unparadoxed's Shortform
Jan 20, 20211
unparadoxed
48
1
41
Okay, thanks for the context. I appreciate the effort you've taken to collate information.
FWIW the information you have presented makes it seem like you are building a case against Sam Altman moreso than Annie herself is. And looking at the information without consideration for the identities of the alleged perpetrator and victim, I would conclude that the allegations are more likely non-credible than not. (I can elaborate further on why I think so).
I think that there is a good idea here. My first thought is that debt requires an authority to enforce on collection of debts. For communities where accounts can be pseudonymous, there is little at stake and therefore little that can be staked.
Another thought is to make a comparison with free markets. Is it a duty or privilege to buy or sell something? I think this is highly context dependent.
Out of curiosity, is the motivation of this post to try to collate/figure out the truth/rationality of what actually happened? Or rather just a convenient place that is less susceptible to (alleged) censorship compared to other sites?
Thanks for your reply! What is "Mallet" in this context?
Steganography of the seeming void.
Suppose I want to send a secret message.
Encrypted messages arouse suspicion because they look like noise, and sending noise is suspicious.
Steganography allows for sending messages hidden inside other messages. So now I am not sending noise, but an innocuous message. Which could still arouse suspicion, but less so.
So sending encrypted messages is suspicious not just because it is noise, but noise in the contrast of the previous lack of noise (the void).
So one way would be to establish a continuous channel of background noise to the other party, and send encrypted messages to them when we need to. Of course, the establishment of a continuous channel of noise... (read more)
I really like your posts about Simulacra levels, and I feel that they are a great lens to view human behavior through. I jotted down my interpretation of them here a while back, happy to hear any thoughts/feedback if you have any.
I meant to convey (reassure?) that others acting as if you do not exist is more likely due to their lack of imagination that it is likely due to your lack of presence.
In that sense, I was intending to say that your suffering is not your fault.
However, I also admit the implication that "because it is not your fault, you should not be suffering, therefore the suffering is your fault", which was not my intention, as I recognize that we cannot control what makes us suffer.
Why let the lack of imagination of others impinge upon your happiness?
Does this mean that Sazen(s?) can be used as Shibboleths?
Anonymity reduces iterative prisoner's dilemma (staked on reputation) to one-shot versions.
The externalities are offloaded onto the platform providing said anonymity.
Just discovered and read about Conflict vs Mistake Theory, in my own mind my summary would be : Mistake Theory is about the "mind", Conflict Theory is about the "heart".
I was also tickled by the meta-level problem.
We can have objects of a given type in a set, and we can have an order defined on those objects in that set.
Some people seem to hold values that positively value increasing the types of object in that set, while negatively valuing an order / large distances between those objects.
Others seem to negative value the increase of object types, favoring a smaller number of types while holding that an ordering between objects in a set cannot be avoided.
Yes, Markets are Efficient, but only when they conform to my biases. If not, they are clearly fraudulent and incorrectly valued.
I want to join/create a society of people who do not judge others at all, but how will they decide who to let in?
More thoughts on Simulacrum.
Assume that the setting is such that Agents can make statements about Reality.
Level 0 : Reality
Level 1 : Agents are concerned about Reality and making statements about Reality that are True / Honest. Agents in Level 1 seek to understand and exploit Level 0 - Reality. All Agents in level 1 trust each other. As Level-0 Reality asserts its constraints and agents face scarcity, some thus shift to...
Level 2 : Agents are concerned about perceptions (theirs and others) of Reality, and making statements about Reality that induce perceptions about Reality that are beneficial to them. By making potentially False / Dishonest statements, Value in Level 1 is destroyed. All... (read more)
Hashing out my incomplete understanding of Simulacra. :
Level 0 - Reality, let's call this R.
Level 1 - Agents map/point out reality to each other. For simplicity let's say there are two agents, A1 and A2. A1->R , A2->R. A1 and A2 can attempt to come to consensus on reality. Value is assigned to Truth, Power is over Reality.
Level 2 - Recursion. Agents can point out agents pointing out reality to each other, thereby potentially distorting reality. Agents realize they can "point pointing", and influence each other thus. Let R' be a incorrect reality. The following all belong as this level : A1->(A1->R) , A1->(A1->R'), A1->(A2->R), A1->(A2->R'). Note : A2->R might be distorted... (read more)
To learn, we must be exposed to sources of knowledge. Sources of knowledge can take the form of the environment, ourselves or other people.
We rely on other people as sources of knowledge and learning because the people are amazing at learning and can synthesize what they have learnt into forms that make it easier for others to learn the same thing.
However, it is important to know what we don't know. Given a source of knowledge, think about the set/space of knowledge that would be impossible / unlikely to learn from that source, even though said source has that knowledge, and the reasons for this.
What might teachers at common institutions of learning know... (read more)
Shortform on "Hedonic Collapse"
Assumptions :
Desires :
Given the above desires and assumptions, an all-knowing, time-invariant oracle that perfectly fulfills desires 1 and 2 will be perpetually unhappy (?).
I do not know what are your definitions of "intelligent" and "stupid", but I have found the following quote to be insightful and generally true so far :
The difference between stupid and intelligent people - and this is true whether or not they are well-educated - is that intelligent people can handle subtlety. - Neal Stephenson, The Diamond Age
If we take this to be our definitions, then the question is whether a person that cannot handle subtlety (sees things in black and white) be able to do so.
I feel that this is mostly dependent on the plasticity of mind and stickiness of mental habits. I think that the ability to be aware... (read more)