JumpCrisscross

Moonshot more than enough time

Genuine question: do you have a source for how long distilling Fable would take with preparation?

So no, you should not take something merely because it's "probably harmless"

You and I should not. But I'm also not going to bother correcting someneone taking homeopathy for a cold. It doesn't do anything. But unless it contains heavy metals, it also isn't hurting.

When I found ivermectin in my father's fridge, on the other hand, I absolutely asked him what he was taking it for. When I confirmed he's also taking real medicine, I dropped it provided he told his doctor in case there are drug interactions. (There aren't. Ivermectin is pretty safe. That's why the nutters congregate around it.)

Magnesium? Its widely known that magnesium is used by the body lol

Who disputed this?

What they “doubt” is that it can be absorbed through the skin

The science is helpful. Magnesium sulfate is absorbed less effectively than magnesium chloride. Of course, you're not eating the amount of Epsom salts one dumps in a bath.

And it is studied btw - problem is there are countless on both sides

This is why meta analysis exists.

slavery, extractive colonialism, punitive expeditions, etc?

You're seriously comparing intellectual property transgressions to slavery and colonialism?

"Samuel Slater (June 9, 1768 – April 21, 1835) was an early English-American industrialist known as the 'Father of the American Industrial Revolution', a phrase coined by Andrew Jackson, and the 'Father of the American Factory System'. In the United Kingdom, he was called 'Slater the Traitor' and 'Sam the Slate' because he brought British textile technology to the United States, modifying it for American use. He memorized the textile factory machinery designs as an apprentice to a pioneer in the British industry before migrating to the U.S. at the age of 21."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Slater

When was the last time you saw a completely open residential wifi access point in the wild?

I have family who get frustrated with their home Wi-fi and about every other year conclude the solution is to unsecure the connection.

https://archive.is/55Wnf

If you have a text-based source, I’m open. And I’ve watched the definition change over decades—I’m deeply sceptical you can find any experts in the field who would agree alignment is clearly and consistently defined.

Another straw man. Nobody argued self interest is the only motivation.

Airgapped is harder than you might think

Probably. The LG TV I have doesn't have cellular, but does have a removeable Wifi/Bluetooth module [1]. You have to disconnect a ribbon, unscrew the module and then pop it out.

[1] https://www.manualslib.com/manual/3140596/Lg-Oled83g3-Series...

Imagine if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never destroyed. People would be arguing that fear of nuclear war is "just another religion"

If Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Trinity never occured, that would be justified scepticism.

it appears that you think Slavery

This is a hyperbolic form of argument. (I'm also noticing this is a new account...)

“Maritime Republics” that issued letters of marque for privateers to attack and pillage enemy trade ships?

Straw man. You said "exploitation always provides better ROI than co-operation."

[EDIT: Deleted. Unsure if this is a troll account.]

You'd think there might be legal consequences

I own an airgapped LG TV. Does anyone actually want to go class action/mass arb?

this is another use of "think of the children" to make everyone identify themselves when signing up for anything

Nope. I'm pretty rabid when it comes to my privacy. But I also don't like Mosseri and Zuckerberg and Altman preying on kids.

I'd love a perfect solution. But I'll take a flawed one in its place. I've not seen a lot of productive pushback against these proposals beyond demonising all of the parents and other folks who think social media and its ilk have gone too far, unchecked.

it is also possible for the Kessler syndrome to propagate into other intersecting orbits (Highly elliptical orbits) and from there into yet other intersecting orbits

Countably, yes. Broadly, no–the energies prohibit it. (Plane changes are expensive.)

If orbital mechanics permitted such cascades, solar systems wouldn't exist. Everything would be scattered clouds of constantly-colliding debris–not a neat plane.

Did you mean to duplicate comments?

indicates your lack of understanding of my point

Sure. Help me understand. I've sat in policy circles and partaken in the hysteria, and now I'm reversing on that initial trust in AI zealots convinced what they're building is magic.

What laws? Be specific

Liability. Tort. The ones making their way through courts around e.g. ChatGPT killing kids.

Keep in mind the generally-low quality of both Microsoft Windows and much-to-most commercially sold software

Has anyone alleged Windows killed a kid in court? If not, not comparable.

the fear is that if we wait for this type of evidence, it will be too late

I could make this claim of anything. Not any technology. Literally, anything.

If we give anyone freedom, they'll eventually use it to ruin everything.

I'm simply arguing for something stronger than faith to cause action. Otherwise, this is just another religion.

You seem to be using a different definition of alignment from everyone else. Seems like it would be much easier for everyone if you just adopt everyone else's definition

You're still failing to provide the definition.

You're also falsely claiming your secret definition is universal. In this thread, someone claims deleting a home directory is a failure of aligment.

Exploitation always provides better ROI than co-operation

This is constructed nonsense. Literally upheld by the competitiveness of maritime republics over their neighbourhing land powers.

That is a lot of bold assertions without substance

Versus this comment?

Here's one: attention is a finite resource. Most people adjudicate their political attention precisely. Survey folks on whether Twizzlers or Red Vines should be banned and you'll get an answer. The fact that nobody acts on that impulse doesn't mean your republic is broken. It means that isn't a priority issue.

The practical example of this dilemma is foreign policy. Poll Americans about any foreign-policy issue and you'll see sharp divides. Put candidates in front of them that run on that issue and, nine times out of ten, outside I think twenty Congressional districts, it has no effect.

If you aren't weighting by issue magnitude, you're conducting propaganda. Pickety's research isn't total crap. But it isn't instructive for changing our system of government.

This is a true Scotsman’s fallacy. “Legitimacy” of self-interest is fluid and subjective

Legitimacy is the "alignment" question. We can't objectrively judge it, fundamentally, because it's an expression of values: to what degree do the society's system of incentives align with the greater good?

That isn't a No True Scotsman's fallacy, because there are true Scotsmen. Literally Scotsmen. And every other member of a complex society. Including, in all likelihood, you, a person who subjects themselves to laws and employment and fielty for reasons that are a mix of duty and self interest.

to give them benefit of the doubt, isn't it more responsible of them to evaluate the models actual capabilities than to cloak it in a veneer of harmlessness?

Why do we think they're doing this? Nobody airgapped anything. Nobody pulled any products. We got a PR blurb.

Altman is a notoriour liar. Why would you give him the benefit of doubt? Based on the evidence, there is nothing here except a shrinking advantage over open-weight competition. Desperate men are shrieking for survival.

Good. The motive makes sense.

If more people gave a shit about civically engaging on implementation, we'd be better off. But that isn't happening–there might be too much overlap between the civically disengaged and nihilistic and those who can advise on this. So, for the time being, we're stuck with medicore implementations. In the meantime, Zuckerberg and Mosseri can stop attacking children.

it's true of specific things, not specific epochs

It's true of all epochs. If it isn't in the indivdual interest of most people in a society to continue participating it, at a certain point, they don't.

If all the government did was collect 5% in taxes from everyone and use the money to prosecute murders and maintain bridges then the result would be a huge net positive

Most people obviously disagree. And for obvious reason. If you're my neighbouring sovereign doing this shtick, I can invade and extract a premium.

I’ll respond substantively, but wanted to make an aside: I love our discourse. Would you mind sharing where you spend most of your time? I’m between Jackson Hole, New York and the Bay Area for the most part.

sort of thing people generally mean when they say that someone acting in their own interest can be in your interest, and is the thing which is happening in the example from the thread

It's a single example of temporary alignment. Employment, citizenship and affiliation are non-kinship examples of more-durable bonds.

the practical implementations of all of those things are severely flawed to the point of questioning whether most of them are even net positive

We can debate that. What we can't debate is whether they work. Complex societies exist and work. Everyone who has a choice makes the choice, dominantly, to stay in them.

You have to pay taxes but have no alternatives on which jurisdiction to live in or who decides how much tax you pay or how the money is spent, what happens? You want to be hired or use the money you earn to buy something but there is only one employer and only one supplier of goods and services, what happens?

Sure. This is a modifier. It makes these other things work or not. Imagine a system with competition but no taxation. You lose public services. Same for competition without private employment–you're in a totalitarian state with a monopsony on labour.

Alignment is something you want, so if you're not confident that it's possible, that sure sounds like a problem

Sorry, I spoke inexactly. I read alignment as being the problem of non-alignment.

I'm still not seeing evidence that any "alignment" issues we've actually seen are distinct in class from common bugs. Like, yes, if I accidentally rm* the computer has mis-aligned with my intentions. But that strikes me as a bullshit neologism.

self-interest, aside for some narrow exceptions, is often in conflict with collective interest

Often, but not always. Successful societies amplify that exception. The whole notion of non-kinship based societies rests on mastering this alignment. When it collapses, so does the civilisation.

1 Million to me is always better than a 1 Million split with everyone

The benefits of co-operation mean the real trade-off is 1 million split five ways versus 100 to me. This was almost untrue in the age of conquest. It became barely true with industrialisation. It's massively true in the information age.