tech_ken

24 ms·

331.
by tech_ken 3y ago
You’re lightly changing the topic here, I think. I brought up regulation as one type of situation where someone makes estimates about the future societal impact about technology. Setting aside the big libertarian rant for a sec, I’d like to
332.
by tech_ken 3y ago
Yes, that’s correct. Mixed significance pattern and wide-ish SEs so a little challenging to make claims across crime types IMO. This demo tends to commit the most recorded crimes, which means that they’re getting arrested or murdered. Presu
333.
by tech_ken 3y ago
What do you mean "how are you going to do that"? Are you seriously trying to assert that ex. the FDA has never successfully blocked a harmful drug from going to market? In another comment you yourself concluded that not adopting n
334.
by tech_ken 3y ago
The "opposing point" I am making is that technology is ethically neutral and needs to be examined as as it functions in the world, on a case-by-case basis (and implemented accordingly). I can't personally say I know many peop
335.
by tech_ken 3y ago
> And so is doomerism. The manichaean straw-manning is not helpful (and is in fact one of my main points of contention here). There are clear positions between "doomerism" and "people who own tech firms should never be que
336.
by tech_ken 3y ago
Better to link the actual study, no? The Daily Mail site is a nightmare of ads, and the text of the article doesn't actually present the relevant evidence. Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law
337.
by tech_ken 3y ago
Per HN's comment policy I try and only speak about what was directly, actually said. However it definitely seems to me like your phrasing fits the observed facts better than e/acc's own characterization of its motivations.
338.
by tech_ken 3y ago
> we are having this conversation while thousands of miles apart, in the comfort of our homes, with our bellies full, well clothed, sheltered and without anybody trying to eat us. > We also understood the laws of the Universe and used
339.
by tech_ken 3y ago
> These guys are pushing back on outsiders setting arbitrary limits on technological progress. I think the reason a lot of us dislike e/acc is that they are also pushing back on insiders setting extremely prudent and well-reasoned l
340.
by tech_ken 3y ago
I think it's funny how MA's original post focused so aggressively on "obstacles to progress" like safety regulation and sustainability concerns. It seems to me that the real obstacles to progress are the things that tak
341.
by tech_ken 3y ago
> I personally don't know any technology that overall was a net negative. To start, I think it's extremely difficult (if even possible) to assign "scores" to the outcomes of all technologies ever developed in human hi
342.
by tech_ken 3y ago
Interesting point, I guess by "democratized access" I was thinking along a "state <-> individual" axis, but you're not wrong that in terms of nationstates there's better access across citizen groups, rath
343.
by tech_ken 3y ago
> If you're using past technologies to predict the role of future ones, your thesis has to justify or at least account for the negative consequences as well. Perfect, I literally could not have said this better myself.
344.
by tech_ken 3y ago
Ergo all technological development anywhere ever is a net positive? Seems overly strong to me.
345.
by tech_ken 3y ago
> Most people are able to understand what is broadly meant by "technological development". I personally don't find someone saying "oh you know what was meant" to be a convincing argument, others may feel differen
346.
by tech_ken 3y ago
Absolutely! And I do think that the relationship between technology and power is super interesting and worthy of consideration, but this approach to it is just....goofy.
347.
by tech_ken 3y ago
> but overall there is more good than bad This seems like an extremely dubious assumption, to me, especially given the extremity of the conclusions being placed upon it. Feels like a roulette player saying "well if I always double m
348.
by tech_ken 3y ago
IMO this is a super ahistorical and overly-simplified reading of technological development. For one, you're painting with an absurdly wide brush. For example: has the rapid development of missile technology "democratized access&qu
349.
by tech_ken 3y ago
IANAE but the way CBT was explained to was that thought, emotions, and actions exist in a fully connected, bidirectional causal graph; not that any one particular node was primary over the others. The intention (I thought) was to try and ta
350.
by tech_ken 3y ago
I assumed some kind of CYA on the part of PromptArmor. Seems better to go the extra mile and disclose thoroughly rather than wind up on the wrong side of a computer fraud lawsuit. Embarassing for Writer.com that they handled it like this
351.
by tech_ken 3y ago
As in get a "get a job in physics" or "understand physics"? If it's the former I'd suggest boning up on your FORTRAN and applying to scientific computing jobs. If it's the latter I'd recommend Khan ac
352.
by tech_ken 3y ago
Government isn't sand, I don't think it's productive to talk about "more" or "less" of it. I think it's more appropriate to talk about the expense/benefit ratio of tax dollars which in the US is
353.
by tech_ken 3y ago
Any for-profit company is going to expect the same from their employees, even if they don't say it; it is the nature of contract employment. Any company which tells you that they want you to balance their needs against literally anythi
354.
by tech_ken 3y ago
Can I use this comment (anonymized of course) as example in the next course I teach on regression stats? Because it's the exact opposite of how you're supposed to do regression inference. Selecting feature sets by beta alone is a
355.
by tech_ken 3y ago
For sure, the benefits cliff is a huge flaw in our social safety net. We should direct massively more resources to create a comprehensive social benefits program that covers a wide range of social strata with both goods and services, either
356.
by tech_ken 3y ago
More fool you
357.
by tech_ken 3y ago
"Whether or not we correctly understand the root causes of X, it seems likely that doing Y will clearly reduce it". I can't change your beliefs, but you have to understand how foolish this sounds to me. If you think the sexua
358.
by tech_ken 3y ago
I edited my original comment to expound. The "evidence" he cites is incredibly thin, in my professional opinion.
359.
by tech_ken 3y ago
[flagged]
360.
by tech_ken 3y ago
> I'm also a little confused as to the notion of people desiring independence from community. While I know many people that desired independence from local community microcosms, such as church, small rural towns, or disagreeable fam

More ›