d4nt · HackerTrans

25 日前議論

I agree, chronological feeds of people you’ve explicitly chosen to follow are fine, but AIs looking to optimize engagement have caused untold damage to society. Future generations will study it as an example of unintended consequences in AI systems. The sooner we shutdown this disastrous technology the better.

d4nt

2 年前議論

Like this: https://openid.net/certification/about-conformance-suite/

d4nt

2 年前議論

I think they’re on to something, but the solution needs more work. Sometimes it’s not just individual engineers who are playing defence, it’s whole departments or whole companies that are set up around “don’t change anything, you might break it”. Then the company creates special “labs” teams to innovate.

To borrow a football term, sometimes company structure seems like it’s playing the “long ball” game. Everyone sitting back in defence, then the occasional hail mary long pass up to the opposite end. I would love to see a more well developed understanding within companies that certain teams, and the processes that they have are defensive, others are attacking, and others are “mid field”, i.e. they’re responsible for developing the foundations on which an attacking team can operate (e.g. longer term refactors, API design, filling in gaps in features that were built to a deadline). To win a game you need a good proportion of defence, mid field and attack, and a good interface between those three groups.

d4nt

2 年前議論

Maybe it is running really slow. Maybe it’s taken 100 “real world years” for me to write this comment.

d4nt

2 年前議論

I suppose that really depends on what the subject of the simulation is. If it’s you personally, it only needs to simulate other scientists telling you about quarks, the solar system and the latest JWST images. If it’s humanity in general then other civilisations are not required. Of course it might be that this is a giant quark simulation and things like gravity, planets, life and humanity are an interesting quirk that’s arisen recently.

d4nt

3 年前議論

Soon everyone exists in a social bubble thats 1000 times worse than any present day social media bubble. It becomes impossible to interact with another actual human because there’s no common frame of reference. Micro languages emerge. AIs seamlessly translate everything into your micro language.

Any IRL interaction between two humans becomes almost impossible. It’s like travelling from the US to Japan today (assuming you don’t speak Japanese), you’re reduced to pointing and google translate.

Because you just never interact with other real people, and real people often seem like pale shadows of the hyper real AIs we talk to, the concept of fellow human beings having a “soul” or deserving rights or dignity is eroded. Policy (and life in general) becomes more ruthlessly utilitarian. Eg climate change has screwed the people in Yemen. Meh. I probably don’t even hear about it. If I do I don’t register those people as important humans because most of the “people” I intact with every day are artificial. I regularly delete the ones I don’t like and generate more. The idea that I should care about how they _feel_ is a strange and alien concept to me.

d4nt

3 年前議論

“Subspecies” feels a bit othering. Humans have been eating meat since Homo erectus (about 2M years).

d4nt

3 年前議論

Some time ago I asked myself: why did gambling become so addictive? You always loose, but it’s so powerfully addictive the behaviour must be beneficial in some way. It occurred to me that you always loose when doing “artificial gambling” (casinos, horse races etc) but “natural gambling” is different. Should we explore this coastline, should we try and cultivate this plant, should we run this scientific experiment? These bets may not pay off individually, but for the overall population over time they always pay off. The natural world has ergodicity.

d4nt

3 年前議論

One of the first things that some reading on psychology gives you is the realisation that the “real self” is an illusion. You’re a bundle of competing drives and narratives. Even you don’t know why you do stuff most of the time, and you make up justifications after the fact. So if one way of looking at things makes you stay home and cry, while another leads to going out and making the world a better place, maybe training yourself to pick the latter interpretation is a good thing.

d4nt

3 年前議論

If he stopped the legislature doing something, there would be a “constitutional crisis” but whether or not he then lost the power to do that again would really depend on public opinion and how well judged his move was. I can imagine a scenario in which a corrupt and unpopular government is holding onto power by twisting the rules somehow, and the king says no. It would be chaos, but if the king had public opinion on his side it could work out well.

For me this is a strength of a constitutional monarchy over an appointed or elected but mostly ceremonial head of state. The people have a relationship with the king, they’ve grown up together and there’s a connection there that’s hard to define. In times of crisis that connection could play a key role.

コメント