[-] lurker@awful.systems 4 points 2 days ago

Then hand me that hammer and let’s get to smashing those data centres

[-] lurker@awful.systems 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

“We have to pick between the climate or AI”

No we don’t??? One problem directly affects the other. Stopping AI data centre build-out helps with stopping climate change.

[-] lurker@awful.systems 5 points 5 days ago

I could’ve sworn I posted this here but apparently not: the first AI winter in the 1960s-70s which is pretty relevant to today

[-] lurker@awful.systems 7 points 5 days ago

well great now I’m thinking about this

[-] lurker@awful.systems 6 points 5 days ago

You’re telling me that the Autism Spectrum is a spectrum and not just the quirky thing people have?

[-] lurker@awful.systems 12 points 6 days ago

The AI safety company when they actually have to make their AIs safe instead of just making vague suggestions

[-] lurker@awful.systems 17 points 2 months ago

as someone who’s disabled, the idea of “ethical eugenics” pisses me off to no end. There is no ethical eugenics! You’re systematically destroying classes of people because they don’t fit your standards, there is no way to make it ethical when the very core premise involves taking away human rights

[-] lurker@awful.systems 29 points 3 months ago

One of the solutions proposed — I am not kidding — is “writing scripts to automate repetitive tasks.” It’s really funny imagining a software engineer being like “woah … like automating the boring stuff, you might say?”

If I'm getting this right, they're going to cut the cost of automating everything....by automating more things?

[-] lurker@awful.systems 17 points 3 months ago

I mean after the Epstein Files you have to be either deliberately ignorant or incredibly dense to not realise the rich get off easily

88
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by lurker@awful.systems to c/techtakes@awful.systems
64

Originally posted in the Stubsack, but decided to make it its own post because why not

[-] lurker@awful.systems 30 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Incredibly ballsy move to keep using their tech after you literally branded them a supply chain threat and implied you would take legal action against them, but that’s this administration for ya

(they did say there would be a six-month phase out period after which if Anthropic still didn’t comply, they’d force them to, but still)

12
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by lurker@awful.systems to c/sneerclub@awful.systems

this was already posted on reddit sneerclub, but I decided to crosspost it here so you guys wouldn’t miss out on Yudkowsky calling himself a genre savy character, and him taking what appears to be a shot at the Zizzians

26
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by lurker@awful.systems to c/sneerclub@awful.systems

originally posted in the thread for sneers not worth a whole post, then I changed my mind and decided it is worth a whole post, cause it is pretty damn important

Posted on r/HPMOR roughly one day ago

full transcript:

Epstein asked to call during a fundraiser. My notes say that I tried to explain AI alignment principles and difficulty to him (presumably in the same way I always would) and that he did not seem to be getting it very much. Others at MIRI say (I do not remember myself / have not myself checked the records) that Epstein then offered MIRI $300K; which made it worth MIRI's while to figure out whether Epstein was an actual bad guy versus random witchhunted guy, and ask if there was a reasonable path to accepting his donations causing harm; and the upshot was that MIRI decided not to take donations from him. I think/recall that it did not seem worthwhile to do a whole diligence thing about this Epstein guy before we knew whether he was offering significant funding in the first place, and then he did, and then MIRI people looked further, and then (I am told) MIRI turned him down.

Epstein threw money at quite a lot of scientists and I expect a majority of them did not have a clue. It's not standard practice among nonprofits to run diligence on donors, and in fact I don't think it should be. Diligence is costly in executive attention, it is relatively rare that a major donor is using your acceptance of donations to get social cover for an island-based extortion operation, and this kind of scrutiny is more efficiently centralized by having professional law enforcement do it than by distributing it across thousands of nonprofits.

In 2009, MIRI (then SIAI) was a fiscal sponsor for an open-source project (that is, we extended our nonprofit status to the project, so they could accept donations on a tax-exempt basis, having determined ourselves that their purpose was a charitable one related to our mission) and they got $50K from Epstein. Nobody at SIAI noticed the name, and since it wasn't a donation aimed at SIAI itself, we did not run major-donor relations about it.

This reply has not been approved by MIRI / carefully fact-checked, it is just off the top of my own head.

[-] lurker@awful.systems 18 points 4 months ago

it’s all coming together. every single techbro and current government moron, they all loop back around to epstein in the end

34

I searched for “eugenics” on yud’s xcancel (i will never use twitter, fuck you elongated muskrat) because I was bored, got flashbanged by this gem. yud, genuinely what are you talking about

view more: next ›

lurker

0 post score
0 comment score
joined 4 months ago