zurew

What do you think about an AI that was made by Aliens (maybe possibly millions of years ago)? I think the probability to encounter a highly advanced AI (that was made by an intelligent alien race) is more likely compared to encountering face to face with an alien race. You can have certain alien races going completely extinct and still lefting behind an intelligent AI that slowly travels through the universe looking for intelligent life.

Becuase you purposefully phrase things in an adverserial and controversial and simplistic way and then after that you act like you wanted an honest inquiry into whatever topic that you bring up. This highlights how you engage with ideas: You don't dissect them, you don't contemplate about them, you don't think critically about them, you fish for a guy with credentials who reinforces your already existing biases about a topic. but regardless.. This guys PhD has literally no bearing on anything. He makes statements that are outside of his wheelhouse so just because he says things you agree with and click with your biases you act like you care about PhD-s when in reality, if I would bring another PhD who says the complete opposite, you wouldn't move or reconsider your position at all.

@Danioover9000 John and Daniel collab is really cool , good share! I hope they will collab more in the future, because these topics are extremely valuable. The more they get to know each other and each of their frameworks and works and word usage, the better and more deeply they can engage and converse with each other in the future.

Ohh okay, then thats makes it much more clear.

Where is the sophistry? I have never ever seen from literally anyone before making as deep and as coherent of an analysis of our structural and systemic problems before as Daniel and as other game B people did. Never seen anyone laying out the concept of moloch and the multipular trap problem etc, all I have seen is certain people and experts giving incredibly naive and reductive solutions to problems that they don't even understand in depth and breadth themselves. I have also never seen anyone as passionate about trying to understand and solve these problems as Daniel is. He is paying a lot of money hiring teachers that can help him understand certain facets and aspects of the problems, he is hiring people for certain positions , he is networking incredibly hard to connect to as many relevant people as possible to elevate his understanding and to make the collective intelligence network constantly bigger which also entails connecting the right people to each other.

Its easy to get triggered especially when it comes to certain heavy topics. I think a good foundation would be something like this, but its obviously hard to follow and this can only work if the other person is good faith as well: 1) If you feel really distressed and or emotional - stop engaging with people on the topic and try to relax a bit until you feel more grounded emotionally. 2) If you sense, that certain people are triggered about certain things to do point that its almost impossible to have a reasonable back and forth with them - stop engaging with those people until they cool down. 3) Always seek clarity and understanding: In the middle of the discussion if you feel confused you can always ask "what is that you try to establish with your argument?" Be clear to yourself and to your interlocutor whats your goal in the discussion and then ask the question if its necessary whats your interlocutor's goal in the discussion. This will give a clear frame and context how to interpret your interlocutors points and thoughts. When someone says something that seems incorrect or stupid on its face - try to give them the benefit of the doubt and ask clarifying questions if that person actually meant what you think he/she meant. Try to reiterate the other person's position in your own words to demonstrate how much and how well you understood his/her points Ask them to reiterate your points in their own words to see what and where the misunderstanding or disagreement actually is. 4) Try to steel-man the other persons position to the best of your ability to demonstrate that you try to be good faith.

sorry, didn't know.

Warning for everyone: Only click on this link if you have a stomach for brutal gore. [removed link by mod]

Without clear and well structured thoughts, you will have a hard time articulating them clearly. Ideally you don't want to organize your thoughts on the go. One thing that I haven't seen mentioned here is the learning of propositional logic. You can learn it in a few days and it will be very helpful because it will teach you a formal and rigorous way to structure your thoughts. Im not suggesting to try to use it here or to from now on only communicate using that kind of formality, but I would suggest to play with it for a while, because it will teach your brain to cut the nonsense and bullshit and to try focus on the essence of things. It will also help you to build and to read the inferences and the connections between premises better - basically it will help you to organize your thoughts about a topic, before you want to speak on it. My other advice would be to try to make analogies in a context that your listener is well-versed in.

I think the term "understanding" is way too vague and broad here and that will be a problem. There are different types of understanding and those require different set of practices. For example what do you care about here? Do you care about embodied understanding (in other words your ability to do or practice something) or do you care about intellectual understanding or both? If the answer "I care about both" in that case I wouldn't seek one formula, but multiple formulas that will be good in their specific domain. There is almost always a cost to generalities, and the cost is that often you won't improve as much or maybe at all at certain specific domains and you will only improve at a slow rate at most domains. .... That all being said here is a list of things that could be helpful in the vast majority of cases: - You need to know how to properly measure your progress: This is extremely crucial and you need to be very clear with yourself. You need to find the most relevant variables and you need to know how to properly contextualize the weight and the sum of each of those variables. So for example when it comes to chess, if you want to use elo as a variable to rate your progress, that case, do you actually know what that is measuring in the context of practices? For example can you tease out from elo rating alone how much and what kind of practice someone has done? - Frequent feedback: You want as much feedback as possible and as frequently as possible. Basically the more data you have/gather about yourself the better. This could also mean very subtle self reflection where you map out exactly where your limitations are. It can be done by asking experts to give you high quality feedback or it can be done by you experimenting on your own self. - Always challenge yourself: You want people who will constantly challenge your weakspots. You need to seek for people who are much knowledgeable and or better than you at that specific task. - Drop all the assumptions you have about the specific domain and look up all the facts about how you can become better at it: You need to be brutally honest with yourself here - what is that you actually know vs what is that you just assuming/guessing. Do you actually know what practices will yield the best results? Just because you look up the best people in a specific domain that does not mean you actually know what practices had the most significant weight on their improvement. Also, different people might need different practices compared to others to get to the same level. For example maybe someone has the assumption that when it comes to boxing the most improvement will come from hitting the bag and therefore this guy will spend 80% of his time hitting bags. But it might be the case that sparring has much more weight when it comes to boxing improvement. - Always be aware of marginal utility: For the purpose of this discussion we can define utility as "a variable that will help you improve your understanding at a specific task". Basically, when you want to be good at something there will be a set of practices that will be good for you, but not all practices will have the same utility over time. For example lets take programming. You can divide programming into many smaller tasks that all programmers do either periodically or all the time. For example all programmers need the ability of writing on the keyboard, so lets say you are exceptionally bad at it and you can only write 20 words per minute so you start to practice. Lets say after 2 years of hardcore keyboard typing practice - now, you can write 220 words per minute. Now remember that in this example what you want is being a better programmer. Further improving your typing speed from 220 word per minute to 290 word per minute will have close to zero impact on your overall ability of programming, but initially when you could only wrote 20 words per minute , at that time typing practice had much more impact on your overall programming ability. So basically typing practice lost its utility over time and now to improve your programming ability further you need to allocate your time more intelligently and you need to replace your typing practice with a different one.

Is that actually his position on this matter or is that just a marketing strategy or some kind of a virtue signal ("look im not a sheep) to reach a bigger audience? Both cases are bad, but the difference is that in the first (where he genuinely believes it) he is making very weak and bad inferences and logical jumps - shortly cant figure out whats up because his bias ; in the second case he is actually a bad faith and greedy actor.

There will be such a thing as genetic engineering, but even without that, we still yet to know what human nature actually is. What certain is that if we change the environment, we change as well. Create environment A - you produce peaceful monks. Create environment B - you produce terrorist.

Typically its grounded in sentience. Basically If you have some empathy and know whats it like to be hurt, then you unnecessarily don't want to hurt other beings that are capable of being hurt. Yes, you are atypical. Most people wouldn't kill a person for 50 euros, even if they would know 100%, that they could get away with it.

I disagree, because I talked about subjective morals but its not even necessary to solve this disagreement to establish what I want. What I would be curious is for you to show what is irrational about this premise: Person x has the value of deeply caring about reducing animal suffering. He didn't choose this value, he just knows that he has this value. This person organize his life in a way,where he wants to reduce animal suffering as much as he can. Appreciate that you engaged with the hypothetical and didn't dodge it. I wouldn't consider you sadistic, but I would consider you incredibly atypical and a sociopath for sure and this not supposed to be intended as an ad hom, but as a description based on your response to the hypothetical. By sociopath I mean having no empathy. Maybe you do have some empathy but then it has to be incredibly low. Few things here: - Again this assumes that one can choose his/her values, but I disagree with that. Can you show me how this is being done? Like how could a person have value x and then willingly change that value to the opposite? More precisely how can one willingly go from having the value of "I care about reducing animal suffering" to "I care about increasing animal suffering"? - What is the 'brain not going in your way' means there? You mean reducing your ability to survive or what? I didn't talk about you, because you are obviously an atypical person - I talked about the vast majority of people. When most people pressed about their views why they care about humans in a way where they normally don't want to kill them or hurt them - the honest reasons given for that will be typically grounded in values that won't exclude non-human animals.

I think most game B people agree with that including Daniel. I think most of them have the position of trying to put down the groundwork for game B in their lifetime if they are lucky. For example here in this video Jordan Hall (one of the game B guys) agree with John Vervaeke's notion of a cathedral mind, which means this: "Start building a cathedral with the full knowledge, that you won't see its completion". Its timestamped.

@Schizophonia You are not a nihilist. A nihilist wouldn't care about any value more than any other value , but you do care about following your own interest which in and of itself a subjective value that you optimize/strive for. You calling other people irrational who seem to follow other subjective morals compared to you, seem to be a contradiction on your end (or if not a contradiction it makes you irrational according to your own definition, if you define irrational as following subjective morals) because you follow a subjective moral system of "following one's own interest". My hypothetical included that you won't get caught. So here is the hypothetical: if you kill a person you get 50 euros or dollars without any possibility of being caught. This hypothetical includes that you will only get that 50 euros if you actually kill that person. Do you kill that person for 50 euros or not? and why or why not? The answer to such a question will be grounded in a moral system, but here is the thing: If I ask you "Why should I only do things that I benefit from" - for that question the answer will also be grounded in a subjective moral system. ..... I think this is the crux of this whole thing: For some reason you think that people who are ethical vegans choose their morals for themselves but I don't think thats the case. Its just that when you start to examine very deeply what you actually care about, a lot of people bottom out at caring about animals ,because they also care about humans and you need big mental gymnastics to reason your way out in such a way where you can care about humans but not about animals. Now the point is that I don't think you can choose what you deeply care about, but you can deeply examine yourself and find out what you actually care about. Now once one knows what he/she actually deeply cares about ,there is nothing irrational about following such a thing. Its just as simple as "I deeply care about x, therefore I protect x or optimize for x".

Following ones interest is a moral system in and of itself and its called:Ethical egoism. Where the highest good is defined as acting according to your best interest. Also depending on how wide you define "following one's interest", it can suddenly become almost completely identical to a group's moral system where following your own interest will include other peoples and other beings interests, because your very existence relies on other beings and agents. I don't buy though that you don't have any values and I would like to test it. Lets say there is a person who has 50 dollars in his pocket and you have the option to kill that person in such a way where you won't be caught. Do you kill that person or not and why?

How the world is run is different from all the possible ways - how the world could be run. Do you assert that a game B world is highely unlikely or that it is impossible? Because if you claim that it is impossible, then I would be interested in the justification for that.

Morals only make sense in the context of you having an ability to choose between options. If you lack that ability, then you are not considered a moral agent. Its not about limiting its about finding your values and then being consistent with your values. If you know that you care about x value the most, then why not make a coherent system that will protect that value or a system that will produce the most amount of that value? You make decisions about a ton of things all the time and you either have a well thought out system that is consistent with your values that you care about or you make your decisions on a whim based purely on your emotions/instincts (which, ironically, would be irrational) But the bottom line is this: You can either be systematic about your decisions or you can be impulsive about it. Again, its not really about depriving its about systematically choosing between a set of given options based on your previously thought out morals. With your "no morals" argument you concede every ground to judge any action or any lack of action in any manner whatsoever, because with "no morals" you essentially claim there is no standard to judge or go by. So when you say this x action or lack of action is "stupid" or "irrational" those all become meaningless words. Person x deeply cares about animal suffering and when he sees/hears/knows about animal suffering it makes him feel extremely bad. Now according to you its irrational for him to stop eating meat even though when he does eat meat , it creates unnecessary suffering for him. Sounds like a good reason for that guy to act according to his values.

Whats scary to me is that we yet to see if we have other things,that we have been collectively suppressing. Big, giant collective shadows coming to the surface in a short timeline could be disastrous as fuck.

Lot of confidence , lot of smugness , but is there any substance? lets test it! From that wall of text it seems to me you don't know what morality is. So what do you think morality is and then answer this: what is irrational about morality?

Please stop with this kind of thinking and stop looking at Jacksonhinkle's twitter who is notorious for posting misinformation. Using an AI as an absolute authority to determine whether something was or wasn't generated by AI is just silly and stupid. You only need 1 false positive or 1 false negative and this AI's authority is completely undermined. And the fact of the matter is that that AI gave contradictory answers to the same given image multiple times so its unreliable. ...... But even without testing it the fact that someone would use an AI tool like that to with 100% confidence dismiss something is incredibly superficial and potentially disgusting and disrespectful if the pictures are real, so why even risk being that hurtful to other people? - like imagine seeing your burnt baby being posted on the internet and then see people dismissing it using an AI tool that says "its fake". You can easily disagree or condemn Israel's actions without any need to rely on silly AI tools and without any need to dismiss potential true pictures about what Hamas did.

I suspect you don't really mind being called nice, I think what you are essentially searching for is being charismatic, so that people will take you more seriously or will take you as a more serious character.

I would be careful with what "supporting Hamas" actually means. Do they support Hamas or "supporting hamas" means they support firing back at Israel? Because those two are different and it would be interesting to see how the survey was conducted so that we can know what people were actually voting for and how those questions were phrased. Or if I were to ask them do you support Hamas or a 2 state solution and if they were to answer 'Hamas', does that really mean that they support Hamas or does that mean more like they support Hamas over a 2 state solution? Also it would be interesting to see how big the sample size was. Just to be clear - I will easily concede that it could be the case that there are that many Palestinians who support Hamas - I just know that these surveys can be misleading depending on how the questions were phrased and on how the survey was conducted.