I'll also note that the degree of suspicion and hesitation in the community seem actually sort of justified, in that there's been a string of broken promises between the mennonites and the Canadian government. From Macleans:

Our ancestors came from Europe, and when they settled in Canada, they negotiated a number of promises with the Canadian government—including educational independence. When some provinces later passed laws requiring Mennonite children to attend public schools, many families, wanting to hold tight to their religious and cultural identity, emigrated to South America.

Over the course of doing my reserach, I also found a significant number of stories of under-communicated or coerced vaccinations like this, set in the mid 20th century in Canada and up to the modern day in Mexico:

She remembers a public health nurse rolling into her Mexican hometown of Durango on horse-and-buggy with a cooler of vaccines. The nurse told Meggison’s mother to line up her 12 children in the yard, asked for their ages, and immunized them, without explanation.

“She didn’t know what had been given to her kids. She didn’t have the language skills to ask the questions,” Meggison said about her mother, whose primary language was Low German.

This seems like a terrifying thing to have gone through, and I understand how it could foster mistrust and give cover to more conspiratorial thinking.

Thank you for this comment! I think it clarifies some important things about what's actually going on on the ground level, and I genuinely appreciate the additional context.

However, I disagree that "the effect of occultism on the return of measles cannot be overstated". I feel like it is being overstated right now! People believe a lot of deranged things, but I believe that you are wrong about the extent that people are willing to choose those beliefs over the health and lives of their children and others in the community. I am not saying that this never happens, but I think it genuinely does not happen that often, and when it does it is genuinely contentious.

You can also reduce the amount it happens when you have nurses and support workers who understand the culture and can work with it. From the CBC interview:

TD: Can you give us a sense of why there's vaccine hesitancy in some Mennonite communities?

CF: The biggest thing is that they don't want to not trust God. So their faith has a lot to do with it. Once I was able to help a lot of them understand that God has created doctors for the purpose of helping them, they would listen a little bit more. 

TD: What lessons do you think you've learned working with Mennonite communities during this measles outbreak? 

CF: The biggest thing for us, my coworker and I, is to just get them to trust us. If they don't want to vaccinate, we respect that. Because they see that we respect their values, they start to really trust and understand that we're here to help them, not to hurt them.

From another interview she did earlier in 2025 for a Canadian magazine, Macleans:

When it comes to measles in particular, most families just don’t understand the seriousness of the condition. They think that, like chicken pox, contracting it will create immunity. They don’t know that measles could lead to other illnesses and be particularly harmful for children, whose developing bodies are more vulnerable to the infection and its complications.

and

This work has gone a long way. Clients come to us asking about measles and vaccinations after hearing about the severity of cases from their friends and family. We’ve had many productive conversations about immunization and how it intersects with religious beliefs and community health.

Many of my clients are trying to do what’s best for their families, and they respect authority as long as they feel respected in turn. They do, however, have internal struggles about whether getting vaccinated is a betrayal of their faith or whether it could cause harm. But once they’ve considered how immunization can help vulnerable people, some of them even feel a little embarrassed over how strongly they opposed it. All in all, we’ve managed to give at least half of our patients vaccines since I started working at the clinic—and the rate of vaccination has increased since the outbreak started.

Lastly, here is a passage from an article covering the outbreak in Alberta:

Proudly, she recalls seeing a lightbulb go off for one woman who described an epiphany in one of her recent groups.

“She said, ‘I can make decisions for my family, and it doesn’t have to be public knowledge. I can make these decisions and not share it with my family members if they ask and I can just say that’s my business,'” Meggison said, and described other women nodded in response to this passionate declaration.

This does not sound to me like a community that is lost to conspiracist thinking. It sounds like a community that is wrestling with live issues.

yep, several reasons:

• I actually like the opinionated curation and how the selection stretches well into the 20th century. I also appreciate that there are any women at all, and any non-western books. the great conversation now is not the one the dead white guys were having, mid-19th c.
• I appreciated each book being short, which meant that I can do an incredibly broad survey over the canon and then go back to authors that I turn out to unexpectedly enjoy. the other list has like a dozen authors?
• the Britannic list kind of sounds like a genuine slog! I would get like three hundred pages in and then give up for good. with the Penguin series I know that if I dislike a book, it'll be over with in a hundred pages. And the books are generally actually good reading.

two recent examples of cool ai art, related to dynamics i lay out in my theses!

• cannoneyed is using AI to make a giant isometric pixel art map of the entirety of NYC, because now a single person can take on a project with enormous scale: https://cannoneyed.com/projects/isometric-nyc
• newest rick owens show features hair done by someone who used ai to generate incredibly rick mullets on an instagram page, which rick owens found, indicating increasing amounts of transfer between ai artists and artists in more traditional media: https://www.gq.com/story/rick-owens-fall-2026-backstage (archive)
   

seconding this. I'm not entirely sure a fourth bullet point is needed. if a fourth bullet is used, i think all it really needs to do is tie the first three together. my attempts at a fourth point would look something like:

• the combination of these three things seems ill advised.
• there's no reason to expect the combination of these three things to go well by default, and human extinction isn't off the table in a particularly catastrophic scenario.
• current practices around ai development is insufficiently risk-averse, given the first three points.

Hey, I came across this post because it was cited (and rebutted) in the preface of the 2016 Oxford University Press edition of Famine, Affluence, and Morality. I thought it would be nice to provide the passage here. Here's what Peter Singer wrote:

One very welcome development in philanthropy since the publication of "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" is that today there is much more emphasis on evaluating what charities seeking to help the global poor actually achieve. A great deal of research has been done into the effectiveness of particular charities, enabling people to make better charitable choices and thus to do more good with the money that they donate. This research has shown that many early estimates of the cost of saving a life did not include all the costs involved, or were based on inaccurate estimates of how often a form of aid such as providing bednets to protect people against malaria actually saved a life.⁶ GiveWell, which has led the way in rigorously evaluating the cost-effectiveness of charities, estimates that although it costs the Against Malaria Foundation no more than $7.50 to provide and deliver a bednet to a family in a malaria-prone region of Africa, the cost of a life saved as a result of this distribution is $3,340. The difference reflects the fact that most bednets do not save lives (although some of them prevent debilitating but not fatal cases of malaria, as well as other diseases carried by mosquitoes). In general, GiveWell considers a cost of less than $5,000 per life saved an indication that a charity is highly cost-effective.⁷ That figure is, for most of us, much more than the cost of our most expensive suit or shoes, so it was a mistake to compare that cost with what we would need to spend in order to save the life of a child at risk from poverty-related causes. It remains true, though, that most people who are middle class or above in affluent countries spend much more than $5,000 on items that are not of comparable moral significance to saving a life. Moreover as Unger has shown with his story of Bob and the Bugatti, which I retell in "The Singer Solution to World Poverty," our intuitive judgment in situations where we can save a child in front of us is that we should be prepared to sacrifice possessions worth much more than our clothes, and even more than $5,000. The change in the cost of saving a life does not, therefore, undermine the fundamental moral argument of "Famine, Affluence, and Morality."

[6] For a critique of the pond analogy on these grounds, see Jonah Sinick, "Some Reservations About Singer's Child-in-the-Pond Argument," at http://lesswrong.com/lw/hr5/some_reservations_about_singers_childinthepond/, accessed August 9, 2015
[7] http://www.givewell.org/International/top-charities/amf. GiveWel considers anything under $5,000 per life saved to be good value, though the organization also cautions against taking such estimates too literally. For further discussion see http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/criteria/cost-effectiveness

here's the resource I like best, which is written by Dan Eth for bluedot impact: https://blog.bluedot.org/p/alignment-introduction?from_site=aisf

despite the fact that it's been two three(!) years, it still holds up well imo.

I also like Duncan's intro, but it's 8000 words long which makes me more disinclined to send it to people :T

https://homosabiens.substack.com/p/deadly-by-default

I liked Crawford's defense of slop and think both rebuttals missed the point of his argument.

I expect that high-level tastes... will not be satisfied by AI-assisted art unless either the AI or the human creator has high-level tastes as well

I agree with this; this is the case in all the other mediums (you can't create a good song, or ballet, or watercolour painting unless you have good taste) so I don't see why it wouldn't also be the case for AI assisted art as well.

One direction I think artists can take AI is to just increase the complexity of their pieces. No one is going to spend 5000 weeks creating a single work of art (the average human lifespan is 4000 weeks), but if a good artist can, with AI, create something in 50 weeks that would take them 5000 weeks without it, I would be interested in seeing the result.

I'm not sure, but I think it can be useful to think of it as one at least sometimes.

Thank you for creating and/or digging up all those gifs! I didn't mean to imply that it took the industry until the 50s to become functional and agree that many sorts of innovations happened from fairly early on.

To noodle on this a little more, doing the math, there were around seven years between the first Lumière shorts and A Trip to the Moon. But there's also other landmarks we can use for the basis of comparison. For example, if we use The Horse in Motion (1878) as our starting point, we might not expect anything super exciting to happen for a few decades more.