• 25 Posts
  • 3.18K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: September 6th, 2024

help-circle

  • We’re not really prepared for the democratization of knowledge, or at least applications of knowledge, that LLMs might enable. Imagine a powerful jailbroken LLM. You ask it how to make an effective remotely operated bomb. You then direct it to not only prepare instructions, but create an augmented reality overview that you can view through a pair of smart glasses. It projects images onto your environment and literally guides your hands through the process of making a powerful bomb. No thought required; just move your hands along with the projection. There’s a reason we have mass shooters but not many mass bombings. It’s not as easy as one might think, and it carries a high risk of the would-be bomber exploding themselves instead. But this? It eliminates all the guesswork, all you have to do is align your hands with what the goggles tell you.

    On the less evil side, imagine doing the same thing for medical care. Imagine you could put on a pair of AR goggles and be guided through the process of performing a surgery. Imagine a world where even though it’s illegal, untrained people in increasing numbers are performing major surgeries on each other. An extreme response to the cost of medical care.

    Sure, LLMs are deeply flawed on many axis. But they do get it right often enough to matter. Even if the bomber’s LLM manages to result in a dud, or a bomb going off while building it, one times in twenty, that would still dramatically increase the accessibility of home-built explosive devices. And that could be the case across many disciplines and applications.



  • Maybe not in domestic policy, but we could absolutely be at war with Iran right now. At the start of the war, it was reported that the US went in primarily because Israel was going to do so, and that would result in the US getting dragged in anyway. The only way to prevent the Iran war was to have a president actually willing to stand up to Israel, and Kamala fully supports Israel.

    Also, I agree with your sentence that harm minimization is a valid way of voting. What I absolutely resent is the haughty assumption people make that this is the ONLY valid way of voting.



  • Some voters vote for the future. Some for accountability for past actions. You don’t get to tell people the right way to vote.

    In many ways, you’re advocating an inferior strategy. Politicians lie all the time, and their campaign promises are mostly wishful thinking. But holding a party accountable for their past actions actually has real data to go off of.










  • Why do you assume these all need to be new careers? Why do you assume that we can’t expand existing careers? It’s happened in the past, it can happen again. Agriculture went from employing the majority of the populace to 2%. We found jobs for everyone.

    There are many professions that have immense latent demand that people simply cannot afford. Really any industry that involves a lot of human labor. People want more education than they can afford. People want more healthcare than they can afford. People want more childcare, private tutoring, home cleaning, personal trainers, life coaches, financial advisors, and on and on. Think of the retinue of assistants and employees the wealthy employ. Now imagine the number of people who can afford those services drastically expanding. We don’t even need to necessarily invent new careers. There’s plenty of latent demand already. Those masses of displaced agricultural workers? Most of them found jobs in fields that already existed.

    Over the last 70 years (in the USA for ex) unemployment has been trending up.

    This is false. I’ll ignore the employment rate and focus on labor force participation rate, as unemployment doesn’t count people who are long-term unemployed and have given up working. Labor force participation is a better metric here.

    Labor force participation has gone up and down, corresponding with changes in demographics. Despite generations of technological change and automation, we’ve always found ways to employ the excess labor. Human labor is always the ultimate bottleneck. There’s probably enough latent demand for human labor to employ many multiples of our current population.


  • It made sense precisely because she wasn’t ever going to win a primary on her own. Biden acted like Trump here. Trump surrounds himself with people who have zero future without him. His cabinet is filled with profoundly unqualified people whose only real qualification is unwavering loyalty to Trump. This is a classic move of authoritarian leaders, as their advisors then become completely dependent on them. Once Trump is out of office, Hegseth is never going to have a role in government again. (Unless some other authoritarian president is seeking a loyal lackey.)

    Biden did a less extreme version of this with Kamala. Kamala certainly wasn’t objectively unqualified for her job like Hegseth is, but she also could never had obtained a leadership position in the White House via her own merits.



  • Eh. It made more sense hundreds of years ago for people to build houses that lasted for centuries. That kind of construction makes sense in periods of slow technological and social change.

    But think of how differently people live now vs just a hundred years ago. Imagine buying a house without running water, electric wiring, or insulation. Sure, old homes can be renovated to have these. But that requires tearing the thing down to the bare stone or wood walls and starting from scratch. You have to gut the entire building. The only thing that remains is the shell, a shell which represents only 20% of the cost of the building, if that. Most of the cost of a building is not in the structure itself, yet that’s the only part that gets saved in a complete gutting and renovation.

    If you build a house today that lasts centuries, the only way that house will still be occupied 300 years from now is if it’s been gutted down to the studs multiple times over the generations. And at that point, why build an ultra-durable house in the first place? Why not build something lighter that requires fewer resources up front, and can simply be torn down and recycled once it’s become obsolete?