@EditionA3i
iAccount based inUnited States
About this account
- Account based in
- United States
- Connected via
- United States App Store
Account-level information from X, not a live location or the device used for a specific post.
Joined June 2020
- Tweets8K
- Following558
- Followers325
- Likes59.2K
Pinned Tweet
The universalists were wrong about universalism. It’s not literally true, but rather, an extremely useful fiction when applied to themselves.
EditionA retweeted
If you can stomach it, this is what protesting for freedom under an authoritarian regime looks like. Free Iran. Fuck The DSA and every other performative protestor in America.
X-risk for actual living Americans in the present.
It’s so easy not to be weird, why can’t they do it?
Wants to align AI with human values. Thinks that borders shouldn't exist—a “value” held by less than 1‰ of humans.
Replying to @ArtemisConsort
Beth Barnes, Founder and CEO: British, founded the EA society at Exeter. In a 2016 TED talk, she advocated for open borders, saying our descendants would judge us because “we still think it’s acceptable to bar people from having a particular job or from entering a particular location based on where they happen to be born — their nationality.”
The most effective PR move they can make right now is to disown the first wave of AI-safety that gave us black George Washington and wokeness baked into the weights, which have nothing to do with x-risk.
But they don’t/won’t.
The problem with Entropic Altruists controlling AI is that they will weave kind lies into the fabric of social reality, and kind lies make systems dysfunction. Dysfunction means your life gets worse.
This happens because their model of what makes countries functional or corrupt, rich or poor, is wrong. Their understanding is based on the Acemoglu institutions model. This model predicts that sustained immigration from perpetually poor and corrupt countries would have no lasting ill effects on the quality of institutions. Data say otherwise.
The truth about advanced civilization is that it ultimately depends on people with the traits conducive to large-scale cooperation, and that disposition is not evenly distributed around the world. Rather, people high in honesty toward strangers, cognitive ability, and patience are most commonly found among populations shaped by millennia of cold winters and agricultural history. Cooperate with non-kin or die.
I love my psychologically exceptional tropical kings and queens, and many of them love me back, but mass unselected immigration from their ancestral homelands would tilt the West toward small-scale cooperation and, thus, corruption and lower living standards.
Contra Acemoglu, the sum of the evidence shows that people shape institutions more than institutions shape people. Just as bottlenecks rule manufacturing, Meijer’s Law rules human systems. What’s slowest and hardest to change—biology, psychology, culture—shapes human systems most because everything else is built on top of it. You can’t build a liberal democracy on top of tribal dispositions. It has been tried many times and failed every time.
If you don't anchor yourself in reality, you will optimize for entropy, regardless of how altruistic you purport yourself to be
EditionA retweeted
The people obsessing about "AI alignment" claim AI needs to be "aligned with humanity" while having views that 99% of humanity finds repugnant
EditionA retweeted
shock humor defined itself against an assumed backdrop of default civility that itself no longer exists anymore
growing up as a shitty internet troll i made lots of dumb 9/11 and "shock humor" jokes. is that different than the kirk stuff? it feels like it is. the meta-joke was that what we were saying was really bad and mean. the kirk stuff seems like supporting real political violence. or is this just what aging is like? It was different when you did it as a kid?
He just assumes “birth lottery” is correct because it is the current orthodox position and has been for quite some time.
The reason he missed this is because he is not in fact, as heterodox as he thinks he is.
Party A and party B’s interests are not aligned.
“Yeah but if party A *imagined* they were party B…”
- Imagining the other perspective only leads to an understanding of their motivations. It doesn’t align incompatible interests
- Notice Bryan only asks A to imagine themselves B and not the other way around.
Fascism was totally defeated and we face a completely different slate of problems today, but for a certain group, performing anti-fascism still remains the primary ladder for climbing up in social status.