Ah. Nm.

This is a bizarre response that I’m not going to reply to.

Except caving on trans rights hasn’t actually helped them win. It’s just another failed attempt to appeal to Republicans.

You’re right, and you’re wrong. The science is clear. Trans women have no advantage at all in sports. The science is very clear on this. Every time a sports agency has actually tried to set a policy based on science, they’ve created policies where trans women on HRT for a few years can compete in women’s sports. This was the policy of the Olympics and NCAA until Republicans needed a new scapegoat.

The real problem is that dumbasses think trans women are “biologically male,” watch as their two brain cells spurt and spark, and conclude that trans women must have the same athletic profile as cis men.

Trans women are biologically female. In basically every area except reproduction, your hormones are your sex.

They make good rulings all the time. It’s just usually when doing the right thing also happens to align with the court’s own interests. I can count on John Roberts to support his own interests, if nothing else. And it is not in the best interest of SCOTUS judges for the presidency to become a full dictatorship. If that happens, they lose all their power as well. They support a powerful presidency because a powerful presidency is the only way to push through unpopular social conservative policies. But they don’t want a full dictatorship either.

Dooming dooms us all.

Let’s see. Kitchen table is a solid wood thing from at least the 70s. The chairs in the dining room table are a set of 200 year old antiques I found on Craigslist. I have a vanity that was built by an old steamfitter in the 1920s.

In the workshop, there’s all sorts of old stuff. My jointer is built like a tank and hails from Eisenhower administration. And then I have numerous hand planes that are over a century old.

Exactly. If we’re going to have these systems at all, they should be retroactive-only and require a warrant to access at all. For example, if some masked person robs a bank and gets away, at that point police can go to a judge and ask for a warrant to access the camera records. They can then hopefully use the records to catch the thief. But there should be no way to access the camera feeds live, and all access should require a warrant. In fact, the police shouldn’t even have accounts to access the cameras. There should be an office within the court system, and that office should be the only people that can access the camera footage.

Ah, you’re a crazy person. Got it.

I don’t really want to get off on a political tangent. I’m talking about how we should handle these things, not how the current admin would handle them.

I use this internationalist language because it’s the only language that really captures the magnitude of the crime. We are a species that dominates this planet entirely due to our intelligence. We aren’t the fastest. We aren’t the strongest. We have neither sharp talons or fangs. We produce no poison or other biological defense mechanisms. The one thing and the only thing that has let us as a species control this world are our minds.

This is the context that needs to be considered when contemplating the ethics of superintelligent AI. I don’t care how good your control measures are. This is the lesson from every ancient tale involving genies and other beings of great power bound. This is the conclusion of the whole academic field of AI alignment and safety. You can never control something more intelligent than you are. If you think you can, you’re a fool. I don’t care what incentives you give it. I don’t care how much you air gap it. I don’t even ultimately care if it’s conscious and has a sense of self. It is simply not possible to ever control a machine beyond a certain level of capability. Any way you can think to control it, it can think of a way to work around. (I know some folks bristle at the words “think”, but frankly there’s no practical way to talk about these systems without using anthropomorphized language.)

If someone creates a superintelligent AI, they are not summoning a powerful servant. They are effectively creating a new species, one that will have its own motivations (even if just fulfilling its given instructions in dangerous and unpredictable ways.) And that competitor will operate in the exact same niche we do - physically helpless but still able to dominate the world through intelligence.

I just can’t see doing this as anything other than betraying your own species. You’re creating something that has the potential, even if just a small potential, to drive your own species to extinction. You care so little for your fellow human beings that you’re willing to gamble the lives of not only everyone alive now, but all the future generations of humans yet to be born. Such an act is an unforgivable sin, a moral abomination. I do not even have the language to express how deeply evil it is for a human to create something with superhuman intelligence. It is quite literally treason against the human race. And the traditional penalty for normal treason is death.

In my mind, if you do this, you are literally a traitor to the entire human race. You deserve to hang for this. Think about how we tried the Nazis at Nuremberg. And they only tried to commit genocide against a few racial and social groups. We’re talking about someone with such complete disregard for their fellow human that they are willing to risk human extinction for the sake of making a buck. I’m generally opposed to the death penalty. I don’t support it for ordinary murderers. But this? I’m sorry, but the penalty for treason against your own species should be death. If you are such an inhuman monster that you would gamble with the lives of two billion children? You need to hang for that. And I don’t care how many fools we have to string up to prevent this. I don’t care if it’s thousands. I for one really like humanity, regardless of all our flaws. And there is very little I would not support to protect our own existence.

I have no idea if LLMs can ever really reach that level of threat. I have no idea how much of the models that are causing the hacks and issues now can really ever become a physical threat to human life. But I do know that we simply cannot allow anyone to build superhuman AI. (Again, ignoring for now whether existing models can ever actually reach that.) The existence of anything on this planet more intelligent than us is a threat to all of us. It is such an existential threat, that there is almost no action I wouldn’t take to prevent it. I would fight a nuclear war to prevent the creation of such an abomination. It’s one of the few cases where starting a nuclear war is actually a rational choice.

No. Like laws against trying to build biological weapons in your basement. That has worked pretty damn well.

If you look at voting rates, it’s not the GOP that decides elections, it’s the Democrats. GOP almost always gets ~63m votes. Democrats range 63+/-5m.

Bullshit. Complete and total bullshit.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/elections/2020

This attitude is right…until it isn’t. I’m sorry, but I’m not willing to gamble the existence of the human species on this. Anthropic is claiming that they’re building a machine that threatens the existence of the human race? Take their word for it. Charge them with treason. Treason against the human race. Hang the whole lot of them.

At a certain level of threat, you have to take it seriously. You don’t get a do-over for human extinction. And this is what taking it seriously actually looks like, not regulation. If there is even a 10% chance that what they are building really is that dangerous, I have no moral objections with charging them all with treason. Use their own words as Exhibit A in the trial.

I don’t care if they’re actually just a bunch of deluded fools who think they have something far more powerful than what they really do have. If they believe it, they believe that they’re gambling with the existence of the human race. Anyone with that level of reckless hubris and complete disregard for their fellow humans doesn’t deserve to keep their head on their shoulders.

How do you regulate it? If it’s a legitimate threat to the species, you use the full power of law to prevent it. And you apply incredibly draconian punishments. You hang anyone that tries to build a bot beyond a certain level of capability.

I think we need a new law. “Treason against mankind.” You build a machine that threatens the existence of the human race? Your head ends up on a pike.

Better idea. Let’s make it a capital offense. Call it “treason against mankind.”

This has big “I have to eat some food to live, so I suppose there’s no point in counting calories” energy.

Maybe we should simply mature as a species and realize that we shouldn’t judge people on clothing beyond basic standards of modesty and hygiene. It’s just cloth. I don’t want to have to work with someone of any gender that’s not wearing tops and bottoms. But as long as your groin is covered and your bare chest isn’t showing, we shouldn’t care what someone wears, as long as its clean and well kept.

The entire idea of “professional” clothing in the first place is to separate people into artificial social classes to make them easier to divide and conquer. If the guys in the office and on the shop floor are both wearing jeans and t-shirts, it’s easier for them to feel solidarity with each other. Are you a factory owner? Make the guys on the shop floor wear coveralls while the guys in the office wear suits, and now you’ve separated your employees into two distinct camps you can play off against each other. And if you make it so “the professionals” who make the decisions are visually distinct from the common laborers, it cements their position of authority and encourages obedience.

“Professional attire” has always been about control. Nothing more.

Let’s say you have a kitchen faucet with a high flow rate of 2 gallons per minute. And let’s imagine you need to run the sink for a long time, say a full minute. So perhaps you lose 2 gallons of cold water to flush the lines. (Assuming you don’t do anything with that water, which you can certainly choose to do so.) Some searching suggests the average cost of water in the US is $5-8 per 1000 gallons. Let’s make it a round $10 per 1000 gallons, or a penny per gallon.

So, even with generous assumptions, it costs you 2 cents in wasted cold water as you flush the lines every time you run the dishwasher. If you run the dishwasher every single day, that comes to $3.65 in wasted cold water. If the fancier dishwasher with the better heating element costs only a hundred dollars extra, it will still take 27 years for the extra cost to be paid back via saved water.

In practice, these numbers were chosen to be generous, and the payback period is likely over a century. Your dishwasher will not last 27 years, let alone a hundred. Plus the time value of money. In short, the fancier heating element will never come close to paying for itself. You’re paying for a convenience, not saving money.

A: I have always been and will always be.

S: Depends on who you ask.

L: Where the heart is.

It would be pointless. Your reading skills are not developed enough to merit a proper reply.