Da_Peach

I don't get why this was curated, am I missing something? The piece basically says that what you want to do & what society expects you to do are 2 separate things (a topic which has been explored since time immemorial). Then it says that you should evaluate what you really want to do based on rational thinking & long-term planning (also something incredibly obvious). Is there anything more to it?

I thought the only novel bit was the passage about oxytocin, which is barely 10% of the article.

I agree with the content of the essay, but I disagree with the allocated name.

1. A grayspace implies it's just one intermediary place to station potential members. However, the process often involves multiple stages where checks and balances are applied. Furthermore, these intermediate stages may overlap, and the overall transition can be smooth rather than discrete.
2. It just isn't directly clear what the term is referring to, since it's an entirely new word.

Thus, I propose for the people to use in their discussions the term pipeline instead, since it's an established word used to express the same notion of transitioning people from one state to another, and it correctly expresses that there may be multiple stations. I suspect the essay could have been made much shorter too if a single sentence about the "alt right pipeline" was given, or something similar, since it would instantly hook people up as to what the crux of the topic being discussed is.

I wonder if we can compare the experiences of F->M transitioners versus M->F transitioners to see if things like perception of saturation/etc. are consistent with the hormonal changes, or are they just effects of the body experiencing chemical imbalances/people just being happier after transitioning so the world looks less gloomy

I think that's not the same, since the code publishing flow looks like this:

1. employee gets assigned some task
2. employee off-loads this task to Claude Code after adding specifications/etc.
3. employee accepts the LLM generated code, and pushes it after reviewing
4. the pull request review process happens as always
    

Instead of this:

1. AI agent gets assigned some task
2. it writes code and pushes it into production

At least that's how I've seen coding agent integration in my limited experience.

The fundamental problem being talked about in the post is when accountability is shifted to the AI, but since it naturally can't be held accountable for mistakes, you build architecture that prevents problems from popping up in the first place. And how companies are currently deploying Claude Code, et al. is the employee-centric flow; which doesn't require any additional internal security measures to be deployed, since the accountability for all the code has not changed at all.

I think stereotype of the stereotype is a mouthful and also not very clear, and thus present the term "presumed stereotype". Using this in a live conversation should immediately signal to the other party what you mean (that their description is what everyone presumes to be the stereotype, but the actual stereotype (which you would then describe to them) is something else, maybe even the polar opposite).

Could you kindly provide some examples of what you're talking about?

I'm not American per se, but am interested in hearing about these dysfunctional rules.

That's a cool way to frame damage risks, but I think your distribution for AI damage is for ASI, not AGI. I think it's very reasonable that an AGI-based system may cause the type of damage that I am talking about.

Even if you believe that as soon as we achieve AGI, we'll accelerate to ASI because AGI by definition is self-improving, it still takes time to train a model, and research is slow. I hope that the window b/w AGI & ASI is large enough for such a "Hiroshima event" to occur, so humanity wakes up to the risks of maligned AI systems.

PS: Sorry for the late response, I was offline for a couple of days

That's an interesting idea. The military would undoubtedly care about AI alignment — they'd want their systems to operate strictly within set parameters. But the more important question is: do we even want the military to be investing in AI at all? Because that path likely leads to AI-driven warfare. Personally, I'd rather live in a world without autonomous robotic combat or AI-based cyberwarfare.

But as always, I will pray that some institution (like the EU) leads the charge & start instilling it into people's heads that this is a problem we must solve.