whack

the U.S. homeownership rate is 53 percent

I hope this number drops below 50%. Well below 50%. Maybe then we can finally vote down the NIMBY regulations and NIMBY politicians. And start rapidly expanding our housing supply. Given our current political system, it seems high homeownership rates are the root cause of the housing affordability crisis

Most unfortunately, it’s the truth value and the understanding which drive applications of mathematics, not the proof work itself. If the AI revolution decapitates the institution of mathematics which produces the understanding, and is unable to replace it, then the applications will cease as well.

In a world with no AI, it is vital for humans to understand math, in order to derive practical applications. But in a world where AI is able to both produce math theorems, and figure out practical applications for them, human understanding has minimal practical value to society.

The core thesis seems to be that the "real value" is not in producing/proving theorems, but in understanding them. AI might be good at producing and proving theorems, but it fails utterly at getting humans to understand them. Even worse, humans have no interest in working on theorems that have already been proven, so we end up with theorems that will never be understood by humans.

I can understand why this is a major concern for mathematicians. They got into their field because they love the beauty of mathematics, and the intellectual satisfaction of understanding non-obvious insights. But to put it crudely, this sounds like a you problem. As someone who isn't a mathematician, the main value I get out of math is its practical applications in science and technology. And their practical applications in human life. I have zero understanding of the math behind cryptography, but I still deeply appreciate the practical value they have provided humanity.

If AI systems start churning out accurate theorem-proofs, and we are able to use those theorems to build things that improve human quality of life, it doesn't bother me one bit that those theorems have not been understood by humans. If this offends your aesthetics, you are certainly entitled to your opinion and your preferences, but that does not make it a societal problem

There are 2 very different kinds of arguments. Arguments where you're trying to convince the other person. And arguments where you're trying to convince bystanders. These require completely different tactics.

If you're trying to convince the other person, be humble. Be gentle. Be subtle. Ask them questions. Let them think they came up with the idea entirely on their own. If any bystanders are watching this discussion, they are more likely to think that the other person is right, or that they are "winning". But this will give you the best possible chance of convincing the person you're talking to.

If you're trying to convince bystanders, project confidence. Present compelling evidence. Pick apart the other person's arguments and show why its flawed. Chances are, this will make the other person dig in even more strongly and resent you. But this will give you the best chance of convincing neutral bystanders.

Use the right tool for each job. If you're using "debate tactics" in a 1:1 discussion, you will never get the desired results, no matter how data-driven and logical your arguments are. I've made this mistake far too many times, and this seems to be what OP is getting at as well

This is a curious phenomenon that I've started to notice. People often post extremely aggressive comments... but it is still socially acceptable as long as their aggression is directed towards an abstract figure, or a specific person who "isn't in the room".

Whereas if someone replies to that aggressive comment with an equally aggressive comment, that is far less socially acceptable.

Once I noticed it, it's blindingly obvious. It's like going to a dinner party and complaining about your boss being a moron vs calling another guest at the party a moron. But for the longest time, I viewed internet forums as a place where everyone is "equally abstract" - and where the focus is on the exchange of ideas, not your personal relationship with the people behind the ideas. Hence why it took me an embarrassing amount of time to figure out this most basic of concepts

I don't see why having ASI would make the top 0.001% less interested in using the energy, minerals, and land on earth. Just because they have no interest in your labor doesn't mean they have no interest your house or your energy supply

If they have zero need for human labor, that implies that they have a limitless swarm of AI powered machinery that can build and do anything they want. Why bother trying to take your oil, when they can build a massive solar farm in the sahara desert. Why bother trying to take your house when they can live on a completely deserted private island

Imagine if the top 0.001% build and jointly own an ASI that makes human labor completely obsolete in every single way. This seems like the worst case scenario for the rest of us, right? Wrong. In this scenario, these 0.001% would not interact with the rest of us in any way. They will not hire us, they will not buy anything from us, and they will not sell anything to us either. After all, the rest of us are completely obsolete to them, so what benefit could they possibly have in interacting with us? They will just disappear to their own private heaven - perhaps in Mars, Atlantis, or the Metaverse.

At that point, from the perspective of the rest of us, they simply don't exist. And their ASI wouldn't exist either. We would get back to the world as it was pre-ASI. One where all of us need stuff that others among us can offer, and we hire one another and buy stuff from one another. Sure, things aren't as great as they could have been. But the status quo isn't the worst thing in the world either.

The scenario that is a lot more concerning/weird is the more realistic one, where ASI makes 99% of human labor obsolete - but not the remaining 1%. At that point, the ASI owners will hold American-idol style auditions where thousands of hopefuls vie for the opportunity to be in that lucky 1%. Auditions where we beg and plead shamelessly to be chosen by the ASI owners. Auditions where the losers are left to scrounge for the 2nd hand, 3rd hand, and 4th hand scraps, that trickle down from the 1%.

I hope to god that when an ASI is built, and in the unlikely case that it doesn't simply overthrow humanity, that we will have a political structure in place that gives everyone a meaningful share in the fruits of ASI. Or that the owners of this ASI consider every other human to be utterly useless, f off to their Randian paradise, and leave the rest of us completely alone. The middle ground between these two is where dystopia lives

the French said - something like - they should punch the police more and light things on fire.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this as well. Do these people want "punching the police and lighting things on fire" to be a freely permitted form of free speech?

If so, should anyone be legally allowed to destroy any amount of stuff, for any reason they feel unhappy about? Or is this a case of "blowing stuff up should only be permitted for causes I like, not for causes I dislike"?

If not, do they see the irony in endorsing behaviors that they simultaneously believe should not be legalized?

Yup. Like I said, I'm not arguing against any of it, or justifying what the cop did. Just funny that the article starts off by saying that the system is stacked against the accused, and immediately presents an example of a 100% guilty defendant getting off scot-free

I earn a small fraction of what NYTimes earns. If I'm not desperate, why are they?

With all due respect, you are not responsible for covering every single thing the Trump administration is doing and ensuring they are held accountable. While simultaneously satisfying customers who are used to getting endless content for free, and sniff their noses at paying $2/month.

The journalism business is a hard business. I may not agree with everything NYT does, they are most certainly not perfect, but they are operating in good faith and trying their best. Give them a break

Imagine being Andrew Tridgell and watching your inbox blow up today with thousands of emails from complete strangers, all just saying hi and wanting to casually chat with you. He's probably scratching his head right now and wondering what is going on

As a way around the constitutional requirement that they get warrants to search houses, the police were claiming that they were simply walking down the hallway when they looked in the window of our client’s apartment and saw him weighing and packaging cocaine in plain view. They also claimed that he was doing this with his apartment door open, so they hadn’t needed a forced entry.

Our client didn’t deny he was packaging cocaine at his kitchen table, but he insisted that he was not doing it brazenly in the open; that not only had he covered his windows with taped-up sheets and garbage bags, but he had closed and locked his door, as you might expect for someone engaged in illegal activities. We went to the CHA management offices, where they had records of giving Deuce citations for repeatedly covering up windows. We also talked to the maintenance man who had been assigned to repair Deuce’s door after his arrest. The maintenance crew had taken pictures that clearly showed damage to the doorjamb, backing up Deuce’s claim that the door had been kicked in.

We proved that the search and arrest were done in violation of the Constitution, and so the evidence collected during the arrest could not be used at trial. The charges had to be dropped.

TLDR: our client was guilty as sin. He admitted it. He was caught red-handed. He still got off scot-free.

Not arguing against any of the above. But this example hilariously contradicts the claim that "the system is stacked against the accused"

They (we) have to believe human brains still have value and find a way out; for otherwise there'd be no point to try anymore.

Our value isn't predicated on our utility. The simple fact that we are sentient beings, capable of joy and suffering, gives us value. This is why we continue to support and care for the elderly and the disabled - we value them regardless of any practical utility we may derive from them.

If you go through life believing that your value depends on your practical utility, then things like AI are an incredibly scary existential threat. But denial is not a healthy way to cope with this threat. The solution is to recognize the value inherent in us as humans, and to demand public policies that reflect this fact.

Let me guess. Anyone who hasn't been avoiding AI isn't "truly smart"?

There is a problem with the thesis that consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon. It implies that someone writing the "wrong" sequence of 0s and 1s, by hand, on a completely private journal, has committed a moral crime on par with slavery and genocide.

Full proof: https://outlookzen.com/2017/04/03/philosophical-proof-for-th...

People talk about AI sycophancy, but there are plenty of human sycophants as well. If you're an extremely rich/powerful person, it is very easy to inadvertently surround yourself with sycophants who tell you how amazing and ground-breaking all your ideas are. I wonder if this is the reason people like Musk engage in such bizarre behavior and radical personality shifts over the past decade

This logic absolutely should apply to all unions, including both police and teachers unions. You can find equally disgusting anecdotes of bad teachers who are protected by their unions, with students paying the price. You can tell a lot about whether someone has impartial judgement by seeing whether they consistently support/oppose both

There is a zero percent chance this is organic

Who exactly has a vested interest in starting a worldwide conspiracy to ban social media for kids?

FWIW as an adult in my 30s, social media has caused me far greater harm than even binge drinking. I can't even imagine growing up as a teenager under the social media microscope

According to the court documents, the Fargo detective working the case then looked at Lipps' social media accounts and Tennessee driver's license photo. In his charging document, the detective wrote that Lipps appeared to be the suspect based on facial features, body type and hairstyle and color.

Once they were in hand, Fargo police met with him and Lipps at the Cass County jail on Dec. 19. She had already been in jail for more than five months. It was the first time police interviewed her.

How is this the fault of AI? It flagged a possible match. A live human detective confirmed it. And the criminal justice system, for reasons that have nothing to do with AI, let this woman sit in jail for 5 months before doing even interviewing her or doing any due diligence.

There's a reason why we don't let AI autonomously jail people. Instead of scapegoating an AI bogeyman, maybe we should look instead at the professional human-in-the-loop who shirked all responsibility, and a criminal justice system that thinks it is okay to jail people for 5 months before even starting to assess their guilt.

The past year has been strange. Back in 2016, there was so much opposition to Trump. Even after he was elected and granted tremendous power, the other "elites" were staunchly opposed to him and spoke out against him. This despite the fact that the worst thing you can say about DJT in 2017 is that he is an uncouth man.

Fast forward 8 years, and the things we know about DJT today are so much worse than anyone imagined in 2017. He tried to subvert our nation's democracy and political stability. He summoned a mob of rioters, stood idly by while they assaulted our leaders in congress, and eventually pardoned all of them. He has been convicted of multiple felonies, and found guilty in civil court of sexual abuse. People from his own previous administration have called him out as being corrupt and incompetent, and seven Republican senators voted to impeach/convict him.

And yet, despite a jaw-dropping list of unforgivable offenses from the past few years, he enjoys more support today than he did in 2020. From people as smart as Zuck and Andreesen.

It really is true what they say about the fragility of political norms. Once you let the genie out of the bottle, there's no putting it back.

Most modern incarnations of this idea revolve around Citizen Assemblies. Ireland, as an example, convened a citizen assembly in order to discuss and propose reforms on topics like abortion, climate change, and political reform.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Assembly_(Ireland)

The idea behind Citizens Assembly isn't very controversial. Randomly select a large pool of citizens, have them discuss a topic in great detail with plenty of testimony from experts, and then vote on their recommendations.

In concept, this is very similar to how courtroom juries operate. We don't just let millions of people vote on whether a defendant is innocent or guilty. We instead pick a smaller pool of jurors, force them to sit through weeks of expert testimony and arguments from both sides, after which they cast their votes. Hence why there is a movement to similarly have courtroom juries elect our political representatives as well

https://www.electionbyjury.org/

I'll bite. What's wrong with the terms "global warming" and "climate change"?

Once they judge a business to be a monopoly, the business falls apart and the monopoly is irrelevant

You're ignoring the reverse causality. Antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft in the 1990s/2000s put them on edge, and made them think twice about strong-arming their competition. Back when Google was starting to make a name for themselves, MS strongly considered adding a warning on Internet Explorer, telling people to "beware" of any results they see on Google. MS eventually decided against it, because of the antitrust magnifying glass they were under. Having a level playing field allowed Google to grow exponentially, and eventually rendered MS' monopoly irrelevant.

Monopolies use anticompetitive tactics to preserve their moat, and continue being monopolies. When antitrust legislation works effectively, this moat disappears, and the monopolist is eventually overrun and becomes irrelevant.

Frank’s chief software engineer, Patrick Vovor, testified that Javice had asked him to generate synthetic data to support her claim that the company had more than 4 million users. When Vovor asked if that was legal, prosecutors said, Javice and Amar assured him that it was — and told him they didn’t want to end up in orange prison jumpsuits. Vovor testified that he refused to help. “I told them I would not do anything illegal,” Vovor told jurors.

Seeking to dent Vovor’s credibility, defense lawyers suggested he was resentful that Javice didn’t want to date him.

That is one hell of a defense

I appreciate the author and this article. As an immigrant and person of color, the author's concerns resonate with me. I don't think people like PG or Andreessen are evil bigots. But they are underestimating and enabling a movement that is cruel and exclusionary by design. A movement that they seek to tame and harness, but not understanding that the movement is fundamentally untameable.

I miss the days when the Republican party was led by a President like Bush, who told America that Islam is a religion of peace. And nominees like McCain, who told his supporters that Obama is a decent family man, and a natural-born American. I worry for the future, and my children's place in it.

This might also be a microcosm of why the working class is pissed off in America, because looking at this experience, the optimal strategy for revenue is to blow smoke up the ass of a wealthy corporation until they give you a fat stock grant, then claim credit for the work of others so that they give you more.

Here's an alternate take. A competitive free market has squeezed corporate profits so much, that most would-be-capitalists would be better off joining the working class instead. Consider the alternative where anyone who doesn't have the financial means to build their own company, is relegated to a sub-par quality of life.

Also, why would you conduct an interview in a language where even if you don't know the syntax (and this is obscure) you could have looked it up or disallowed the interview to be done in Python?

The norm in most of my interviews has been that candidates can solve coding problems in whatever language they are most comfortable with. For most languages like Python etc, it would be a mistake to reject a candidate just because they don't have experience with that specific language.

homeowners who have regularly rented out their property on Airbnb or other short-term rental sites will be subject to paying 13 per cent HST when putting the home up for sale

How are they defining regularly? If someone rents out their home for one weekend every month, will they be liable for that 13% tax? Regardless of whatever threshold they choose, it seems weird that someone's tax liability will jump from 0 to potentially hundreds of thousands, because of a tiny change in their renting behavior.

To be clear, I was quoting the author. Those aren't my opinions.

The guy spends an entire section talking about this. Just because he has different moral opinions doesn't mean he doesn't care about morality. To quote the author:

Grey areas. By this I mean I mean ‘involve morally thorny, difficult decisions’: examples include health insurance, immigration enforcement, oil companies, the military, spy agencies, police/crime, and so on.

Every engineer faces a choice: you can work on things like Google search or the Facebook news feed, all of which seem like marginally good things and basically fall into category 1. You can also go work on category 2 things like GiveDirectly or OpenPhilanthropy or whatever.

The critical case against Palantir seemed to be something like “you shouldn’t work on category 3 things, because sometimes this involves making morally bad decisions”. An example was immigration enforcement during 2016-2020, aspects of which many people were uncomfortable with.

But it seems to me that ignoring category 3 entirely, and just disengaging with it, is also an abdication of responsibility. Institutions in category 3 need to exist. The USA is defended by people with guns. The police have to enforce crime, and - in my experience - even people who are morally uncomfortable with some aspects of policing are quick to call the police if their own home has been robbed. Oil companies have to provide energy. Health insurers have to make difficult decisions all the time. Yes, there are unsavory aspects to all of these things. But do we just disengage from all of these institutions entirely, and let them sort themselves out?

I don’t believe there is a clear answer to whether you should work with category 3 customers; it’s a case by case thing. Palantir’s answer to this is something like “we will work with most category 3 organizations, unless they’re clearly bad, and we’ll trust the democratic process to get them trending in a good direction over time”. Thus:

On the ICE question, they disengaged from ERO (Enforcement and Removal Operations) during the Trump era, while continuing to work with HSI (Homeland Security Investigations).

They did work with most other category 3 organizations, on the argument that they’re mostly doing good in the world, even though it’s easy to point to bad things they did as well.

I can’t speak to specific details here, but Palantir software is partly responsible for stopping multiple terror attacks. I believe this fact alone vindicates this stance.

This is an uncomfortable stance for many, precisely because you’re not guaranteed to be doing 100% good at all times. You’re at the mercy of history, in some ways, and you’re betting that (a) more good is being done than bad (b) being in the room is better than not. This was good enough for me. Others preferred to go elsewhere.

The danger of this stance, of course, is that it becomes a fully general argument for doing whatever the power structure wants. You are just amplifying existing processes. This is where the ‘case by case’ comes in: there’s no general answer, you have to be specific. For my own part, I spent most of my time there working on healthcare and bio stuff, and I feel good about my contributions. I’m betting the people who stopped the terror attacks feel good about theirs, too. Or the people who distributed medicines during the pandemic.

Even though the tide has shifted and working on these ‘thorny’ areas is now trendy, these remain relevant questions for technologists. AI is a good example – many people are uncomfortable with some of the consequences of deploying AI. Maybe AI gets used for hacking; maybe deepfakes make the world worse in all these ways; maybe it causes job losses. But there are also major benefits to AI (Dario Amodei articulates some of these well in a recent essay).

As with Palantir, working on AI probably isn’t 100% morally good, nor is it 100% evil. Not engaging with it – or calling for a pause/stop, which is a fantasy – is unlikely to be the best stance. Even if you don’t work at OpenAI or Anthropic, if you’re someone who could plausibly work in AI-related issues, you probably want to do so in some way. There are easy cases: build evals, work on alignment, work on societal resilience. But my claim here is that the grey area is worth engaging in too: work on government AI policy. Deploy AI into areas like healthcare. Sure, it’ll be difficult. Plunge in.8

When I think about the most influential people in AI today, they are almost all people in the room - whether at an AI lab, in government, or at an influential think tank. I’d rather be one of those than one of the pontificators. Sure, it’ll involve difficult decisions. But it’s better to be in the room when things happen, even if you later have to leave and sound the alarm.