The funds are being redirected to refilling prince andrews sweat ballasts

Takes:

1. Ah yes the classic “combine a bunch of worthless things together to magically create value” that caused the financial crisis
2. Those banks aren’t taking their pounds of flesh fast enough. Maybe they don’t want to cut into Musk’s bloated corpse of a body.
3. Musk combining two things reminds me of this 16 year old video (CW: scatological humor)

Haven’t read the article yet but I can only assume the book is “Lolita X” where they find the cryonically frozen body of humbert humbert and they bring him to space

The entire motivation of AI dev afaict is to have a new mommy to take care of you, I guess this is one way to do it. 🙄🙄🙄

That’s just being good at bootlicking

My heuristic is basically: until we can easily control the environment of earth, terraforming will not be on the horizon. Given that we are hell-bent on driving off of as many cliffs as we can, I’m pretty happy to continue thinking that we’ll never get off this rock proper within the ol’ lifespan

Ok my real pitch is: something that can have agency, so that when the word substitution happens, you still have a parseable sentence, most of the time. Take “Garbage Ape” (from the heathcliff comics I guess), for example:

• “I am a Garbage Ape ethicist”
• “It’s Garbage Ape Welfare discussion week”
• “I prompted a Garbage Ape to generate these image”
• “I think Garbage Apes pose a serious existential threat”
• “We’re proud to announce our new Garbage Ape, Steve”

Though it’s hard to pick a thing that conjures the right image.

I used to instantiate like 100 of them and see which ones would win (or “fight” by colliding with each other

The basilisk will not take kindly to your desecration of AGI for sport.

please leave and take your AI generated trash with you.

This quote might serve as something members should keep in mind, but I don’t think it works as an argument on its own

Putting aside the idea of it being an argument, I think you gotta have a bit more self-esteem in your cause, mate. I’m no animal rights activist, but even I can see that animals are living beings that can be harmed, unlike the unborn or simulated. It’s absolutely a worthy cause.

Moore’s Three Laws:

• That thing about ICs
• The thing he said about ICs is just about ICs and maybe transistors. Also it’s a pattern observation and not a rule, why do you keep saying it’s a law?
• People will invoke Moore’s first law to say the dumbest shit ever and people will fucking eat it up. Nothing gets capitalists in a fervour like the promise of exponential growth.

There are some follow up tweets.

To the commenters shocked that Zvi’s probability numbers don’t come from an “objective calculation”:

Not shocked. At this point I am numb to it though.

1. Approximating numerical probabilities is required if you want to make coherent decisions.

Average bayesist when they need to pee:

“Hmm, I suspect I need to pee. The decision I now must make is whether or not I should use my toilet or my sink.”

half an hour of examining priors, searching LW for urination sequences and setting up a prediction market later

“Hmm, it appears I have peed my pants.”

2. Probability is subjective (a property of our belief-state) for us Bayesians.

Oh my god, he admit it!