of all the ways we’ve tried so far, Substack is working the best.
The sheer arrogance of this quote is really something to behold. It's "working the best" by what metric, exactly, sir? And who's the "we" that have tried various ways so far, because it's certainly not 'people on the internet,' many of whom have developed ways of dealing with Nazis which are significantly more effective than the substack method of 'literally give them money to use our platform'
When I was a kid (Nat Nanny)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Nanny] was totally and completely lame, but the whole millennial generation grew up to adore content moderation. A strange authoritarian impulse.
Me when the mods unfairly ban me from my favorite video game forum circa 2009
(source: first HN thread)
we simply don't know how the world will look if there are a trillion or a quadrillion superhumanly smart AIs demanding rights
I feel like this scenario depends on a lot of assumptions about the processing speed and energy/resource usage of AIs. A trillion is a big number. Notably there's currently only about 0.8% this number of humans, who are much more energy efficient than AIs.
import qualified Urbit.Ob.Ob as Ob (fein, fynd)
Why
even putting aside philosophy/ethics, have they never heard of common expressions like "too much of a good thing" or "the dose makes the poison"? it's just an extremely, extremely common idea basically everywhere except in the tech industry
Oh man, I won't be able to unsee this, lol
The economic incentive is coming from the popularity of stir-fry.
I'm picturing some kind of flour-sifting Juicero-type smart device
Feel like the very beginning of this is not completely crazy (I've also thought in the past that straight people often perform "attractiveness" more for the approval of their same-sex friends) but it seems to kind of jump off the evo-psych deep end after that, lol
Also you can't build a bunch of assumptions about "we should organize society this way" while ignoring the existence of LGBT people, and then go "yeah I know I ignored them but it simplified my analysis." Like yeah it simplifies the analysis to ignore a bunch of stuff that actually exists in reality, but... then that means maybe your conclusions about how to structure society are wrong??
edit: also this quote is choice:
I don't know if this really happens. But even if not, the fiction does a great job of highlighting the dynamic I'm thinking of.
I was never a user of buttcoin on Reddit, but I do greatly enjoy hearing about stupid cryptocurrency things, so putting in a vote in favor of this idea
It's like pickup artistry on a societal scale.
It really does illustrate the way they see culture not as, like, a beautiful evolving dynamic system that makes life worth living, but instead as a stupid game to be won or a nuisance getting in the way of their world domination efforts
The whole idea of "IQ correlates with income, so we can eliminate poverty by genetically increasing people's IQ" seems particularly stupid to me. Like, what do you think is the actual reason that IQ correlates with income? Is it because the magical money fairies give you more money the smarter you are? Also, IQ is a normed measure anyway, so the average is always 100 and there's always the same number of people with each score... agh, it's dumb for so many reasons
edit: wait, sorry, it's actually stupider than I thought:
Literally just trickle down IQnomics