uvnq

Oh of course its from this guy...

Marxism appears to be behind a lot of these trends

Can you speak more to that? I'm not familiar with MAID beyond a surface level understanding

Motte and bailey tactic?

I.e., when challenged, defenders of concept assert the safer, easy to defend definition

In reality the actual meaning of the concept is practiced

A lot of the time though, people are pretty innocent and just don't know that there is literature behind these things. They just think equity always means some ideal they hold in their heads. And they'll see egregious examples of it being exercised and think "that's not real equity!" when in reality, it is, and "real equity" is not defined by their understanding of it, but by some academic literature that ultimately guides the implementation/practice at the high levels.

It's not anthropomorphism. They are both generalizing agents. It is an accurate and meaningful comparison.

Using this logic, every writer who has learned to read and write by reading books, or every artist who improved their craft by studying works, or every musician who learned the piano by practicing pieces, is also "stealing" in whatever they "originally" create due to learning via pattern recognition "tiny pieces of every work" in their data set. It's ridiculous to compare agents that generalize well to "stealing" pieces of the works they used to learn the generalizations. Obviously if an artist memorizes a painting in their data set and reproduces it, or an AI spits out the exact image instead of original works based on what it has learned, then that is theft. But generalization is not theft. At least in my view. To assume otherwise leads to some very dysfunctional logical conclusions

Actual study: https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU23/EGU23-12531.ht...

Makes sense. If you're a genius in a country of people who make worse decisions (IQ/culture/other), you may ne worse off than an average person in a country with an average average decision making level

"Evidence for thee but not for me"

There is another dimension to debate besides truth, and it is attention. It is not just about "is xyz correct" it's about how attention is placed, what should be found meaningful, etc

Drawing extreme scrutiny to anything in the (1 - confidence) of your opponents argument, but completely ignore yours, and you can draw up any conclusion you want with 95% confidence

I wouldn't call it denial of the results but rather skepticism of the process

Well stated. I will try not to worry about this and to trust God. It makes sense that that would be the antidote to that which is caused by a lack of God. Thank you.

> I would like to see what happens to your "free speech beliefs and how they don't affect you" if you happened to accidentally say something wrong on a video and then be bullied by thousands of nutties on the internet, including doxxing and swatting you on a regular basis.

Another comment supporting pain and suffering for the people they disagree with. "You are wrong that free speech does not have consequences" is a common anti-free-speech strawman, a dishonest tactic, and is not even remotely what I said

I am worried we are currently headed down a similar terrible path.

In another thread about Ireland's new law to jail people for "hateful content" on their personal devices, when I said that I believed future measures could go further, sliding towards mass murder, due to the ideologues believing hate speech is literally violence and genocide (because the logical conclusion is to then allow violence to be used to stop the ill defined "hate speech"), I got 1 comment supporting consequences for free speech, citing the common anti-free-speech strawman "you are wrong in that free speech doesn't have consequences" and another comment supporting "the removal of bigots from society, violently if necessary" [1]

Read it for yourself, maybe I am misinterpreting it? I don't want to feed into some culture war flame war thing, but this is extremely disturbing to me. It's not about the comments, it is about the underlying beliefs of these ideologues in power, and the logical conclusion of their beliefs. Historically, it seems to me that peoples' behavior can be predicted by taking their beliefs to their logical conclusions.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35867043#35869541

The Overton window will go further than that due to the beliefs of the ideologues pushing to remove "hate speech". They believe that hate speech is literal violence and genocide, as bad as murder or mass murder. I posted a comment warning that this anti-hate-speech legislation may go further as time goes by, towards killing of people, and even further from there, and got 1 comment supportint the "violent removal of bigots from society". These people believe you are committing genocide with your words, why wouldn't we expect them to act as if they actually are preventing genocide?

Here is the comment, before they change or delete it:

Tanjreeve 8 hours ago | parent | next [–]

Society might be a fair amount improved if we had a strategy where we aimed to remove bigots, violently if necessary. What value do they actually bring?

(At the time of me posting this comment, the only replies were the one above and another supporting hate speech laws and citing a common anti free speech strawman along the lines of "you are wrong that your free speech does not mean freedom from consequences")

Case in point. "Let's kill the unpeople."

Disclaimer: all of my beliefs are based on assumptions, and any of the assumptions I am making here could be wrong. This is my perspective on this issue and has been for a while.

I look to the beliefs of the people pushing such measures. They believe hate speech is violence. Not that it merely is bad, but that it actually equates to violence. In fact, certain forms of hate speech are not just violence, but genocide. The government could arrest someone for having materials on your device to commit violence in the form of bombs or shootings, why can't they arrest you for hate speech then? How did we treat the Nazis after their genocide? Since they believe that going against the government's beliefs is equal to genocide, will we be treated that way for "wrongthink"? This leads me to believe that it is possible in the future they may even try to kill you under the guise of preventing hate speech. It's happened before in many countries thay believed they were modern, rational, and scientific. Why can't it happen now? Because "we're not in a history book"? I wonder if someday this comment of mine will be used as exhibit A of evidence I "committed genocidal acts of hate speech" and should be shipped off to the gulag or concentration camp.

The beliefs of these people are creating a mathematical gradient pushing our society and culture towards punishment, revenge, hatred, and tyranny.. and who knows what the limits are to how far it will go.

For those of you inclined to disagree because of how extreme this conclusion sounds, I understand why you would do that, but that heuristic would also have led you astray in the numerous atrocities committed in what people in the 1900s believed were "modern times". The atrocities seemed to have been a product of human nature and our nature certainly hasn't changed in 80-50 years; if anything we have become prideful and don't think we need to watch out for our nature, which I would assume exacerbates our susceptibility to the flaws in our nature.

I am very interested to hear the thoughts of those of you who agree and disagree with me.

God bless

I just realized, from your comment, how much power companies will have if they start including "emotional manipulation" in their dark pattern arsenal. Which I am sure will horribly backfire in some way if used

I think you can agree with the views of sheeple and not be a sheeple. You sound too self aware for me to assume you're a sheeple

It doesn't sound like this money is going to OpenAI exclusively, and I would guess its similar to the NSFs current SBIR but for AI (though idk, the article just mentioned "research institutes"). The NSF SBIR already gives money to for-profit companies provided the research is actually useful to society (though I don't have much experience working with them so I could be wrong)

Also, given the new tax act that is in play, isn't it basically impossible for this money to go to small businesses doing RnD? On a tangential note I am worried that this measure will just create a gradiant that consolidates more power to large businesses. Unless it is made optional to depreciate domestic RnD over 5yrs, new companies cannot use grants as funds lest they be hit with a massive tax bill and no profit to pay for it with

I hope he doesn't kill himself too

There are many people out there with the fixed pie fallacy who think thay if someone earns more money, it leads to others earning less money. This is how people think that kneecapping "the rich" will make the world a better place, and it can lead people to prioritize ensuring others do not become rich over ensuring that people grow the economy and make everyone better off. There are many people out there who lump producers, builders, and growers in with thieves and robbers because of this fallacy. If I grab dirt from the ground and a tomato seed from a discarded tomato and sell $5 worth of tomatoes I grow, they will think that I "stole" the $5. This does not make them bad people imo, I know many good people who have integrity and who I love who had this fallacy until I pointed it out to them.

> It would be a legitimate position to take. The system sustaining Beyoncé revenue is approximately the same one which is used to justify star CEO revenues.

Ah yes. The "system" of buyers (music consumers, corporate boards) choosing to buy or not to buy things at the prices the sellers are willing to sell them at. What is your remedy for this?

That's a case of not enough skepticism

As a fan of older minecraft versions I'm looking forward to messing around with this with friends

> What's different here that you're free to criticize the Government without fear of (open) repression.

For now

Just my guess but he probably would not have said that

This leaves out a third way to analyze the situation, which is to look at culture. Culture includes values/valences, which are the core of situation evaluation, which drives all decision making, which is the biggest driving factor behind individual outcomes. This is also used in algorithms such as chess engines. If a group has bad values for some reason, they will undoubtedly do worse. Value systems spread to those around you, which is how you get the effect of becoming like the people you hang out with. The effect of value propogation is increased wrt the values of your parents and other role models.

Many people have an incentive to push for the conclusion "it is because of money" or "it is because of racism" but these both divert away from (what I see as) the root cause of minority groups doing worse, and it also hurts these groups by diverting away from the solution (which can be applied on an individual level to great effect). One example of how this is applied irl is people associating with others who they want to be like. I know someone who was doing ok in school, but when they started to hang out with straight A students, they adopted their values and started to make decisions like them, eventually getting amazing grades and becoming co-validictorian. I assume the values in this case were more positive valences regarding studying hard and working hard and school and long term thinking, among others. I had an extremely difficult period of my life and adopting good values (eventually I became Christian) helped me to completely turn my life around, and now I feel I have an amazing and meaningful life. If not for my different values, leading to my different decisions, I would not be in a different situation.

"People are disadvantaged due to their values" is likely the problem, and seeing it provides a solution that can be applied to fix group issues on an individual level. Racism and poverty are factors that influence success but this is by far the biggest one. If you adopt this mindset and apply it to your life you will do better than the group statistics and so will everyone else you convince. Many people will be incentivized to not listen, or even to be open minded, but those who do will be significantly changed for the rest of their lives. At the end of the day though, it is up to the individual

Where did you go when you left CA? How was it there? Where did you to when you left the US? How is it there? I'm super curious as I may need to do this at some point if the country goes too far down the gutter. I don't think it will, I trust in God and America has gone through a lot and come out the other end intact.

Among the list of hate words in the lexicon (after filtering out words with a cumulative score less than 4) is 'antiwhite'. Why?

Edit: I could see how maybe someone could affiliate the word with hateful speech, but.. seems like a stretch, so I am curious what the rationale is. Maybe I'm missing something

Also, I've only ever seen "honk honk" used to reference "clown world", i.e. that the author thinks something societal or political is ridiculous, should this really be classified as hate speech? If so, makes me wonder whether the push to ban 'hate speech' and label it as extremely hazardous makes sense...

What makes you think the majority supports this?