walleeee

35 ms·

1.
by walleeee 1mo ago
Of course you can't decide whether it's useful to the payer. You can and should ask yourself why someone would pay for it, and then decide according to your own personal criteria whether to trade your labor to that particular em
2.
by walleeee 6mo ago
4) energy and materials scarcity and compounding ecological externalities this of course affecting not only the Western regimes but technocratic rule everywhere
3.
by walleeee 11mo ago
I'm not endorsing victimhood or saying that Bangladesh is poor because the US is rich. It was badly phrased if that is how it reads, for that I apologize. I'm saying the US does what it can to keep itself richer than other countri
4.
by walleeee 11mo ago
Yes, so many.
5.
by walleeee 11mo ago
> This may be true to some extent, but what I dislike about this idea is that to many it implies that human flourishing is impossible without suffering exported elsewhere To some degree this is true, in the sense that human flourishing i
6.
by walleeee 11mo ago
The life possible in San Francisco is possible in large part because of the entropy it externalizes to "somewhere else", a place many in SF and the US more generally prefer to ignore, and which includes Bangladesh, alongside as mu
7.
by walleeee 11mo ago
Can you characterize the binary choice in your last sentence in more detail? I don't see how one excludes the other
8.
by walleeee 11mo ago
Strongly agree. Our beginning to grasp how it works even adds to the miracle! But what we're beginning to understand we're also destroying far more rapidly even as we devote more and more effort to digital facsimiles of our facult
9.
by walleeee 11mo ago
On what grounds do you think it likely that this phenomenon is at all related to consciousness? The latter is hardly understood. We can identify correlates in beings with constitutions very near to ours, which lend credence (but zero proof)
10.
by walleeee 11mo ago
This also evidences that in this case, it's more developers of handbrake just know their audience rather than a real design failure. Maybe they'd prefer to keep the user base deliberately small?
11.
by walleeee 11mo ago
Fewer every year. If 3I/A is ET flyby, perhaps our progress trading primitive simulacra for biological miracles will satisfy it that we pose no great risk, annihilation being costly and reserved for planets with better long term odds
12.
by walleeee 11mo ago
Way bigger and deeper than that, there was some slack in the energy situation remaining at that point. Not any more.
13.
by walleeee 11mo ago
You don't consider an application that is designed specifically to siphon all the attention it can to be a perverted implementation? Surprise, it's harder for people to self-govern when they are surrounded by mechanisms designed d
14.
by walleeee 11mo ago
> A chat like this is not a solution though, it is an indicator that our societies have issues Correct, many of which are directly, a skeptic might even argue deliberately, exacerbated by companies like OpenAI. And yet your proposal is &
15.
by walleeee 11mo ago
> legislation Perhaps more generally phrased as governance Yes, the answer is not some business plan by which some can dodge disaster in an untrustworthy market, the answer is to recognize that this planet is a spaceship i.e. materially
16.
by walleeee 11mo ago
Painting opposition as "sour grapes" is an extraordinarily bad faith take.
17.
by walleeee 11mo ago
"Decentralize it" isn't a bad instinct in many contexts but I am sure you are capable of conjuring a counterexample to every one of the cases you mention with a modicum of effort/imagination.
18.
by walleeee 11mo ago
Apologies, not meant to be smug
19.
by walleeee 11mo ago
The question in your last paragraph is not the only one that matters. Funding the technology at a material loss will not be off the table. Think about why.
20.
by walleeee 11mo ago
> whether they confuse people by accident or design. Both, surely
21.
by walleeee 11mo ago
> And I have no idea when it's going to start nor how to fireproof my investments ! You don't, that's the idea.
22.
by walleeee 11mo ago
It certainly does impact you if nearly everyone else is using them.
23.
by walleeee 11mo ago
It's not only that Linus is atypical, it's also that he is reviewing other people's code, and those people are also highly competent, or they would not be kernel committers. And they all share large amounts of high-quality
24.
by walleeee 11mo ago
Effects like these, those of our tools on ourselves which occur slowly/subtly enough that we hardly notice, underlie a great many of our greatest problems, I think
25.
by walleeee 1y ago
"This level" presumably being when the accumulation of progress past at last overwhelms us in all its complication?
26.
by walleeee 1y ago
> I don't really understand yet why people don't see that they are doing this to themselves. Maybe it has something to do with the purveyors of these products - claiming they will take the jobs - designing them to be habit-form
27.
by walleeee 1y ago
And energy is the air in the economy at large. The Eliza effect is not the only bias disposing people to believe AGI is right around the corner. There are deeper assumptions many cling to. I agree about ML.
28.
by walleeee 1y ago
LLMs are a bubble on the back of an AI bubble in a market finally surmounting an enormous single-shot energy surfeit
29.
by walleeee 1y ago
> we all should hope If you're serious about anything, you do more than hope. You do diligence on your prospective employer before going to work for them. You think through a litany of contingencies and prepare a plan of action for
30.
by walleeee 1y ago
Regardless whether the rest of society finds the programmers responsible, the integrity of that society depends upon programmers in such situations holding themselves accountable. Apparatchik or moral agent? That choice remains ours.

More ›