He's practicing for his Isaac Chotiner interview.

Why is it that religion as a whole is fine, but not this religion?

Me: This plant is poisonous.

You, a lesswrong brain genius: Plants are a vital part of the Earth's ecosystem. They make the oxygen that we breathe. You call yourself a vegetarian, and yet you have a problem with this plant. Why is it that plants as a whole are fine, but not this plant?

Me: This plant is poisonous.

Previous SneerClub mention of the Cade Metz story in question

So, R9PRESENTATIONALists are classicists who defend the "traditional university" and the Great Books canon, while also denouncing large institutions and aiming "to elevate the perspectives of underprivileged minorities".

Sure, Jan.

Almost all are avowedly committed to the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and diversity in faith; if you were to say that a belief system should be dismissed simply because it is essentially religious in nature in essentially any other context, they would be some of the loudest voices speaking out against you. So why should TESCREAL be any different? Why is it that religion as a whole is fine, but not this religion?

Because a religion passing itself off as scientific is a bad thing? Just spitballin' here.

The New York Times treats him as an expert: "Eliezer Yudkowsky, a decision theorist and an author of a forthcoming book". He's an Internet rando who has yammered about decision theory, not an actual theorist! He wrote fanfic that claimed to teach rational thinking while getting high-school biology wrong. His attempt to propose a new decision theory was, last I checked, never published in a peer-reviewed journal, and in trying to check again I discovered that it's so obscure it was deleted from Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Functional_Decision_Theory

To recapitulate my sneer from an earlier thread, the New York Times respects actual decision theorists so little, it's like the whole academic discipline is trans people or something.

an hackernews:

a high correlation between intelligence and IQ

motherfuckers out here acting like "intelligence" is sufficiently well-defined that a correlation between it and anything else can be computed

intelligence can be reasonably defined as "knowledge and skills to be successful in life, i.e. have higher-than-average income"

eat a bag of dicks

shot:

The upper bound for how long to pause AI is only a century, because “farming” (artificially selecting) higher-IQ humans could probably create competent IQ 200 safety researchers.

It just takes C-sections to enable huge heads and medical science for other issues that come up.

chaser:

Indeed, the bad associations ppl have with eugenics are from scenarios much less casual than this one

going full "villain in a Venture Bros. episode who makes the Monarch feel good by comparison":

Sure, I don't think it's crazy to claim women would be lining up to screw me in that scenario

Some of Kurzweil's predictions in 1999 about 2019:

A $1,000 computing device is now approximately equal to the computational ability of the human brain. Computers are now largely invisible and are embedded everywhere. Three-dimensional virtual-reality displays, embedded in glasses and contact lenses, provide the primary interface for communication with other persons, the Web, and virtual reality. Most interaction with computing is through gestures and two-way natural-language spoken communication. Realistic all-encompassing visual, auditory, and tactile environments enable people to do virtually anything with anybody regardless of physical proximity. People are beginning to have relationships with automated personalities as companions, teachers, caretakers, and lovers.

Also:

Three‐dimensional nanotube lattices are now a prevalent form of computing circuitry.

And:

Autonomous nanoengineered machines can control their own mobility and include significant computational engines.

And:

ʺPhoneʺ calls routinely include high‐resolution three‐dimensional images projected through the direct‐eye displays and auditory lenses. Three‐dimensional holography displays have also emerged. In either case, users feel as if they are physically near the other person. The resolution equals or exceeds optimal human visual acuity. Thus a person can be fooled as to whether or not another person is physically present or is being projected through electronic communication.

And:

The all‐enveloping tactile environment is now widely available and fully convincing. Its resolution equals or exceeds that of human touch and can simulate (and stimulate) all of the facets of the tactile sense, including the sensing of pressure, temperature, textures, and moistness. Although the visual and auditory aspects of virtual reality involve only devices you have on or in your body (the direct‐eye lenses and auditory lenses), the ʺtotal touchʺ haptic environment requires entering a virtual reality booth. These technologies are popular for medical examinations, as well as sensual and sexual interactions with other human partners or simulated partners. In fact, it is often the preferred mode of interaction, even when a human partner is nearby, due to its ability to enhance both experience and safety.

And:

Automated driving systems have been found to be highly reliable and have now been installed in nearly all roads.

And:

The type of artistic and entertainment product in greatest demand (as measured by revenue generated) continues to be virtual‐experience software, which ranges from simulations of ʺrealʺ experiences to abstract environments with little or no corollary in the physical world.

And:

The expected life span, which, as a (1780 through 1900) and the first phase result of the first Industrial Revolution of the second (the twentieth century), almost doubled from less than forty, has now substantially increased again, to over one hundred.

Some of Kurzweil's predictions in 1999 about 2009:

• “Unused computes on the Internet are harvested, creating … human brain hardware capacity.”
• “The online chat rooms of the late 1990s have been replaced with virtual environments…with full visual realism.”
• “Interactive brain-generated music … is another popular genre.”
• “the underclass is politically neutralized through public assistance and the generally high level of affluence”
• “Diagnosis almost always involves collaboration between a human physician and a … expert system.”
• “Humans are generally far removed from the scene of battle.”
• “Despite occasional corrections, the ten years leading up to 2009 have seen continuous economic expansion”
• “Cables are disappearing.”
• “grammar checkers are now actually useful”
• “Intelligent roads are in use, primarily for long-distance travel.”
• “The majority of text is created using continuous speech recognition (CSR) software”
• “Autonomous nanoengineered machines … have been demonstrated and include their own computational controls.”

Carl T. Bergstrom, 13 February 2023:

Meta. OpenAI. Google.

Your AI chatbot is not hallucinating.

It's bullshitting.

It's bullshitting, because that's what you designed it to do. You designed it to generate seemingly authoritative text "with a blatant disregard for truth and logical coherence," i.e., to bullshit.

Me, 2 February 2023:

I confess myself a bit baffled by people who act like "how to interact with ChatGPT" is a useful classroom skill. It's not a word processor or a spreadsheet; it doesn't have documented, well-defined, reproducible behaviors. No, it's not remotely analogous to a calculator. Calculators are built to be right, not to sound convincing. It's a bullshit fountain. Stop acting like you're a waterbender making emotive shapes by expressing your will in the medium of liquid bullshit. The lesson one needs about a bullshit fountain is not to swim in it.

Feynman had a story about trying to read somebody's paper before a grand interdisciplinary symposium. As he told it, he couldn't get through the jargon, until he stopped and tried to translate just one sentence. He landed on a line like, "The individual member of the social community often receives information through visual, symbolic channels." And after a lot of crossing-out, he reduced that to "People read."

Yud, who idolizes Feynman above all others:

I also remark that the human equivalent of a utility function, not that we actually have one, often revolves around desires whose frustration produces pain.

Ah. People don't like to hurt.