3 ms·

> We (humans) should help humanity flourish. I understand that not everyone agrees. I have been called a “speciesist” for being “too human-centric”. this is in

> We (humans) should help humanity flourish. I understand that not everyone agrees. I have been called a “speciesist” for being “too human-centric”. this is insane. the "speciesist" people aside (the best way for all other species to flourish is for humans to eradicate themselves right now, which is completely mad), i have the opposite problem: the _axiom_ seems to be: we should help ME flourish. "Me" as in people who are raking in trillions for their own very special selves right now, at the cost of everyone else's future, while none of them can be trusted to hold my cell phone for a second. > if an industry commits to the axiom of helping humanity flourish where does he see such industries, outside of maybe nonprofits?

sinuhe69 13d ago
As I understand you referred to Elon Musk. But this is Poh Shen Loh talking. If you don’t know who he is, look up or at least read his articles.
- twelve40 13d ago
  weird bias by authority aside, do you really think that the daily decisions in this world today, and anytime soon, will be made based on the "let humanity flourish axiom"?
  - sinuhe69 13d ago
    In daily decisions perhaps not, and certainly not when we were in the cave. But from time to time, we will face fundamental questions that need addressing clearly and decisively, and I believe it’s the case with AI. The more advances we make, the more frequent such questions will arise. That is also one of the main reasons why we don’t see any alien civilization. It’s getting harder and harder to keep the entropy low as we gain more knowledges and cognitive power.
    - buildingapcin20 13d ago
      How's humanity tackling that climate change question then? Lots of talk. Even lots of action I would argue. And yet, not enough. Why do you think that's going to change with discussions around AI when there are trillions of dollars at stake?
      - sinuhe69 12d ago
        Because it will never change if you not try.
        palmotea 12d ago
        > Because it will never change if you not try. That's why it's important to convince people to not try. It reduces the medium term risk to investor returns.
- quietbritishjim 13d ago
  From his Wikipedia page: > Po-Shen Loh (Chinese: 罗博深; pinyin: Luó Bóshēn; born June 18, 1982) is an American mathematician specializing in combinatorics. Loh teaches at Carnegie Mellon University, and from 2014 to 2023 served as the national coach of the United States' International Mathematical Olympiad team. He is the founder of educational websites Expii and Live, and lead developer of contact-tracing app NOVID.
unsupp0rted 13d ago
[flagged]
- deleted 13d ago
  [deleted]
- mettamage 13d ago
  Nobody in their right mind would start a rocket company in order to make more money. I feel like he just wants to play real life Factorio and he wants everyone to tune in on his Twitch account and watch him play. Meanwhile he was trying to fix democracy [1] (and protect his own companies) by buying Twitter and at some point he realized he fucked up. But who knows, I could be wrong. I'm not exactly a fan. I'm not exactly against him either. He just seems like a hardcore geek to me that got way too much money and way too much buy-in. [1] I'm not saying I that I think he was fixing democracy. I'm saying that I think that he thought he was fixing democracy.
  - kelvinjps10 13d ago
    Meanwhile he was trying to fix democracy . He was literally giving checks for people if they voted a certain way and promoted it. There is not more anti democratic than this.
    - slopinthebag 13d ago
      right because true democracy is when you give cheques to people to convince other people to vote a certain way
      - sigmoid10 13d ago
        Well, he is famous for axing down middle management in companies. Might as well get rid of Super PACs and buy voters directly.
        slopinthebag 13d ago
deleted 13d ago
[deleted]
thaumasiotes 13d ago
> the best way for all other species to flourish is for humans to eradicate themselves right now That wouldn't do much for rice, pigs, chickens, or rats.
- ambicapter 12d ago
  You picked three animals that will literally eat anything, I think they'll be fine.
  - analog31 12d ago
    But there will be fewer of them, because we generate their food.
    - thaumasiotes 12d ago
      That's only true for the rats. For the pigs and chickens (and rice), there will be fewer of them because they do not themselves have the capacity to exist at current population levels. The reason they're doing so well right now is purely that we want them to.
      - analog31 12d ago
        Even rats. They are supported by our food and garbage.
speciesist123 13d ago
[dead]
palmotea 12d ago
>> We (humans) should help humanity flourish. I understand that not everyone agrees. I have been called a “speciesist” for being “too human-centric”. > this is insane. the "speciesist" people aside (the best way for all other species to flourish is for humans to eradicate themselves right now, which is completely mad), i have the opposite problem: the _axiom_ seems to be: we should help ME flourish. "Me" as in people who are raking in trillions for their own very special selves right now, at the cost of everyone else's future, while none of them can be trusted to hold my cell phone for a second. I don't think there are actually any "speciesist people." I think most, if not all, are the selfish "me people," who have disingenuously created "speciesism" by mad-libbing racism and sexism in a ham-handed attempt deflect criticism/opposition to whatever they want to do. Most of them aren't even "raking in trillions," they just don't like thinking about others or being told "no."
- jack_pp 12d ago
  there are a lot of people who put the lives of dogs above those of people]. I think you'd find that a lot of people will donate to save animals rather than humans
  - palmotea 12d ago
    > there are a lot of people who put the lives of dogs above those of people]. I think you'd find that a lot of people will donate to save animals rather than humans Ok, sure. But I was talking speciesist vs AI. Is there anyone who would genuinely put AI above on on part with humanity (beyond the rare nutjob weirdo)? I think the people who trot out "speciesism" to defend AI don't care about the consequences and just don't want to be told "no."

sinuhe69 13d ago

As I understand you referred to Elon Musk. But this is Poh Shen Loh talking. If you don’t know who he is, look up or at least read his articles.

twelve40 13d ago
weird bias by authority aside, do you really think that the daily decisions in this world today, and anytime soon, will be made based on the "let humanity flourish axiom"?
- sinuhe69 13d ago
  In daily decisions perhaps not, and certainly not when we were in the cave. But from time to time, we will face fundamental questions that need addressing clearly and decisively, and I believe it’s the case with AI. The more advances we make, the more frequent such questions will arise. That is also one of the main reasons why we don’t see any alien civilization. It’s getting harder and harder to keep the entropy low as we gain more knowledges and cognitive power.
  - buildingapcin20 13d ago
    How's humanity tackling that climate change question then? Lots of talk. Even lots of action I would argue. And yet, not enough. Why do you think that's going to change with discussions around AI when there are trillions of dollars at stake?
    - sinuhe69 12d ago
      Because it will never change if you not try.
      - palmotea 12d ago
        > Because it will never change if you not try. That's why it's important to convince people to not try. It reduces the medium term risk to investor returns.
quietbritishjim 13d ago
From his Wikipedia page: > Po-Shen Loh (Chinese: 罗博深; pinyin: Luó Bóshēn; born June 18, 1982) is an American mathematician specializing in combinatorics. Loh teaches at Carnegie Mellon University, and from 2014 to 2023 served as the national coach of the United States' International Mathematical Olympiad team. He is the founder of educational websites Expii and Live, and lead developer of contact-tracing app NOVID.

unsupp0rted 13d ago

[flagged]

deleted 13d ago
[deleted]
mettamage 13d ago
Nobody in their right mind would start a rocket company in order to make more money. I feel like he just wants to play real life Factorio and he wants everyone to tune in on his Twitch account and watch him play. Meanwhile he was trying to fix democracy [1] (and protect his own companies) by buying Twitter and at some point he realized he fucked up. But who knows, I could be wrong. I'm not exactly a fan. I'm not exactly against him either. He just seems like a hardcore geek to me that got way too much money and way too much buy-in. [1] I'm not saying I that I think he was fixing democracy. I'm saying that I think that he thought he was fixing democracy.
- kelvinjps10 13d ago
  Meanwhile he was trying to fix democracy . He was literally giving checks for people if they voted a certain way and promoted it. There is not more anti democratic than this.
  - slopinthebag 13d ago
    right because true democracy is when you give cheques to people to convince other people to vote a certain way
    - sigmoid10 13d ago
      Well, he is famous for axing down middle management in companies. Might as well get rid of Super PACs and buy voters directly.
      - slopinthebag 13d ago

deleted 13d ago

[deleted]

thaumasiotes 13d ago

> the best way for all other species to flourish is for humans to eradicate themselves right now That wouldn't do much for rice, pigs, chickens, or rats.

ambicapter 12d ago
You picked three animals that will literally eat anything, I think they'll be fine.
- analog31 12d ago
  But there will be fewer of them, because we generate their food.
  - thaumasiotes 12d ago
    That's only true for the rats. For the pigs and chickens (and rice), there will be fewer of them because they do not themselves have the capacity to exist at current population levels. The reason they're doing so well right now is purely that we want them to.
    - analog31 12d ago
      Even rats. They are supported by our food and garbage.

speciesist123 13d ago

[dead]

palmotea 12d ago

>> We (humans) should help humanity flourish. I understand that not everyone agrees. I have been called a “speciesist” for being “too human-centric”. > this is insane. the "speciesist" people aside (the best way for all other species to flourish is for humans to eradicate themselves right now, which is completely mad), i have the opposite problem: the _axiom_ seems to be: we should help ME flourish. "Me" as in people who are raking in trillions for their own very special selves right now, at the cost of everyone else's future, while none of them can be trusted to hold my cell phone for a second. I don't think there are actually any "speciesist people." I think most, if not all, are the selfish "me people," who have disingenuously created "speciesism" by mad-libbing racism and sexism in a ham-handed attempt deflect criticism/opposition to whatever they want to do. Most of them aren't even "raking in trillions," they just don't like thinking about others or being told "no."

jack_pp 12d ago
there are a lot of people who put the lives of dogs above those of people]. I think you'd find that a lot of people will donate to save animals rather than humans
- palmotea 12d ago
  > there are a lot of people who put the lives of dogs above those of people]. I think you'd find that a lot of people will donate to save animals rather than humans Ok, sure. But I was talking speciesist vs AI. Is there anyone who would genuinely put AI above on on part with humanity (beyond the rare nutjob weirdo)? I think the people who trot out "speciesism" to defend AI don't care about the consequences and just don't want to be told "no."