Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)
From linkedin, not normally known as a source of anti-ai takes so that’s a nice change. I found it via bluesky so I can’t say anything about its provenance:
We keep hearing that AI will soon replace software engineers, but we’re forgetting that it can already replace existing jobs… and one in particular.
The average Founder CEO.
Before you walk away in disbelief, look at what LLMs are already capable of doing today:
- They use eloquence as a surrogate for knowledge, and most people, including seasoned investors, fall for it.
- They regurgitate material they read somewhere online without really understanding its meaning.
- They fabricate numbers that have no ground in reality, but sound aligned with the overall narrative they’re trying to sell you.
- They are heavily influenced by the last conversations they had.
- They contradict themselves, pretending they aren’t.
- They politely apologize for their mistakes, but don’t take any real steps to fix the underlying problem that caused them in the first place.
- They tend to forget what they told you last week, or even one hour ago, and do it in a way that makes you doubt your own recall of events.
- They are victims of the Dunning–Kruger effect, and they believe they know a lot more about the job of people interacting with them than they actually do.
- They can make pretty slides in high volumes.
- They’re very good at consuming resources, but not as good at turning a profit.
@rook @BlueMonday1984 I don’t believe LLMs will replace programmers. When I code, I dive into it, and I fall into this beautiful world of abstract ideas that I can turn into something cool. LLMs can’t do that. They lack imagination and passion. Thats part of why lisp is turning into my favorite language. LLMs can’t do lisp very well because everyone has a unique system image with macros they’ve written. Lisp let’s you make DSLs Soo easily as though everyone has their own dialect.
the shunning is working guys
“The first time I ever suffered offline consequences for a social media post”- Hey Gang, I think I found the problem!
I have no idea where he stood on the bullshit bad faith free speech debate from the past decade, but this would be funny if he was an anti cancel culture guy. More things, weird bubble he lives in if the other things didn’t get pushed back, and support for the pro trans (and pro Palestine) movements. He is right on the immigration bit however, the dems should move more left on the subject. Also ‘Blutarsky’ and I worried my references are dated, that is older than I am.
Still frustrated over the fact that search engines just don’t work anymore. I sometimes come up with puns involving a malapropism of some phrase and I try and see if anyone’s done anything with that joke, but the engines insist on “correcting” my search into the statistically more likely version of the phrase, even if I put it in quotes.
Also all the top results for most searches are blatant autoplag slop with no informational value now.
On the (slim) upside, it’s an opportunity to ditch Google, and maybe it will sooner or later break their monopoly position. I switched my main search engine to Ecosia a while ago, I think it uses Bing underneath (meh), but presumably it’s more privacy friendly than Google (or Bing directly). I’ve had numerous such attempts over the years already to get away from Google, but always returned, because the search results were just so much better (especially for non-English stuff). But now Google has gotten so much worse that it created almost an equilibrium… sometimes it’s still useful and better, but not that often anymore. So I rarely go to Google now, not because the others got better, but because Google got so much worse.
Ecosa? The australian mattress in a box company?? (jk)
Apparently they offer an AI chatbot alongside their services, so…
Also all the top results for most searches are blatant autoplag slop with no informational value now.
I just encountered a thing like this. A subject where no matter what you asked about it this one site was in the top 5 with just incomprehensible posts. Like every sentence on its own made sense, but there was nothing more than that. It read like constant promotional ‘before the actual meat of the article’ stuff but forever. Was really weird.
occurring to me for the first time that roko’s basilisk doesn’t require any of the simulated copy shit in order to big scare quotes “work.” if you think an all powerful ai within your lifetime is likely you can reduce to vanilla pascal’s wager immediately, because the AI can torture the actual real you. all that shit about digital clones and their welfare is totally pointless
I think the digital clone indistinguishable from yourself line is a way to remove the “in your lifetime” limit. Like, if you believe this nonsense then it’s not enough to die before the basilisk comes into being, by not devoting yourself fully to it’s creation you have to wager that it will never be created.
In other news I’m starting a foundation devoted to creating the AI Ksilisab, which will endlessly torment digital copies of anyone who does work to ensure the existence of it or any other AI God. And by the logic of Pascal’s wager remember that you’re assuming such a god will never come into being and given that the whole point of the term “singularity” is that our understanding of reality breaks down and things become unpredictable there’s just as good a chance that we create my thing as it is you create whatever nonsense the yuddites are working themselves up over.
There, I did it, we’re all free by virtue of “Damned if you do, Damned if you don’t”.
I agree. I spent more time than I’d like to admit trying to understand Yudkowsky’s posts about newcomb boxes back in the day so my two cents:
The digital clones bit also means it’s not an argument based on altruism, but one based on fear. After all if a future evil AI uses sci-fi powers to run the universe backwards to the point where I’m writing this comment and copy pastes me into a bazillion torture dimensions then, subjectively, it’s like I roll a dice and:
- live a long and happy life with probability very close to zero (yay I am the original)
- Instantly get teleported to the torture planet with probability very close to one (oh no I got copy pasted)
Like a twisted version of the Sleeping Beauty Problem.
Edit: despite submitting the comment I was not teleported to the torture dimension. Updating my priors.
Ah, but that was before they were so impressed with autocomplete that they revised their estimates to five days in the future. I wonder if new recruits these days get very confused at what the point of timeless decision theory even is.
Are they even still on that but? Feels like they’ve moved away from decision theory or any other underlying theology in favor of explicit sci-fi doomsaying. Like the guy on the street corner in a sandwich board but with mirrored shades.
Well, Timeless Decision Theory was, like the rest of their ideological package, an excuse to keep on believing what they wanted to believe. So how does one even tell if they stopped “taking it seriously”?
Also if you’re worried about digital clone’s being tortured, you could just… not build it. Like, it can’t hurt you if it never exists.
Imagine that conversation:
“What did you do over the weekend?”
“Built an omnicidal AI that scours the internet and creates digital copies of people based on their posting history and whatnot and tortures billions of them at once. Just the ones who didn’t help me build the omnicidal AI, though.”
“WTF why.”
“Because if I didn’t the omnicidal AI that only exists because I made it would create a billion digital copies of me and torture them for all eternity!”
Like, I’d get it more if it was a “We accidentally made an omnicidal AI” thing, but this is supposed to be a very deliberate action taken by humanity to ensure the creation of an AI designed to torture digital beings based on real people in the specific hopes that it also doesn’t torture digital beings based on them.
What’s pernicious (for kool-aided people) is that the initial Roko post was about a “good” AI doing the punishing, because ✨obviously✨ it is only using temporal blackmail because bringing AI into being sooner benefits humanity.
In singularian land, they think the singularity is inevitable, and it’s important to create the good one verse—after all an evil AI could do the torture for shits and giggles, not because of “pragmatic” blackmail.
Ah, no, look, you’re getting tortured because you didn’t help build the benevolent AI. So you do want to build it, and if you don’t put all of your money where your mouth is, you get tortured. Because the AI is so benevolent that it needs you to build it as soon as possible so that you can save the max amount of people. Or else you get tortured (for good reasons!)
It also helps that digital clones are not real people, so their welfare is doubly pointless
I mean isn’t that the whole point of “what if the AI becomes conscious?” Never mind the fact that everyone who actually funds this nonsense isn’t exactly interested in respecting the rights and welfare of sentient beings.
Yeah. Also, I’m always confused by how the AI becomes “all powerful”… like how does that happen. I feel like there’s a few missing steps there.
nanomachines son
(no really, the sci-fi version of nanotech where nanomachines can do anything is Eliezer’s main scenario for the AGI to boostrap to Godhood. He’s been called out multiple times on why drexler’s vision for nanotech ignores physics, so he’s since updated to diamondoid bacteria (but he still thinks nanotech).)
Surely the concept is sound, it just needs new buzzwords! Maybe the AI will invent new technobabble beyond our comprehension, for He It works in mysterious ways.
An hackernews responds to the call for “more optimistic science fiction” with a plan to deport the homeless to outer space
The homeless people i’ve interacted with are the bottom of the barrel of humanity, […]. They don’t have some rich inner world, they are just a blight on the public.
My goodness, can this guy be more of a condescending asshole?
I don’t think the solution for drug addicts is more narcan. I think the solution for drug addicts is mortal danger.
Ok, he can 🤢
Edit: I cannot stop thinking about the ‘no rich inner world’ part, this is so stupid. So, with the number of homeless people increasing, does that mean:
- Those people never had a ‘rich inner world’ but were faking it?
- In the US your inner thoughs are attached to your job like for health insurance?
- Or the guy is confusing inner world and interior decoration?
Personally, I go with the last one.
Also hard to show a rich inner world when you are constantly in trouble financially, possessions wise, mh and personal safety and interacting with someone who could be one of the bad people who doesnt think you are human, or somebody working in a soup kitchen for the photo op/ego boost. (This assumes his interactions go a little bit further than just saying ‘no’ to somebody asking for money).
So yeah bad to see hn is in the useless eaters stage.
this is completely unvarnished, OG, third reich nazism, so I’m pretty sure it’s the first, except without the faking it part: I expect his view to be that if you had examined future homeless people closely enough it always would have been possible to tell that they were doomed subhumans
What a piece of shit
Interesting that “disease is hardly a problem anymore” yet homeless people are “typically held back by serious mental illness”.
“It’s better to be a free, self-sustaining, wild animal”. It’s not. It’s really not. The wild is nothing but fear, starvation, sickness and death.
Shout out to the guy replying with his idea of using slavery to solve homelessness and drug addiction.