And all that stuff just turned out to be true
Literally what stuff, that AI would get somewhat better as technology progresses?
I seem to remember Yud specifically wasn't that impressed with machine learning and thought so-called AGI would come about through ELIZA type AIs.
I liked how Scalzi brushed it away, basically your consciousness gets copied to a new body, which kills the old one, and an artifact of the transfer process is that for a few moments you experience yourself as a mind with two bodies, meaning you have at least the impression of continuity of self, which is enough for most people to get on with living in a new body and let philosophers do the worrying.
Also, since no one has mentioned it in the comments so far, it says he used to actually send money to fucking Quillete.
Looking through the reddit thread, the whole 'Peter Miller has great recall' thing feels off, like it's less an excuse for shoddy preparation and more a genuine grievance that he kept his superior memory ~~genes~~ skills purposefully hidden so they couldn't sent someone who had rolled equal or better brain stats to the debate.
This is in response to PM himself showing up in the thread to say rootclaim actually had his presentation 24 days in advance because the debate was delayed once:
This is true. I think the point is more that, even having seen all your own and your opponents information, a debater with greater recall / working memory can potentially "win" even if their argument is weaker.
Like, of course they lost, mere facts are nothing when the opponent has the IQ advantage, this is how the AI demons get us.
in a world of greater legibility, romantic partners would have the conversation about “I’d trade up if I found somebody 10%/25%/125% better than you” in advance, and make sure they have common knowledge of the numbers
To be clear, that world is inceldom and they already have a term for exactly that sort of thing.
It's both, probably. Sounds like the Alice and Bob of compsci security parable fame, except pretentious, and Mallory is the writer.
I didn't mean to sound too derisive, heritability is an actually useful metric as far as I can tell, it's just not as intuitive or monosemantic as a lot people will make it out to be, especially in the absence of significant correlating DNA evidence.
Siskind strawmans this into the alleged opposition desperately claiming that "it's not genetic unless there's a specific gene you can point to", aka the bitches dont know bout my poly/omnigenic traits argument.
Emil Kirkegaard of all fucking people shows up in the comments to call him out on misunderstanding variance.
It's not even eugenics to optimize ze genome to make ze uberbabies, OP mostly seems mad people are allowed to have non-procreative sex and couches it in a heavily loaded interpretation of inclusive fitness.
Seems to be a/b testing a new posting style aimed at a... less discerning audience of technoilliterate anti-wokists, I think, while claiming that people missed the joke/deep philosophical point he was illustrating without actually meaning what he wrote every time a post falls embarrassingly flat.
Once he gets that nobody outside the handful of rat forums is actually bothering with his bizarre wall of texts rants, i think blue collar vlogging behind the wheel yud night be the logical next step.
Not sure if it's a NSFW assertion, but to me the p-zombie experiment seems like the result of a discourse that went off the rails very early and very hard into angels on the head of a pin territory, this lw post notwithstanding.
Like, as far as I can tell, imagining a perfectly cloned reality except with the phenomenon in question assumed away, is supposedly (metaphysical) evidence that the phenomenon exists, except in a separate ontology? Isn't this basically like using reverse Occam's razor to prove that the extra entities are actually necessary, at least as long as they somehow stay mostly in their own universe?
Plus, the implicit assumption that consciousness can be defined as some sort of singular and uniform property you either have or don't seems inherently dodgy and also to be at the core of the contradiction; like, is taking p-zombies too seriously a reaction specifically to a general sense of disappointment that a singular consciousness organelle is nowhere to be found?
Hot take time, I think when siskind was at the age that he decided there are some things he will never again change his mind about he happened to be downstream of some flavor of transhumanism that favored gene editing instead of cybernetic augmentations and brain uploads, and things kind of escalated from there.
Spotlighting eugenics-based IQ-maxing is probably his version of going all in on summoning the acausal robot god to fix everything, and also the substack money is pretty good.