Ah but not everyone's taste is the same, therefore the best conceible plate of nachos is made worse by existing, because it can then be confronted to people's preferences instead of staying in the platonic realm!
I think for the Yud variety specifically a good summary is : "Taking all the wrong lessons from science fiction, and building a cult around it’s villains, and celebrating “Rational” villains + a belief in the inevitability of world changing technological progress"
I would say it goes further and that they have a (pseudo?)magical trust in their own intuitions, as if they are crystal clear revalations from the platonic realms.
It rings very true,
The [un]simulated, with the extra icky purpose of presenting of veneer of ethics to back any an all arguments under the sun, to pour money into the latest fad that tickles a billionaire's fancy.
You can't quite (yet) do that with pro-life advocacy.
Ah, but each additional sentence strikes home the point of absurd over-abundance!
Quite poetically, the sin of verbosity is commited to create the illusion of considered thought and intelligence, in the case of hpmor literally by stacking books.
Amusingly him describing his attempt as "striking words out" rather than "rewording" or "distilling", i think illustrates his lack of editing ability.
Possible countermeasure: Insist on “crediting” the LLM as the commit author, to regain sanity when doing git blame.
I agree that worse doc is a bad enough future, though I remain optimistic that including LLM in compile step is never going to be mainstream enough (or anything approaching stable enough, beyond some dumb useless smoke and mirrors) for me to have to deal with THAT.
In such a (unlikely) future of build tooling corruption, actual plausible terminology:
- Intent Annotation Prompt (though sensibly, this should be for doc and validation analysis purposes, not compilation)
- Intent Pragma Prompt (though sensibly, the actual meaning of the code should not change, and it should purely be optimization hints)
Let’s push it further!
10^80 minds is not the only possible outcome of bullshit sci-fi. Why not consider the obvious and inevitable (my crap-cassandra-muse is pre-comitted) future of humanity melding into the Single Mind Collective ?
Why should we 8 billion souls make sacrifices to improve the life of a single one?
(Bad UI made me accidentally delete my other comment instead of editing it)
It’s not bayesian reasoning without actual math, and many beliefs are not so easily quantified under any statistical framework.
All it really offers is unwarranted confidence in one’s own rationality, often used in these circles to cloak nauseating positions.
Making ideas « pay rent », In these circles is also used for black-pilling people into rejecting common sense and humanity. It’s good to be skeptical of new ideas or new claims, it’s even good to analyze and synthesize your own beliefs, it’s a bit dangerous to say that every belief is negotiable, and to give the tools to others the tools to mould them (here be cult dragons).
Despite it’s flaws, it is a good opening to the Declaration of Independence of the US (not American myself): « we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are […] equal […] with certain unalienable rights »
You can’t get morals from stats, and some core ideals ought to live in your mind rent-free.
It was so funny that I read it as an intentionnal self-deprecating (and by extension towards the community) joke, maybe I am too optimistic towards human nature ^^ (especically of the Ratty kind).
Sneerious rephrasing:
I would also tell them that the rationality cargo culting, is the only way to portray understanding things,
fake it till you make it, you can solve this insecurity that I have about myself in you!
Other people are untinking NPCs, they don't see the cracks in the matrix (and PC hellscape) like I do.
zogwarg
joined 2 years ago
Funnily enough it isn't even required by their purported bayesian doctrine (which proves none of them do the math), you could simply "update forward" again based on the new evidence that the text is part-fictional.