Hasn't it lately become increasingly possible that the files of famous financier and MIRI donor J. Epstein will be finally released to public cognizance?
Architeuthis
joined 2 years ago
most BNPL loans aren’t reported to credit bureaus, creating what regulators call “phantom debt.” That means other lenders can’t see when someone has taken out five different BNPL loans across multiple platforms. The credit system is flying blind.
Only good things can come of this.
But if hypothetically you ask me whether I know about any couples currently doing this ill-advised thing, where it has not yet blown up, then I do not confirm or deny; it would not be my job to run their lives. This is true even if all they'd face is a lot of community frowning about BDSM common wisdom, rather than legal consequences. It is very hard to get me to butt into two people's lives, if they are both telling me to get out and mind my own business; maybe even to the point of it being an error on my part, because if I was erring there, I sure do know which side I would be erring on.
This reads a lot like an ixnay on the exualassaultsay admonition towards the broader rationalist community.
I always thought it was cool that (there is a case to be made that) HPL created Azathoth, the monstrous nuclear chaos beyond angled space, as a mythological reimagining of a black hole. Stuff like The Dreams in the Witch-house shows he was up to date on a bunch of cutting edge for the time physics stuff, at least as far as terminology is concerned, massive nerd that he was.
time travelling evil robot
Fun fact: In the original telling the robot is supposed to be the good guy, the eternal torment dungeon is just part of its optimal strategy to beat out actually evil robot overlords from existing first.
'Genetic engineering to merge with machines' is both a stream of words with negative meaning and something I don't think he could come up with on his own, like the solar system sized dyson sphere or the lab leak stuff. He just strikes me as too incurious to have come across the concepts he mashes together on his own.
Simplest explanation I guess is he's just deliberately joeroganing the CEO thing and that's about as deep as it goes.
Michael Hendricks, a professor of neurobiology at McGill, said: “Rich people who are fascinated with these dumb transhumanist ideas” are muddying public understanding of the potential of neurotechnology. “Neuralink is doing legitimate technology development for neuroscience, and then Elon Musk comes along and starts talking about telepathy and stuff.”
Fun article.
Altman, though quieter on the subject, has blogged about the impending “merge” between humans and machines – which he suggested would either through genetic engineering or plugging “an electrode into the brain”.
Occasionally I feel that Altman may be plugged into something that's even dumber and more under the radar than vanilla rationalism.
users trade off decision quality against effort reduction
They should put that on the species' gravestone.
What if quantum but magically more achievable at nearly current technology levels. Instead of qbits they have pbits (probabilistic bits, apparently) and this is supposed to help you fit more compute in the same data center.
Also they like to use the word thermodynamic a lot to describe the (proposed) hardware.
I feel the devs should just ask the chatbot themselves before submitting if they feel it helps, automating the procedure invites a slippery slope in an environment were doing it the wrong way is being pushed extremely strongly and executives' careers are made on 'I was the one who led AI adoption in company x (but left before any long term issues became apparent)'
Plus the fact that it's always weirdos like the hating AI is xenophobia person who are willing to go to bat for AI doesn't inspire much confidence.
Everything about this screams vaporware.
original is here, but you aren't missing any context, that's the twit.
I could go on and on about the failings of Shakespear... but really I shouldn't need to: the Bayesian priors are pretty damning. About half the people born since 1600 have been born in the past 100 years, but it gets much worse that that. When Shakespear wrote almost all Europeans were busy farming, and very few people attended university; few people were even literate -- probably as low as ten million people. By contrast there are now upwards of a billion literate people in the Western sphere. What are the odds that the greatest writer would have been born in 1564? The Bayesian priors aren't very favorable.
edited to add this seems to be an excerpt from the fawning book the big short/moneyball guy wrote about him that was recently released.
No idea if it was intentional given how long a series' production cycle can be before it ends up on tv/streaming, but it's hard not to see Vince Gilligan's Pluribus as a weird extended impact-of-chatbots metaphor.
It's also somewhat tedious and seems to be working under the assumption that cool cinematography is a sufficient substitute for character development.