I'm a lifelong US citizen and burst out laughing at this. What values? What coherence?
Do you mean the NSA man-in-the-middleing all that traffic and leaving a backdoor for Mossad? Imagine the most despicable possible invasion of privacy and the most reprehensible shadow oppression and manipulation of an uneducated populace you can conjure up.
Now imagine something way worse than that. This is America.
Note that in 36 odd states in the USA companies and their officers (i.e real people) cannot boycott Israel (or even say nasty things) and then do business with the state.
But if you say the American government is occupied by zionists loyal to a foreign government, that's "hate speech" and would land you in prison if not for the enduring strength of the first ammendment (which several Europeans ITT think is bad, because they think "hate speech" is bad and they lack the mental fortitude to admit that sometimes right wing meanies might actually have a valid point.)
Yet another illusion. A lot of Americans are very good at finding ways to persecute people for having an opinion, often using economic consequences as a cudgel to enforce groupthink. And, at this very moment, the government is compiling lists of people it regards as enemies, purely on the basis of their "free" speech.
No need to wait: they've already fried themselves out of the evolution game with STDs. Any child they have will likely be retarded or diseased in some way.
Don't forget to include alcohol as a drug - "fetal alcohol spectrum disorders", FASDs, are a real thing.
The likely outcome is that 99.99% of humanity lives a basic subsistence lifestyle ("UBI") and the elite and privileged few metaphorically (and somewhat literally) ascend to the heavens. Around half the planet already lives on <= $7/day. Prepare to join them.
I don't understand. In this hypothesis, in the elite's view, what is the purpose of the rest of society? If everyone has little to no productive output, why would they support us with a UBI? They could just hire whatever human skeleton crew they'd need to sustain their activities (if needed). The rest of humanity could be either mercifully left alone with absolutely nothing, or annihilated.
Humans are here to create the Training data to bootstrap the system
Luckily we’re already most of the way there!
Over half of the population has been instrumented already to collect all their behavior data worldwide
That’s been the goal: persistent collection of training data should come out of your day-to-day life in order to bootstrap the action systems that are machine based
The challenge now is that most of that data is based on actions we don’t want machines to do
I'm definitely making certain assumptions, such as: (1) democratic rule endures, (2) even absent true democratic rule, the populace can still resort to violent rebellion as a failsafe, (3) psychopathic tendencies amongst said elite are constrained enough such that mass genocide remains sufficiently psychologically unpalatable, (4) economic calamity substantially precedes the deployment of fully autonomous policing, etc.
How this all unfolds is absolutely path dependent.
I agree. Although, looking at these assumptions, subjectively I think that all four of them are in question, and as time passes, their eventual long-term failure seems increasingly likely. Even if one of these four pillars persists, I would expect an overall worsening by default. If democratic rule persists in places, the most powerful would occupy places where it does not exist, or create fully private states, still wielding enormous power over democratic states through wealth and military might. If violent rebellion is technically possible, a middle ground will be carefully calculated where the lower classes are kept on life support with the minimum amount of resources required to dissuade unrest. If the trillionaires of tomorrow suddenly start caring about other people, they could employ second-order measures to effectively reduce the population, thereby safeguarding themselves - massively constraining or removing the supply of food, water, medicine, any vital technology that would be only available to them. I don't see how an economic crisis would prevent automated enforcement, it may only delay it a bit.
Hope is kind of in short supply nowadays. Even if your hypothesis of absolute-automation doesn't happen within our lifetimes, things seem to be guaranteed to get worse for people like us. If it does happen... we'll likely never reap any real rewards from it, barring a complete restructuring of our whole society to an extent that has never happened and likely would never be allowed to happen.
The cynical pessimist in me agrees with you that the odds are somewhat bleak. The slightly irrational optimist in me says "rage against the dying of the light".
Also, there has never been a better time to learn about philosophies that get at the essence of being human and that elucidate precisely how and why our baser characteristics (acquisitiveness, status-seeking, ego, etc) hold us back from being happy. The world we're heading towards will convert desire into suffering more readily than ever before, even as our basic needs are easily met. Philosophy is the cure. And I strongly believe happiness will remain accessible to those who embrace it.
Agreed. The quality of life bar will be higher for sure. But it will still technically be a "subsistence" lifestyle, with no prospect of improvement. Perhaps that will suffice for most people? We're going to find out.
Her criticism is purely about the man, not Feynman as a physicist, a thinker, or a teacher. Feynman was probably on the spectrum and he had a lot of problematic behaviors. That doesn't meaningfully alter the core of his legacy.
It's also not terribly insightful to point out that a great figure from history was deeply flawed. If anything, that's so common as to be nearly guaranteed.
I don't think you actually watched the video? Nearly all of the criticism is about the myth creation around him with a short bit at the end mostly praising him as a person
It's almost like a lot of our technologies were pretty mature already and an AI trained on 'what has been' has little to offer with respect to 'what could be'.
> If or when that happens, I think the economy would morph into a new thing completely focused on serving the whims of those "owners."
I think you might be a little behind on economic news, because that's already happening. And it's also rapidly reshaping business models and strategic thinking. The forces of capitalism are happily writing the lower and middle classes out of the narrative.
>> If or when that happens, I think the economy would morph into a new thing completely focused on serving the whims of those "owners."
> I think you might be a little behind on economic news, because that's already happening. And it's also rapidly reshaping business models and strategic thinking. The forces of capitalism are happily writing the lower and middle classes out of the narrative.
No, that doesn't surprise me at all. I'm basically just applying the logic of capitalism and automation to a new technology, and the same thing has played out a thousand times before. The only difference with AI is that; unlike previous, more limited automation; it's likely there will be no roles for displaced workers to move into (just like when engines got good enough there were no roles for horses to move into).
It's important to remember that capitalism isn't about providing for people. It's about providing for people with wealth to exchange. That works OK when you have full employment and wealth gets spread around by paying workers, but if most jobs disappear due to automation there's no mechanism to spread wealth to the vast majority of people, so under capitalism they'll eventually die of want.
Then don't look? We're all monkeys who are naked under all these clothes. Just focus on yourself and do your business and maybe do a little personal work if you're traumatized by exposed body parts.
Have you? As in, ever considered how that doesn't actually matter? That the bad thing does not imply or justify this response?
Their victimhood, whatever form it happened to take, is not everyone else's problem such that a shared space has to cater to their problem.
How brutal and uncaring right? I think this kind of argument comes from a position of equating this consideration with wheel chair ramps and navigation aids for the blind, which are good and proper things. But this is not like that.
Anyone can have a psychological problem with literally anything. For everyone that was harmed by sex, someone else was harmed by cars or simple non sex violence or not harmed by anyone at all but they simply have a problem of their own like autism etc. I was beat up and made to feel powerless a couple times as a kid. Therefor gyms should not allow there to be more than one other person around me, no groups of 3 or more, way too threatening. And no one else can be larger or stronger than me. Obviously absurd. But I was actually at other people's mercy and totally powerless while other people violated my body.
But ok let's grant that sex is somehow a special problem that is worth giving special treatment even if we can't give everyone else with all the other infinite problems the same consideration, ... wait that is pretty hard to grant even just for the sake of argument just so we can move on to the next argument. It doesn't hold water and won't go away... F all the people with any other problem that just doesn't happen to stem from sex and move on ... because we're good considerate people?
Anyway the next and more important question is, ever considered that that trauma only happened in the first place because of a society that treats this topic in such a warped way? Instead of a frank, adult, conscious, lack-of-all-charge way?
No, this is just not a valid argument. And it's not from not caring about the victim. It's that it doesn't even help the victim or have anything to do with them or what happened to them or the process of dealing with it after.
Easy there cowboy, this isn't a 'safe space' argument, this is an argument for preference. You are more than welcome to gallivant around while publicly nude, while others are more than welcome to prefer not to. That's really the crux of it.
If it's just a preference, then why mention the trauma at all? What bearing does it have, if not to try to give your "preference" the weight of a harm to justify getting your way when otherwise there would be no reason you should get your way?
"I can't control my reaction to someone else's body because trauma."
has an awful lot in common with "I can't control my reaction to someone else's body because male biology."
This trauma argument is the same as dudes that claim breastfeeding is vulgar and intolerable because they just can't be expected to control themselves in the presense of an uncovered breast.
And of course, this is also not just a preference. It's an attempt to justify something by having a stronger argument than a mere preference, namely a trauma.
But let's just pretend you didn't try to wield trauma as a club. It's bad faith argument forgiveness day.
No few people have a "preference" that babies should not exist on planes or in restaurants because they don't like the sound of them crying or their smells.
All the men of whole countries have a preference that women just shouldn't exist anywhere out in public.
And of course the breastfeeding already mentioned.
I would call all of those invalid but hey I'm just a "cowboy".
I'd like to be the first one to add a comment in agreement.
Having had a high number of uncomfortable experiences in nude-allowed locker rooms, it's nice to know there are spots where I don't need to be subjected to it if I prefer not to.
> Maybe most men don't want to see other men naked?
Don't look then? No one is forcing you to look anywhere else than what you're doing. It always struck me as strange that people seem disgusted/disturbed/annoyed by something yet they're unable to look away and focus on their own business instead.
Tell that to old Joe Dangly-sac using the hand air dryer to blow the water off his old sagging balls.
I walked in on that the first time I ever used a public gym and that shit is seared into my memory--that was enough to turn me off of the locker room for some time and you know what, I don't miss it.
More often than not, pub[l]ic nudity is innocuous, nothing remarkable, but there will always be the outlier that spoils the rest of the bunch by doing weird shit with their genitals, be it drying them where theyre not supposed to be dried (see above), touching themselves in a sexual manner (seen it in a few different locker rooms, and of course the old naked men who are more than friendly to younger, naked men.
I for one say good riddance to the nude locker room. Fuck that shit.
Sometimes I wonder how people walk through life so shielded from anything. You've seen another man naked for the first and only time, and it's "seared into my memory"?
I've been in locker rooms for 40 years, and have seen someone touch themselves in a sexual manner once, across 40 years. I've seen more people masturbating in public streets than in any locker rooms. Pretty crazy how people can go through life with so different experiences.
I think what you're missing here is that China would be (is?) happy to fund the development, because it's in their national interest and necessary in order for their companies to stay competitive, so long as there are trade restrictions on chips. Another framing for this is that China and certain other entities (e.g. content distribution channels like Meta, Youtube) have a strong incentive to 'commoditize their [AI] complement' (https://gwern.net/complement).
I'm a lifelong US citizen and burst out laughing at this. What values? What coherence?
Do you mean the NSA man-in-the-middleing all that traffic and leaving a backdoor for Mossad? Imagine the most despicable possible invasion of privacy and the most reprehensible shadow oppression and manipulation of an uneducated populace you can conjure up.
Now imagine something way worse than that. This is America.
reply