4 ms·

If people in the DoD at that level exhibited such a degree of incompetence, wouldn't you want to find out before it's too late?

sangnoir 3y ago
> If people in the DoD at that level exhibited such a degree of incompetence It is not incompetence - it is orthogonal. I worked with an excellent software engineer who was rather smart - way above average. However, he believed in "Overunity energy" and paid actual money to attend conferences and buy the books. Some folks are predeposed to believing conspiracies and seeing order where there's chaos.
- glenstein 3y ago
  Not to mention: (1) the Google engineer who "knows" what sentience looks like when chatting with a low-grade AI chatbot (2) the articles by Kevin Roose and other professional reporters about AI chatbots, believing they witnessed authentic confessions from ChatGPT that it wanted to become skynet, evincing a stunning lack of understanding of the function of large language models. (3) NASA Astronaut Edgar Mitchell who came to believe in UFOs and became cited by conspiracy theorists for decades. People at the centers of professional, institutional respectability who didn't have the wherewithal to step back and put thier impulses under the light of rational examination. It's not without precedent, and we don't have anything other than second order interpertation of information that hasn't been revealed, but we do have a blizzard of breathless reporting enteratining presumptions that are way ahead of any actual established facts.
  - jnwatson 3y ago
    You can’t say that Bard isn’t sentient until you define sentience. UK just declared that lobsters are sentient. Why not Bard. I think Lemoine did the world a favor by giving it a good few months head start. From his podcast, it is obvious that Roose knows exactly what he dealt with in the Sydney affair. It doesn’t mean it wasn’t unnerving.
- 0xr0kk3r 3y ago
  One of the brightest guys I ever worked with believed the earth had enough food and resources to support ONE TRILLION people. Just because you're one of 1000 people in the world that understand how to make a qubit doesn't mean that domain knowledge transfers. Feynman knew this (Degrasse Tyson kinda doesn't).
  - wizofaus 3y ago
    Pretty sure we'll stop wanting to reproduce at the required rate long before food/resources becomes the real issue (which isn't to say starvation etc. isn't likely to be a major problem for much of the world's population in coming decades, but it'll make less of an impact on population growth than the rate we choose to reproduce at).
    - trashtester 3y ago
      Beyond the clouds, the sky is always blue. But look further, and space is black as night. Humans are a species of animals. Recent environmental changes has caused a sharp decline in evolutionary fitness (=reproduction rate) for this population. This has happened to millions of species in the past, and in many (if not most) cases, the population adapted to the new environment, and the fitness grew back to or beyond replacement rate. Also, this can happen quite a lot faster than some seem to imagine. While it takes a long time for completely new mutations to make it into the gene pool, the gene pool already contains a huge diversity of genes coding for different types of traits, including mental traits. Often, all that is needed to adapt to a new environment, is for the relative frequency of these genes to change. For instance, many people seem to have a built-in oxytocin response when around young children. A boost in frequency to all genes promoting/strenghtening this mechanism may eventually make the need-to-have-baby emotion in most women stronger than the need-to-have-orgasm drive in the horniest of 18-year-olds. And if these genes are already in the gene pool, just with a low frequency, they could easily become dominant over 10-40 generations. In other words, if at some point the kinds of environmental change that cause population decline slows down, I don't think it's likely that the birth rate stays below replacement forever. (If it does, we'll go extinct, of course).
- themitigating 3y ago
  Conspiracy theorists (important: multiple) often have one or more of the following attributes which is why you see a wide range of intelligence in the group. 1. People with mental illness. 2. People with low intelligence who are unable/don't understand logic, the scientific method, and concepts like ecree, They are easily fooled by others. They may also have a bias like hating or mistrusting the government. 3. People who are insecure. Being a conspiracy theorist makes you feel smarter than other people as you are part of a select group of who know the truth. The masses are stupid or as they say now "asleep" but you've figured it all out via Google. This is why much of their talk is less about how they can prove their claims and more about the people who don't believe. They refer to them as "sheep" or "not awake. The focus for them is that they are right which may help with their insecurities. 4. People who don't feel they have a purpose in life and are looking for a meaning. Want to be a part of a group that is bound by something important and there's almost no effort to join? Bam, now your job is to get that information out there and covert the masses, a goal that will never be finished and thankfully take up your entire life. 5. People who were originally lured in because of the other reasons and no longer believe. Because they made it their life, maybe spent excess money, wrote books or made absolute claims they don't want to look stupid so they never admit their change. This is especially an issue on the internet where the whole world can fest on your failure.
  - sethammons 3y ago
    Interesting that you could s/conspiracy theorists/religious group and your argument sounds as convincing. "People who are insecure" might expand differently. "One or more" of your list items are probably truisms for any group you can think of. Train enthusiasts?
    - thworp 3y ago
      Actually it's s//cult leaders, the established religions are quite open about the ideas and texts underlying their beliefs (then some of them insist you need a cleric for interpretation). In cults that information is hidden and only accessible once someone has risen to the inner circle of the cult.
    - 3y ago

sangnoir 3y ago

> If people in the DoD at that level exhibited such a degree of incompetence It is not incompetence - it is orthogonal. I worked with an excellent software engineer who was rather smart - way above average. However, he believed in "Overunity energy" and paid actual money to attend conferences and buy the books. Some folks are predeposed to believing conspiracies and seeing order where there's chaos.

glenstein 3y ago
Not to mention: (1) the Google engineer who "knows" what sentience looks like when chatting with a low-grade AI chatbot (2) the articles by Kevin Roose and other professional reporters about AI chatbots, believing they witnessed authentic confessions from ChatGPT that it wanted to become skynet, evincing a stunning lack of understanding of the function of large language models. (3) NASA Astronaut Edgar Mitchell who came to believe in UFOs and became cited by conspiracy theorists for decades. People at the centers of professional, institutional respectability who didn't have the wherewithal to step back and put thier impulses under the light of rational examination. It's not without precedent, and we don't have anything other than second order interpertation of information that hasn't been revealed, but we do have a blizzard of breathless reporting enteratining presumptions that are way ahead of any actual established facts.
- jnwatson 3y ago
  You can’t say that Bard isn’t sentient until you define sentience. UK just declared that lobsters are sentient. Why not Bard. I think Lemoine did the world a favor by giving it a good few months head start. From his podcast, it is obvious that Roose knows exactly what he dealt with in the Sydney affair. It doesn’t mean it wasn’t unnerving.
0xr0kk3r 3y ago
One of the brightest guys I ever worked with believed the earth had enough food and resources to support ONE TRILLION people. Just because you're one of 1000 people in the world that understand how to make a qubit doesn't mean that domain knowledge transfers. Feynman knew this (Degrasse Tyson kinda doesn't).
- wizofaus 3y ago
  Pretty sure we'll stop wanting to reproduce at the required rate long before food/resources becomes the real issue (which isn't to say starvation etc. isn't likely to be a major problem for much of the world's population in coming decades, but it'll make less of an impact on population growth than the rate we choose to reproduce at).
  - trashtester 3y ago
    Beyond the clouds, the sky is always blue. But look further, and space is black as night. Humans are a species of animals. Recent environmental changes has caused a sharp decline in evolutionary fitness (=reproduction rate) for this population. This has happened to millions of species in the past, and in many (if not most) cases, the population adapted to the new environment, and the fitness grew back to or beyond replacement rate. Also, this can happen quite a lot faster than some seem to imagine. While it takes a long time for completely new mutations to make it into the gene pool, the gene pool already contains a huge diversity of genes coding for different types of traits, including mental traits. Often, all that is needed to adapt to a new environment, is for the relative frequency of these genes to change. For instance, many people seem to have a built-in oxytocin response when around young children. A boost in frequency to all genes promoting/strenghtening this mechanism may eventually make the need-to-have-baby emotion in most women stronger than the need-to-have-orgasm drive in the horniest of 18-year-olds. And if these genes are already in the gene pool, just with a low frequency, they could easily become dominant over 10-40 generations. In other words, if at some point the kinds of environmental change that cause population decline slows down, I don't think it's likely that the birth rate stays below replacement forever. (If it does, we'll go extinct, of course).
themitigating 3y ago
Conspiracy theorists (important: multiple) often have one or more of the following attributes which is why you see a wide range of intelligence in the group. 1. People with mental illness. 2. People with low intelligence who are unable/don't understand logic, the scientific method, and concepts like ecree, They are easily fooled by others. They may also have a bias like hating or mistrusting the government. 3. People who are insecure. Being a conspiracy theorist makes you feel smarter than other people as you are part of a select group of who know the truth. The masses are stupid or as they say now "asleep" but you've figured it all out via Google. This is why much of their talk is less about how they can prove their claims and more about the people who don't believe. They refer to them as "sheep" or "not awake. The focus for them is that they are right which may help with their insecurities. 4. People who don't feel they have a purpose in life and are looking for a meaning. Want to be a part of a group that is bound by something important and there's almost no effort to join? Bam, now your job is to get that information out there and covert the masses, a goal that will never be finished and thankfully take up your entire life. 5. People who were originally lured in because of the other reasons and no longer believe. Because they made it their life, maybe spent excess money, wrote books or made absolute claims they don't want to look stupid so they never admit their change. This is especially an issue on the internet where the whole world can fest on your failure.
- sethammons 3y ago
  Interesting that you could s/conspiracy theorists/religious group and your argument sounds as convincing. "People who are insecure" might expand differently. "One or more" of your list items are probably truisms for any group you can think of. Train enthusiasts?
  - thworp 3y ago
    Actually it's s//cult leaders, the established religions are quite open about the ideas and texts underlying their beliefs (then some of them insist you need a cleric for interpretation). In cults that information is hidden and only accessible once someone has risen to the inner circle of the cult.
  - 3y ago