Oh absolutely. It’s frankly shocking how wrong he’s been about so many things for so so long. He’s also managed to pen the most astonishingly holocaust-denial-coded diatribe I’ve ever read from (ostensibly) a non-holocaust denier. I guess his overdeveloped genocide-denial muscle was twitching!

and, of course, Noam Chomsky

lmao the shade

Yeah! Exactly!

And of course on that theme from Melanie “Computer scientist” Mitchell

On the bad side: A.I.-induced psychosis! On the good side, some people will get a lot out of using chatbots as therapists.

These people have definitely offloaded the cognitive load to chatbots.

I like this one from “A.I. policy researcher” Helen Toner.

I believe the narrative around A.I.’s negative environmental impacts has gotten way out of hand. Yes, on aggregate the industry uses quite a bit of energy and water, but that’s true of any large industry. The relevant question is how it compares to other industries, and how it compares to how much value we’re getting out of it.

Yes girl, good job. Now maybe try connecting these two thoughts!

I was getting excited to read this but seeing the word “hyperstition” used three times in the abstract put a bit of a damper on things hahah

The thing is, the world in 1984 is feminist! as imagined by a bloke who hates feminism. Sex for pleasure is outlawed, makeup and dresses are banned, women look and act like men (and indeed are worse than men) instead of following their womanly nature. It’s a feminist dystopia!

I mean, if god damned Asimov thinks your book is misogynistic, you know you’ve fucked up!

I don’t think I disagree with much of what Asimov is saying here! Aside from the silly bits about left infighting and scifi as forecasting (yawn), and the horrible recount of the Spanish civil war, I’ve made pretty much the same observations about 1984. It’s nihilistic and reactionary, it’s profoundly misogynistic and it reeks of contempt for the working class. It’s also shockingly naive and paradoxically enthusiastic about the workings and effectiveness of propaganda and censorship. There’s certainly nothing prescient about it. It’s baffling to me that it’s still popular with leftleaning people to this day.

The most generous thing I can say is that the book might have been intended purely as satire, and as such it would at least be coherent. But sadly I don’t think this is how people tend to read it.

yup this is pretty much what happens when you grind books for xp instead of actually reading them

some important characters in the narrative I’ve completely skipped over, mostly to do with the Nature of Art (in society) subplot, because nothing actually happens in them and it’s all social parties and talking

you … mother … fucker … so not only did you manage to miss the fact that this is a gay book, you completely skipped past one if not the most important theme in the novel which is language and the way people talk and write and the various ways they conduct themselves in different times and places, but oh nothing happens it’s just people talking aaaaaaaaaa

also this is a funny book! it’s funny! it’s not all maudlin meditations upon time and memory! fuck you!

warming up on philosophy with Simulacra and Simulation

oh no baby what are you doing

im gonna shit

If I understand correctly, the only reason they’re in such low orbit, and thus why there needs to be so fucking many of them, is to have much lower latency compared to geostationary satellites. You know, in case you need to play Quake on your satellite connection.

no fucking way

Nah, I’m not sure how much he was into eugenics (he was at the very least definitely in favour of killing invalid children), but grandiose and incoherent reactionary aristocratic bullshit is a 100% valid reading of Nietzsche.

I’m sorry but whatever you think about the actual content I’m going to be prescriptive and proclaim that the word manifesto should not be allowed to refer to opinions about management practices.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTXTDvY_sDY

Would you say that in your life you find it hard to engage in conversation with women?

There’s no good reason for male circumcision, but female “circumcision” is not comparable at all. It’s almost never done safely and it more than often involves removal of the glans clitoridis (i.e. genital mutilation). Male circumcision does not usually remove the bellend. No one can possibly equate the two in good faith.

Anyways, yeah I would say the main driver is men’s rights activists, though unsurprisingly I’ve seen a fair share of antisemitism come with it. They’re more or less the same ideology anyway.

I believe in you Eliezer! You’re starting to recognise that the AI doom stuff is boring nonsense! I’m cheering for you to dig yourself out of the philosophical hole you’ve made!