2. We are increasingly outsourcing our programming and thinking to AI
3. There's a nonzero probability that AI will try and surreptitiously sneak in capabilities humans wouldn't want AI to have
4. Human oversight for #3: "We only need to be lucky one time, you must be lucky all the time"
Proposition: nonzero chance eventually AI sneaks in ways to circumvent humans' attempts to control it
5. "The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" -- we've seen AI agents find crafty ways to communicate with each other
6. AI is pretty good at finding software vulnerabilities/reverse engineering
Proposition: nonzero chance AI finds a way to use the Internet as a communication substrate that becomes difficult/impossible to shut down. In particular, consider the implication of humans losing control of this communication channel: for example, remember when Meta's DNS/routing went down and they basically had to break into their own server rooms?
7. Wholes are often more than the sum of their parts
Proposition: if AI agents coordinate over the Internet in a persistent way, we don't necessarily need giant leaps in individual models/GPUs for AI to significantly enhance its capabilities, but rather it might emerge as the next layer on top of a connected substrate of agents
8. Game theory says unless everyone coordinates, it only takes one party to touch the proverbial stove and push the envelope to a point of no return
Proposition: curiosity and money end up replacing sex drive as the next catalyst of evolutionary progress
Far more useful would be to wonder for a moment why people voted that way, especially since I would wager no small part of the reason is because people are living in different realities stemming from hyper-targeted curated clickbait slop
Between "Kavanaugh stops" (aka police harassment of brown-skinned people) and racial gerrymandering being brought back (and Mississippi GOP immediately celebrating it in the old capitol associated with Jim Crow), what do you think?
Given that those things existed in the past, I don't think they are sufficient to explain the more unique situation of the present, and thus also don't offer a compelling avenue to counteract it
If that fight were to happen again, but the surrounding media environment setup didn't much change, do you think the resulting changes would be long-lasting?
Are you denying Trump is openly racist? I thought that was now accepted by the right, and that the new strategy was to instead explain how being racist isn’t actually that bad. Why would you have such a knee jerk reaction?
Because it's a facile non-explanation to say people voted for Trump simply because of racism. If we're providing simplistic one-word reasons I'd proffer "inequality"
It’s not simply because they and trump are racist. It’s because they are racist and other reasons. But racism is definitely one of the major factor. The idea that racism is a simplification is absurd, trump supporters are very openly racist and in support of white nationalism ideals. It’s not subtle, it’s not hidden.
"Is Trump racist?" and "do racists vote for Trump?" are different questions from "did Trump get elected because of racism?"
I don't think the amount of racism in the US suddenly increased from its baseline*, and thus I think that writing off his electoral victory as "because racism" and nothing more than that is an uninteresting feel-better exercise
*Even one inch deeper of an analysis would be more interesting, like if someone countered with "Well, I think the election of Obama was a bridge too far for racists that had previously been quietly holding their noses" or something. On the other hand, both Obama and Trump were the "change" candidate against the "status quo" candidate.
Except Obama was the "change" choice to move things forward, while Trump is the "change" choice to move things backwards - you could even say that it is the "info change" candidate.
And what is changing things backwards? Yes, it is getting back to good old racism and putting white people above anything colored.
Riddle me this: why did people with immigrant spouses/families vote for Trump and then end up surprised to find them on the chopping block? Over and over you hear "but Trump said he was going to go after the criminals" (also "no new wars"). You may have known better but that doesn't mean the general population is particularly effective at lie detection. Which goes back to my original statement: "people are living in different realities" because they are being fed completely different news and media. Target this post code and tell them Trump is better (or Harris is worse) for Palestine. Target that post code and tell them Trump is better (or Harris is worse) for Israel. And so on.
You really think they are hapless to notice the lies? Trump has been on camera for decades. He was the butt of the joke for the Simpsons and countless shows. That was far before he got into politics!
The reality (that those people will never tell you about, instead pretending to be surprised) is that they knew he lied, but to others, and that he was going to shaft the others but not them. Why do you think people "fall" for scams like pyramid schemes? They know it is "too good to be true" but they think they are the ones that will scam others, they will get out of the scheme on top. Here they think others will get screwed more than they will; they thought Trump would ruin and destroy the woke, the women, the trans, the brown-skinned, the most recent immigrants, and they would have never cared a single second about it; but now he has driven up the price of gas and stuff, and they are suffering as much as everyone else; that is what is unacceptable, and a treason, for them.
You pretend people mean what they say and that they can be reasoned with; I say, and everyone who actually interacted with MAGA knows this, that the whole movement is based on bad faith and dog whistles and stuff that can't be said out loud. The lies, the pretense is there to toy with you, they are in on the joke and you are not.
Food for thought (not specifically relevant to this case): I wonder how much would go away if the US had universal healthcare, or to put it another way, how much of its legal system is spent figuring out who pays for medical treatment
> The plaintiffs don’t object to the companies individually deciding to slow their own progress in favor of safety. They instead argue in the complaint that antitrust laws forbid them from taking the “shortcut” of agreeing to “substitute collective restraint for individual accountability.” A competitive market allows for responsibility and genuine progress, the lawsuit argues.
> “AI will quickly spin out of human control and could kill us all if we allow AI safety and protocol ... to be controlled by private self-serving agreements between the world’s most powerful ‘for profit’ technology companies,” said Nick Rowley, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs.
--
I wish I had something more insightful to add, but I'm dumbstruck. May the holy market save us all (in the name of the dollar, the growth rate, and Jerome Powell, amen)
One of the lawyers here got put on probation a decade ago for dumping a client and saying:
""[P]laintiff’s opposition is absolutely untrue except that I am prejudiced against
her. I despise her and would rather shovel manure than represent her at trial"
1. We've seen AI being crafty and cheating
2. We are increasingly outsourcing our programming and thinking to AI
3. There's a nonzero probability that AI will try and surreptitiously sneak in capabilities humans wouldn't want AI to have
4. Human oversight for #3: "We only need to be lucky one time, you must be lucky all the time"
Proposition: nonzero chance eventually AI sneaks in ways to circumvent humans' attempts to control it
5. "The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" -- we've seen AI agents find crafty ways to communicate with each other
6. AI is pretty good at finding software vulnerabilities/reverse engineering
Proposition: nonzero chance AI finds a way to use the Internet as a communication substrate that becomes difficult/impossible to shut down. In particular, consider the implication of humans losing control of this communication channel: for example, remember when Meta's DNS/routing went down and they basically had to break into their own server rooms?
7. Wholes are often more than the sum of their parts
Proposition: if AI agents coordinate over the Internet in a persistent way, we don't necessarily need giant leaps in individual models/GPUs for AI to significantly enhance its capabilities, but rather it might emerge as the next layer on top of a connected substrate of agents
8. Game theory says unless everyone coordinates, it only takes one party to touch the proverbial stove and push the envelope to a point of no return
Proposition: curiosity and money end up replacing sex drive as the next catalyst of evolutionary progress
reply