One day, when Zack is a little older, I hope he learns it's okay to sometimes talk -to someone- instead of airing one's identity confusion like an arxiv prepublish paper.
Like, it's okay to be confused in a weird world, or even have controversial opinions. Make some friends you can actually trust, aren't demanding bayesian defenses of feelings, and chat this shit out buddy.
I had a friend for many years who would do this. To be clear, this person was otherwise a decent friend and I had good times with them. But they would constantly declare, loudly, to everyone, how fat they were. They would make constant comments on how fat, their relatives were. They'd insist that other people were making special arrangements for them because of their fatness.
No matter how many times people would assure this person that we largely did not care or consider their weight as any factor in hanging out with them or interacting with them, they would deny it. No matter how many times I or anyone else carefully suggested that there may be some value in speaking to a therapist about their anxiety around their weight, they would not listen.
This same person would also complain how much fat shame society as a whole inflicts. But they refused to acknowledge their own.
It is sad, and infuriating, and it eventually pushed me and many other people away.
And indeed, the other crucial piece is that... apologizing isn't a protocol with an expected reward function. I can just, not accept your apology. I can just, feel or "update my priors" howmever I like.
We apologize and care about these things because of shame. Which we have to regulate, in part through our actions and perspectives.
Why people feel the way they do and act the way do makes total sense when ~~one finally confronts your own vulnerabilities~~ sorry, builds an API and RL framework.
Normies go crazy for this one neat rationalist trick!
It's also, probably wrong. Modern views of intelligence (see Multiple realizability of cognition and Multi-level competency collective intelligence and Free Energy Principle models) suggest you are better of measuring intelligence by measuring it's metabolism or through perturbation and interactions.
Which isn't reductive enough for these people.
I don't think we would work out..
So you're saying I have a chance?
"I'm LessWrong than you're implying!!!"
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?
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.
I wonder if Scott is the person who stood up during Michael Levin's talk on (non genetic) bio-electric circuits storing morphological memory across time and said, “those animals can’t exist!”