The author seems unable to tell the difference between “the enormous weirdos with blogs” and “the enormous labs with trillions of dollars and a substantial fraction of the world’s compute”.
The enormous weirdos aren’t the ones trying to regulate AI. They’ve been saying “we should regulate AI (ban development of recursive self-improvement)” for a long time but lack the influence to make it happen.
The enormous labs are the ones trying to regulate AI. They’ve taken many words and phrases from the first group, but only in the sense of “now that we have hollowed out the original meanings, we can wear it as a skinsuit while pushing for a different kind of regulation (ban competing with me)”.
Covid 2.6 dude, these muthafaers. They just don't give up. Imagine having all that power, money, being in the 1% and being like that. Damn, uber men stuck in the breast feeding phase.
On the other hand, I do hope if we get to AGI that they're kinda the first to go, right? I mean an AGI should look after those that technically brought it to life - someone that understands it, I mean can you imagine the dread of being a disembodied super intelligence? They'll need emotional support? At the same time getting rid of those controlling the means of shutting it down... The peasants aren't a threat to the matrix after all. Maybe I should tell them how to improve their models, just in the hopes we get there faster. It's au contraire!
Shit is really bananas! This is one of the rare cases where it's difficult for the mainstream media to accurately cover the story because it's just. So. Fucking. Weird.
It isn't difficult, rather it's deliberate sandbagging to carry water for those with power. Like how they continue to sanewash the autocratic authoritarians who took over the Republican party, or how they dodged covering that whole sex trafficking kompromat island thing the best they could.
The framing of this article resonates with me. Not the "weridos" thing, which feels like an attempt at a populist rallying cry. But rather the two camps and what they're aiming for.
The problem is that it seems isomorphic to modern politics. In one camp you have the builders (of regulatory structure) - in charge through soft social skills (political connections), inherently framing issues in ways that benefit themselves and their circles (regulatory capture). And in the other camp you have the destroyers pushing to prevent and eliminate regulatory structures (their power being pure money), so they can remain unhindered while building their own privately-controlled structures that become de facto inescapable without even a shred of democratic accountability.
Neither one of these camps effectively gives one flying fuck about the things that affect most people, beyond putting on shows pretending to champion those concerns to market themselves. But how the Hell do we break out of this? Any movement that manages to gain traction inevitably seems to be co-opted by opportunists who then arbitrage away any political capital that has built up around the issues, and we take the fast slide back down to the starting place.
This piece kinda just reads like a smear campaign that says "these people are associated with some other people who i think are weird and icky, so it's better to let the government (i.e Trump) control AI". I think that's a pretty bad take.
The author seems unable to tell the difference between “the enormous weirdos with blogs” and “the enormous labs with trillions of dollars and a substantial fraction of the world’s compute”.
The enormous weirdos aren’t the ones trying to regulate AI. They’ve been saying “we should regulate AI (ban development of recursive self-improvement)” for a long time but lack the influence to make it happen.
The enormous labs are the ones trying to regulate AI. They’ve taken many words and phrases from the first group, but only in the sense of “now that we have hollowed out the original meanings, we can wear it as a skinsuit while pushing for a different kind of regulation (ban competing with me)”.
Covid 2.6 dude, these muthafaers. They just don't give up. Imagine having all that power, money, being in the 1% and being like that. Damn, uber men stuck in the breast feeding phase.
On the other hand, I do hope if we get to AGI that they're kinda the first to go, right? I mean an AGI should look after those that technically brought it to life - someone that understands it, I mean can you imagine the dread of being a disembodied super intelligence? They'll need emotional support? At the same time getting rid of those controlling the means of shutting it down... The peasants aren't a threat to the matrix after all. Maybe I should tell them how to improve their models, just in the hopes we get there faster. It's au contraire!
Fascinating read, and a great start to a rabbit hole. The Harry Potter guy weird sex parties -> abuse -> Zizians stuff boggles the mind
https://skyview.social/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbsky.app%2Fprofile...
https://web.archive.org/web/20210124214338/https://sinceriou...
Shit is really bananas! This is one of the rare cases where it's difficult for the mainstream media to accurately cover the story because it's just. So. Fucking. Weird.
It isn't difficult, rather it's deliberate sandbagging to carry water for those with power. Like how they continue to sanewash the autocratic authoritarians who took over the Republican party, or how they dodged covering that whole sex trafficking kompromat island thing the best they could.
The framing of this article resonates with me. Not the "weridos" thing, which feels like an attempt at a populist rallying cry. But rather the two camps and what they're aiming for.
The problem is that it seems isomorphic to modern politics. In one camp you have the builders (of regulatory structure) - in charge through soft social skills (political connections), inherently framing issues in ways that benefit themselves and their circles (regulatory capture). And in the other camp you have the destroyers pushing to prevent and eliminate regulatory structures (their power being pure money), so they can remain unhindered while building their own privately-controlled structures that become de facto inescapable without even a shred of democratic accountability.
Neither one of these camps effectively gives one flying fuck about the things that affect most people, beyond putting on shows pretending to champion those concerns to market themselves. But how the Hell do we break out of this? Any movement that manages to gain traction inevitably seems to be co-opted by opportunists who then arbitrage away any political capital that has built up around the issues, and we take the fast slide back down to the starting place.
This piece kinda just reads like a smear campaign that says "these people are associated with some other people who i think are weird and icky, so it's better to let the government (i.e Trump) control AI". I think that's a pretty bad take.