"No billionaires" as a slogan has another problem, that billionaire is not a very good category (in the rationalist, cut reality at the seams sense.) The incomiest [sic] billionaire has made on average 700 times more per year than the poorest billionaire, but they have the same category name so we try to apply the same intuitions when predicting events around them. For comparison, we probably wouldn't put someone making $16,000 a year in the same category as someone making $11,000,000 a year when making intuitive category based predictions.

I don't get it- tier 1, 2, and 3 are all computable, so by turing they can emulate each other with perfect fidelity- does this approach say if a tier 1 emulates a conscious tier 3, it just makes a p zombie?

I'm not talking about the US, it already has and uses this capability, along with israel, and I'm sure china has it too but they don't seem to use it.. I'm talking about russia, china, iran, pakistan, walmart, taiwan, isis, Micheal Reeves- and all able to take up the strategy of modifying other countries leadership via droning the leaders they don't like, 

The US's capability of drone striking anyone anywhere will get much cheaper, and working out which nation or non-state actor performed which drone strike will get much harder. Basically, the dynamics we currently see around cyberattacks, but kinetic.

Weaponized drones that recharge on power lines are at this point looking inevitable. if you missed the chance to freak out before everyone else about AI or covid, nows another chance.

https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/voltair 

When you do so, please respect wikipedia's request for disclosure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Large_language_models#Disclosure .

Sorry, I am not the best at expressing myself clearly in prose. This is closer to what I was actually thinking, is it more helpful? 

```
import random
import numpy as np

class SelectiveEvent:
   def __init__(self):
       self.members = []
       self.skill_check = random.random()

   def try_to_join(self, skill_q):
       if skill_q > self.skill_check:
           self.members.append(skill_q)
           return True
       return False

class UnselectiveEvent(SelectiveEvent):
   def try_to_join(self, skill_q):
       self.members.append(skill_q)
       return True

events = [SelectiveEvent() for _ in range(99)] + [UnselectiveEvent()]

for _ in range(1000):
   society_member = random.random()
   while not random.choice(events).try_to_join(society_member):
       pass
print(np.mean(events[-1].members))
# e.g. 0.13823472583179908
```

I think the meta-point is that these are great questions, and are reasons that going to a bar and chatting people up is actually a high skill activity with a fairly high bar (ahem) to clear. Most activities attended by most people most of the time are either gated behind such skill checks or invitation only. A recurring philosophy meetup carefully engineered to have no such bar is actually a super specific and rare thing. If you kept considering events, and then rejecting them based on the sorts of questions listed here (i.e. they seemed intimidating or hard) until you came across an event which raised no such issues, that seems like it should lead rather reliably to out of distribution results.

There's severe evaporative cooling any group that allows randos to show up and participate, which doesn't make them bad events, but means they are not really a representative slice of the population. On the topic of  famous philosophers, this is a topic where Marx said it better than I ever could: "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member."

Have you published a game on roblox? It's been on my to do list of weird cultural experiences for a while (like frontpaging hackernews or trying sturstromming), but last time I looked into it I bounced off installing the editor and getting all the account stuff set up.