Norwood III soon
Woodland Hills, CA
Joined September 2007
- Tweets2.3K
- Following1.5K
- Followers750
- Likes10.9K
A lesson in here
Most of us are chuds.
Yep! Question is what percentage of the economy these uses constitute. I would expect there to always be a market for frontier capabilities, but I doubt you'll need frontier for most tasks (unless token price remains cheap, which I suspect won't be the case forever).
1
57
word salad time: The moat will continue to be assembling out of distribution data to create a higher dimensional space and discovering what lives in the convex hull aka latent space.
1
53
Stop putting software on top of software bc you don’t like the software and becoming an expert in software you don’t like and still not getting software you do like
59
This EA/rationalist stuff is a great reminder that unreliable narrators should just be left alone.
Luke 16:10
1
68
This one is prescient when applied to the general case
rodneybrooks.com/unexpected-…
a world where everyone has a perfectly rational, tireless optimizer working on their behalf is much more adversarial than people realize. a lot of our existing infrastructure will not survive this transition.
4
261
Agree this is a category error, and layers of them. The EA/utilitarian one is of increasing immodesty captured by the phrase “gods-eye view”. EAs assume a deity-like ability to establish a singular, liquidated value for suffering not just for them, not just for people like them, not just for their species!
But for EVERYTHING.
I think the question presupposes a frame that leads people to the wrong answer.
I have a duty to myself, to my family, to my community, to my nation, to humanity, and to the world. Each nearer duty is more relevant than further ones. Inasmuch as I have a duty to specific animals, I hope to treat them well and to perform my duty adequately, but gods-eye distance-blind utilitarian "how many shrimp are worth one human" math is fundamentally the wrong tool for the problem.
2
75
I mean, yes. Such a hard yes. The real question for me was what then to do?
EA is a monstrous idea based on a monstrous ideology, specifically, utilitarianism, which, every time anything like it has been tried, has resulted in vast amounts of human suffering. Utilitarianism is like catnip for a certain sort of non-neurotypical mind, which desperately latches on to anything involving quantification and pretenses of mathematical order. Unfortunately, rather than making morality objective, it not only makes it even more radically subjective, but also leads people to accept horrifying outcomes on the basis that somehow the math adds up. Every time you see EA arguing that insect lives can be more important than human lives if only enough of them are involved, you are seeing evidence of the derangement that utilitarianism brings. Shrimp welfare is a warning, a warning that something is desperately wrong with the ideas.
2
152