualia/free will as delusions or illusions because they were unobservable. Then, years later, I finally understood that I had some doublethink, and that these words actually were referring to something very simple and clear with my internal experience. I believed that the words were "meaningless" ph...
Beyond the classic rhetorics that can happen with 'possibilities', hypotheticals, and very very high values, I definitely don't resonate with the examples here.
- The human world is deeply broken in coordination problems, not even able to fix many human suffering problems, so the path to (non-human) animal suffering might actually be to fix all human suffering first, whereas "therefore we should all be working on animal suffering" does not imply.
- The simulation hypothesis implies consciousness can be created from simulation which may not be true at all, the nu
... (read more)