Why do you believe that US government/military would not be convinced to invest more in AGI/ASI development from being convinced of the potential power in AI?
Possible to say anything more about the story?
Presumably the reason for such spam is that someone who's already been hacked once is more likely to be an easy target.
Re the straight male STEM nerds: shouldn't that be a good market for women who are into that stuff regardless, due to the uneven gender ratios? Like, if a community is heavily male dominated in the gender ratio, then presumably women in the community will need less traditional attractiveness to be competitive (relative to other communities), even if the guys primarily cared about traditional attractiveness?
Well, I'll give you some context. I am Scandinavian, and inclined to answer "no". Here's why:
Making my parents proud does not really feel like one of my main goals. I care about having a loving relationship with my parents, and I care about my parents being healthy, happy etc. I know they are proud of me, but it doesn't feel like an important goal in itself.
Note: They do have very similar values and we're all generally happy with the relationship.
Also, they don't have any narrow standards for being pleased, rather the opposite. Like, I have different views on politics and have made some life decisions they'd disprefer - but they are overall chill about that and don't really pressure me to adopt their views and preferred choices.
I suspect actually parents being less controlling of their kids in Scandinavia may be related to the lower emphasis on "making your parents proud".
"Counterargument: There are things that are illegal but which people don't really consider immoral, like stealing a notepad from your office. Taking depositor funds as a "loan" is worse than this, but of a similar status. There's a notion that "if you win, it's not unethical"—like the story (celebrated in business circles) of Fedex gambling their last $6,000 of investor funds in a casino, without which the company would've failed. It seems okay because of social context—the majority of cryptocurrency funds do this sort of thing."
The analogy here doesn't work. FTX wasn't a crypto fund but a broker. Unlike funds brokers are supposed to never invest the money they keep in custody. And it was even explicitly against FTX's terms and conditions, as well as SBF's lie where he said they didn't invest customer deposits all, not even in assets as safe as treasuries.
FTX is more like a bank taking the contents of their customers' safe deposit boxes, pawning them off and going to a casino to play with the money, and, in the most charitable interpretation, hoping to win enough to buy back the stuff before their customers notice.
Looks like some text is missing:
"I do not expect this to ... How expensive is doing it this way?"
Given that AFAIK there's been virtually no cases (1%?) among people who hadn't had sexual relations it seems like it transmits really ineffectively via non-sexual means. Why would it suddenly start infecting lots people in other ways, like via surfaces?
Re the nicotine restriction proposal: Smoking is a big deal though. It kills a lot more people than covid, and in slow horrible ways. If the proposal to ban nicotine in cigarettes works as intended it would save a ton of lives and prevent a ton of suffering. Few political proposals have had the potential to do that much good.
Ben just posted a reply to comments on his Palladium article, including the comments here on LessWrong.