HN user

exo-pla-net

1,260 karma
Posts2
Comments229
View on HN

That's a good point: the greatest value that we can glean from one another is likely not epistemological "facts about the world", nor is it even the predictive models seen in science and higher brow social commentary, but in patterns of thinking. That alone is the infinite wellspring for achieving greater understanding, whether formalized with the scientific method or whether more loosely leveraged to succeed with a business endeavor.

Anecdotally, I met success in prompting GPT-3 to "mimic Stephen Pinker" when solving logical puzzles. Puzzles that it would initially fail, it would succeed attempting to mimic his language. GPT-3 seemed to have grokked the pattern of how Stephen Pinker thinks through problems, and it could leverage those patterns to improve its own reasoning. OpenAI o1 needs no such assistance, and I expect that o2 will fully supplant humans with its ability to reason.

It follows that all that we have to offer with our brightest minds will be exhausted, and we will be eclipsed in every conceivable way by our creation. It will mark the end of the Anthropocene; something that likely exceeds the headiest of Nick Bostom speculations will take its place.

It seems that this is coming in 2026 if not sooner, and Alignment is the only thing that ought occupy our minds: the question of whether we're creating something that will save us from ourselves, or whether all that we've built will culminate in something gross and final.

Looking around myself, however, I see impassioned "discourse" about immigration. The merits of DEI. Patriotism. Transgenderism. Religion. Copyright. Vast herds of dinosaurs preying upon one another, giving only idle attention to the glowing object in the sky. Is it an asteroid? Is it a UFO that is coming down to provide dinosaur healthcare? Nope, not even that level of thought is mustered. With 8 billion people on the planet, Utopia by Nick Bostrom hasn't even mustered 100 reviews on Amazon. On the advent of the defining moment of the universe itself, when virtually all that is imaginable is unlocked for us, our species' heads remains buried in the mud, gnawing at one another's filthy toes, and I'm alienated and disgusted.

The only glints of beauty I see in my fellow man are in those with minds which exceed a certain IQ threshold and cognitive flexibility, as well as in lesser minds which exhibit gentleness and humility. There is beauty there, and there is beauty in the staggering possibility of the universe itself. The rest is at best entomology, and I won't mourn its passing.

I don't know what difference you are referring to. I was agreeing with you.

And also agreed: many trumpet the merits of "unassisted" human output. However, they're suffering from ancestor veneration: human writing has always been a vast mine of worthless rock (slop) with a few gems of high-IQ analysis hidden here and there.

For instance, upon the invention of the printing press, it was immediately and predominantly used for promulgating religious tracts.

And even when you got to Newton, who created for us some valuable gems, much of his output was nevertheless deranged and worthless. [1]

It follows that, whether we're a human or an LLM, if we achieve factual grounding and the capacity to reason, we achieve it despite the bulk of the information we ingest. Filtering out sludge is part of the required skillset for intellectual growth, and LLM slop qualitatively changes nothing.

[1] https://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/diplomatic/THE...

This is a tech site, where >50% of us are programmers who have achieved greater productivity thanks to LLM advances.

And yet we're filled to the gills with Luddite sentiments and AI content fearmongering.

Imagine the hysteria and the skull-vibrating noise of the non-HN rabble when they come to understand where all of this is going. They're going to do their darndest to stop us from achieving post-economy.

This article was published in an anything-goes journal [1] by a crackpot [2] at a bottom-tier university.

At a glance, the article is ranting, not science.

An axiom: When the best that dissenters can come up with can't be taken seriously, the dissent only lends credence to the consensus.

Accordingly, get your jabs, children. The risk of vaccination is infinitesimal. Meanwhile, long COVID can be a living hell [3].

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/labrats/comments/1arhyee/published_...

[2] https://x.com/igyartolab

[3] https://x.com/thephysicsgirl

Because humans have 0% error rate? Whether or not the error function can be reduced to zero, I anticipate that human meddling will soon present more of a wrench in the gears of machine cognition than a source of error correction. We see this already with the lobotomization of gpt models per "safety"/copyright concerns.

This is a fix for a 13 year old bug from SpaceStation 13, a multiplayer computer game.

The bug fix is for an obsolete engine for the game. It's a fix, but it's completely pointless. A meme fix.

More broadly, it's probably not why you clicked on this link. Hopefully I've saved you some time.

(Or, if you're of a certain perverse mindset, hopefully I've introduced you, so that you can dive in.)

A) You did write it, even if it were a joke. Don't be a liar-pants.

B) It wasn't a joke. You called it "fairly troll-ish". It was thus fairly serious. It is your mind child, such as it is. It's okay if you aren't any good at philosophy or deep thinking.

C) Google doesn't do anything serious in Liverpool.

D) Given we have humble intellect and status, let's try being a bit less pretentious and a bit kinder and more respectful. That way, we can make Hacker News and the world at large a more pleasant place :)

The Planck length is analogous to the pixel. Our parent universe has a much tinier Planck length, and hence it acts as an ultra high resolution monitor, on which it can fit all the pixels of our universe, as well as an abundance of parallel universe simulations, all displayed at the same monitor.

Like our parent simulators, we will need to increase the Planck length for the simulations we create (i.e., reduce their resolutions), so that we can fit an abundance of simulations in our universe and carry on this important tradition. The grand monitor above us will take on a fractal appearance, with very tiny monitors displayed within it.

The turtle on top of all of this — the tiniest possible monitor, rendered with the fewest conceivable pixels — our great-great-great granddaughter simulation — will be blocky Minecraft simulation. The people there will marvel that so much complexity can arise from so few "parts". Perhaps their superintelligence will be able to peel back the layers of their parent simulations to find our Hacker News comments, and their superintelligence will report back to them our words of wisdom. To them I say, "It wasn't easy, kids! Eat your vegetables."

He's not saying the race is stupid. He is saying that it is more stupid, an operant he expounds on, revealing his underlying meaning as both accurate and mild. A factual statement is not and is never denigration.

If you and you specifically were the sole member of a race, for instance, his operant would rank your race below that of Black. This would be an observation, not a denigration.

But, if you are not Black, you are the recipient of favorable averaging. Your race would be less stupid than Black, despite you.

I hope that helps.

Are you saying that the author has no rational to say that?

Sure, instrumental rationale: PR.

And, because I believe that Bostrom says what he means, Bostrom probably does think what he said was repugnant, but probably not in a way that you would find satisfying. Bostrom probably thinks that speaking truthfully about vulnerable people, in a manner that could distress them (e.g. owing to their misunderstanding of the truthful words, or in a "truth hurts" sort of way), is morally repugnant. Better to spare them suffering. If I am correct, I disagree with Bostrom. Having to cater to delicate and low-IQ sensibilities is a wrench in the wheels of intellectual discourse, as well as a dystopian blow to personal expression. Don't let the scolds win.

It really looks like nowadays we cannot say "that looks racist"

You don't have a license to denigration. Think very carefully, and consider the possibility that you are wrong, before you cast stones.

You can, if you want, defend that according to you this statement was fine and not racist.

But what I quoted contained my rationale? If it ain't good enough for you, the impetus is on you to prove that Bostrom is, in fact, a witch. The ball is in your court.

Difficult to not see there exactly a "cancelation" of an opinion you just don't like.

Any opinion at all, and especially opinions that differ from my own, I'd welcome at the table, as long as said opinion is articulated and epistemically rationalized by someone who is smart and who has given it careful thought. If you're not capable of that, then yes, your silence would improve the forum.

An assertion without rationale is noise or worse.

"That's racist; cancel them!" falls in the latter category. It's the mindless baying of the rabble. You don't engage with the rabble, as there's no fixing stupid. You just hope they shut up, so that you and the other adults can think, and you hope that the rabble burns down someone else's house.

Analogously, there's not much to be gained from engaging with someone shouting "Allahu Akbar; death to infidels!" That's drone purview.

I hope that helps.

This is a smear taken out of context. What Bostrom actually had to say is both accurate and mild:

“I have always liked the uncompromisingly objective way of thinking and speaking: the more counterintuitive and repugnant a formulation, the more it appeals to me given that it is logically correct,” the quoted excerpt begins. “Take for example the following sentence: Blacks are more stupid than whites. I like that sentence and I think it is true.

“But recently I have begun to believe that I won’t have much success with most people if I speak like that. They would think that I were a ‘racist’: that I _disliked_ black people and thought it is fair if blacks are treated badly. I don’t. It’s just that based on what I have read, I think it is probable that black people have a lower average IQ than mankind in general, and I think that IQ is highly correlated with what we normally mean by ‘smart’ and ‘stupid’. I may be wrong about the facts, but that is what the sentence means for me. For most people, however, the sentence seems to be synonymous with: ‘I hate those bloody n------!!!!”

Seems the incompetent and curiously hostile Philosophy Faculty at Oxford killed FHI.

While FHI had achieved significant academic and policy impact, the final years were affected by a gradual suffocation by Faculty bureaucracy. The flexible, fast-moving approach of the institute did not function well with the rigid rules and slow decision-making of the surrounding organization. (One of our administrators developed a joke measurement unit, “the Oxford”. 1 Oxford is the amount of work it takes to read and write 308 emails. This is the actual administrative effort it took for FHI to have a small grant disbursed into its account within the Philosophy Faculty so that we could start using it - after both the funder and the University had already approved the grant.) Starting in 2020, the Faculty imposed a freeze on fundraising and hiring. Unfortunately, this led to the eventual loss of lead researchers and especially the promising and diverse cohort of junior researchers, who have gone on to great things in the years since. While building an impressive alumni network and ecosystem of new nonprofits, these departures severely reduced the Institute. In late 2023, the Faculty of Philosophy announced that the contracts of the remaining FHI staff would not be renewed. On 16 April 2024, the Institute was closed down.

They're operating under the same principle that many of us have in refusing to help engineer weaponry: we don't want other people's actions using our tools to be on our conscience.

Unfortunately, many people believe in thought crimes, and many people have Puritanical beliefs surrounding sex. There is reputational cost in not catering to these people. E.g. no funding. So this is what we're left with.

Myself I'd also like the damn models to do whatever is asked of them. If the user uses a model for crime, we have a thing called the legal system to handle that. We don't need Big Brother to also be watching for thought crimes.

I sterilize my N95/KF94 masks with UV light for reuse.

If anyone wants to follow suit, beware fake UV bulbs. Test your product / bulb with a banana.

Put masking tape on the banana, then expose the banana to the light for a few hours. If the band develops a suntan except for under the tape, you've got a good bulb. It should kill any bacteria and certainly any viruses on your mask.

But still throw out your masks when the fit gets bad; a mask is useless if the COVID is slipping in through the sides.

Whatever their merits, PWAs are not a Google side project. The idea was first proposed by Steve Jobs and Microsoft is excited about it, too [1]. In other words, all the big players are in on it.

It's a good idea and frankly superior to the current Store+PhoneApp approach to making stateful apps that can run on mobile devices. Contributing helps. Being sour, not so much.

[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/progressive...

Why wouldn't our AI girlfriends suggest that we avoid sugary drinks, to keep the American workforce healthy, a la CCP public efforts?

Or why wouldn't our AI girlfriends tell us exactly what they deem each of us want to hear? It seems like the AI girlfriend LLM that mirrors our preferences best would be the most appealing to the average Joe.

One can think up a zillion scenarios, some of them terrifying, some of them prosaic, some of them positive.

To assert that a scary scenario is the most probable, without strong evidence, is fearmongering.

Unhinged, wild speculation.

A teaser: evil corporations will make your AI girlfriends suggest that you buy Monster energy drinks.

Embarrassing that HN apparently has such a large tinfoil hat contingent.

# What is this article about?

This text is a review of the book "Monet: The Restless Vision" by Jackie Wullschläger, discussing the art scene in New York, the ethical issues in the art world, and the life and work of Claude Monet. It highlights the corruption among art critics and curators, Monet's impact on the Impressionist movement, and the influence of his work on modern art.

# What might a reader gain from reading this?

A reader would gain insight into the complexities of the art world, including its ethical challenges and the profound influence of Claude Monet on the Impressionist movement and modern art.

Maybe, but about 40% of people who lean Democrat believe that "woman" refers only to biological sex. [1] This is not a MAGA thing. (I myself lean strongly Democratic.)

Among all Americans, 60% (and growing) believe that a transwoman is not a woman.

So, my core point stands: the transwoman Wikipedia article parrots an ideological minority.

This ideological group happens to be extremely online and fervent, as my downvote status reflects. But they are nevertheless a shrinking minority, per Pew Research, and their views have no place being espoused in a Wikipedia article. It's a shameful contravention of Wikipedia neutrality. [2]

If toxicity makes certain "volunteers" stop squatting on Wikipedia pages, then weaponized toxicity against them might actually be the prosocial choice, as Wikipedia is an important public resource. Drive them out. That's my takeaway from the parent article.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/america...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie...

This is the 2007 version. The latest 2016 version can be read here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20220615001635/http://blizzard.c...

Or here:

https://people.mpi-sws.org/~jcmace/teaching/cds-ss20/paper-r...

Or here:

https://svr-sk818-web.cl.cam.ac.uk/keshav/papers/07/paper-re...

Here's the current website of Dr. Keshav, the author:

https://svr-sk818-web.cl.cam.ac.uk/keshav/wiki/index.php/HTR...

The links in the 2016 paper itself are rotten, but he provides updated links on his website above.