empthought

6 ms·

31.
by empthought 5mo ago
I have no idea what you are referring to. This isn’t a question of ingroup or outgroup.
32.
by empthought 5mo ago
Then I’d say you either really deserve the world you get when red wins, or you don’t really deserve the world you get when blue wins.
33.
by empthought 5mo ago
It doesn’t guarantee my safety, though. It puts me in a world where the only people left were so afraid of dying that they opted into a completely avoidable mass murder.
34.
by empthought 5mo ago
> this is irrational and doesn’t likely reflect what people would actually do People are irrational. I guarantee it’s likely that a lot of people would actually do it. > The idea behind claiming you’d choose the blue button is to appe
35.
by empthought 5mo ago
Of course the framing affects how people vote. The thought experiment demands we use the framing as given. Some people might reason themselves into your analogy, others won’t.
36.
by empthought 5mo ago
It is rephrased. Any phrasing besides the original exists only in your head and not in anyone else’s. The only reason I’m in my tomb is because you and people like you voted to kill me instead of voting to do nothing. Luckily for me, I’m de
37.
by empthought 5mo ago
You don’t get to reframe the problem with different wording or circumstances to demonstrate your intelligence to others before they choose and you choose. That’s part of the thought experiment.
38.
by empthought 5mo ago
Yes, when you completely rephrase the problem you will have different sentiments. The thought experiment demands that the phrasing that was used actually be used, and you don’t get a chance to show the dumb blue people how smart you are bef
39.
by empthought 5mo ago
Yes, but those are different thought experiments from this one.
40.
by empthought 5mo ago
This one explicitly is not.
41.
by empthought 5mo ago
One button could kill you — if and only if enough people press the other button. The other button certainly won’t kill you, but will kill everyone who pressed the first button — if and only if enough people besides you press it.
42.
by empthought 5mo ago
That’s not the thought experiment.
43.
by empthought 5mo ago
These types of analyses always treat voting red and ending up in the majority as preferable to voting blue and ending up in the minority. I don’t think that assumption is universally valid. In the first case you contend with living in a wor
44.
by empthought 6mo ago
> Why does it need to say things to itself like “great I have a plan now!” How else would it know whether it has a plan now?
45.
by empthought 6mo ago
Your question was about calling for violence.
46.
by empthought 6mo ago
Yes. If you want a molotov cocktail thrown so badly, throw it yourself. Don't put it on other people to do it for you.
47.
by empthought 6mo ago
Of course! If it were interesting, they wouldn't need to pay you. You would pay them!
48.
by empthought 6mo ago
Yes, I wasn’t clear. I was offering a reason why dollars “losing value” is not actually a thing to worry about. If they didn’t lose value, people would hold onto them instead of spending them. Which is objectively a loss to everyone, regar
49.
by empthought 6mo ago
Dollars that people hold onto, instead of using to purchase something else of value, are effectively worthless to everyone.
50.
by empthought 7mo ago
No one is talking about AGI in this thread except you, though. The post said nothing about it. It's an absolute non sequitur that you brought up yourself.
51.
by empthought 7mo ago
I said I don’t think it follows, and you certainly gave no support for the idea that it must follow. Logically speaking, it’s possible for improvements to continue indefinitely in specific domains, and never come close to AGI. Progress in L
52.
by empthought 8mo ago
I don’t think that follows, nor do I think it will keep improving indefinitely. It will certainly continue to improve for a while. We don’t need anything close to AGI to render the job “software engineer” as we know it today completely obso
53.
by empthought 8mo ago
I know some proponents have AGI as their target, but to me it seems to be unrelated to the steadily increasing effectiveness of using LLMs to write computer code. I think of it as just another leap in human-computer interface for programmin
54.
by empthought 9mo ago
I'm not the commenter, but I interpret it as: The benefit that others get by you reaching your potential is greater than the risk to others of you making space for yourself to reach your potential.
55.
by empthought 9mo ago
This sounds more like scrupulosity than a moral framework. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrupulosity
56.
by empthought 9mo ago
Python is at least as typed as Lua.
57.
by empthought 9mo ago
I think you vastly overestimate the value that people place on Trump. The GOP would swear in President Vance and count their blessings.
58.
by empthought 9mo ago
I would not be screaming for blood. It is the world order he wants, and perhaps the only possible lesson in why we shouldn’t give him that world order.
59.
by empthought 9mo ago
Of course it supports partial updates. It just requires you to know the difference between a document and a field, and model your data appropriately.
60.
by empthought 9mo ago
The falsehood is the phrase "with each release gets increasingly bloated and strays further from its foundations." It hasn't had any such language-changing release for at least six years. The implication that this is an ongoi

More ›