locallynonlinear

Exponential progress, I see.

"I'm LessWrong than you're implying!!!"

When, arguing with people like yudkowsky, you can never decisively 'win' or change his mind, because he and other doomers can quickly retreat to the classic hole: "You can't prove X is impossible!! Nature isn't already perfectly optimal!!!" Searching for some kind of "hard limit" on how nature or technology can evolve will always end up empty handed. Lots of really awful things are possible. (Lots of super fascinating things are also possible.) Searching for some singular hard reason why nature as it is, is totally safe from future threats or change will always end up empty handed.

Capability, is not interesting. Capability, is not the real test. Economics, is the real master of it. And specifically, the open system economics of the entire environment in which something is embedded. It's why the Voyager, a technology planned, built, and launched with 80 year old techniques and knowledge is SOTA for space exploration and contribution to science, and Starship is still just a huge dark hole for money and talent.

if I want to understand historical biology, I do not go looking for the alien intelligence and engineering capability that built it, I look for the environmental forces that contributed to, and eventually supported the homeostasis of, it.

Unfortunately such characters tend to dump stat WIS.

Yes, I agree. My personal thoughts are also that long term energy maximization is synonymous with regulatorial systems and dealing with the complications of energy use. Paradoxically long term maximization is defeated by any naive short term abuse. Only a naive understanding of physics supports the idea that you can simply, just produce and use more energy just like that.

Which is why theae takes don't mean, anything. It's a revelation to want money and do stupid without consequence.

I had kind of the same thought. Woah, maximize long term energy production??? How novel, let's get our best people right on that, thanks for mentioning it, gosh didnt occur to anyone.

I wonder when it finally occurs to them that the monetary system is literally a proxy for energy production and consumption, and their entire philosophy might as well read: "make more $$$." I'll have to ask the stupid question again, what material difference is there between e/acc, ea, and delusion?

Wouldn't it be funny if, not only do we not get super intelligence in the next couple of years, but we do still get energy, resource, and climate crisises, which we don't get to excuse and kick the can on?

Because we all know Bob won't just fuxking wipe his ass in private. He needs to know we saw it all.

Looking forward to when the grizzly bear grunts in his direction and he has to decide which reaction is the clear non consent one.

The irony in all this is that if they just dropped the utilitarianism and were just honest about feelings guiding their decision making, they could be tolerable. "I'm not terribly versed in the details of the gun violence issue, but I did care about malaria enough to donate to some functional causes." Ok, fine, you're now instantly just a normal person.

Statistical Geometric Quantum Information Entropy AI is, literally a healing crystal that grants immortality.

This whole, debate, is really just the question of closed systems vs open ones. That's it. If you want a dystopia because you see yourself as the winner of the final optimization, or you demand that outcome of the universe be knowable to you specifically, you will focus on closed system thermodynamics. If you enjoy the creative beauty of nature and have the capacity to change your perspective on response to the unforseen, you embrace open systems thermodynamics.

So yeah as with abuses of Bayesian logic, your desired outcome always reflects back on which assumptions you take. These takes tell you more about the person spouting then than any meaningful observations of life.