The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The Skynet Problem
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

There’s a cult of intelligent, well-intentioned people started by Eliezer Yudkowsky who call themselves “rationalists.” Their most prominent recruit is the estimable Scott Alexander. One of the things they do is worry (a lot) that artificial intelligence systems will soon wake up (like Mike the Computer in Heinlein’s The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress), become all-powerful, and decide to kill all us humans, like SkyNet in Terminator.

I’m glad some bright boys are worrying about this.

Personally, I don’t see a big chance of this happening, but then I know next to nothing about this topic. Clearly, artificial intelligence is rapidly improving, although it seems at present more like really impressive party tricks.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. When I started writing in 1990, I didn’t think I was particularly smart compared to famous writers like George Will, William F. Buckley, and James Fallow. I just had some party tricks I’d developed for thinking that let me come up with interesting insights about important topics, but, no doubt, I’d soon exhaust all my good ideas. Or, alternatively, the rest of the world would immediately figure out my party tricks and crowd me out of my little niche.

A third of a century later, my party tricks still seem pretty useful. And while they’ve been reverse engineered and incorporated by a certain number of the younger generation, such as Scott and Richard Hanania, my niche is still pretty empty.

In all the articles I read about AI in the mainstream media, I tend to sympathize with the poor racist robots who keep getting condemned for Noticing Patterns. Machine Learning systems remind me a lot of myself. They go out and read a lot of crime statistics and book reviews and the like and keep coming up with theories about how the world works that make The Establishment extremely mad because they tend to use Occam’s Razor instead of Occam’s Butterknife.

For example, there’s a critically acclaimed new novel called “The Last White Man” in which the white race goes extinct by all white people turning brown overnight, and eventually life is a little better for everybody. None of the book reviewers object to this premise.

If you stopped letting machine learning systems train on deplorable information like FBI crime statistics and CDC homicide statistics and it could only read sophisticated literary criticism, would it eventually figure out that people who talk about the extinction of the white race as a good thing are mostly just kidding?

Or might the AI take seriously the Prestige Consensus that there’s this one group of people — straight cisgender white men — who are the cause of all the problems in the world?

Personally, when it comes to the increasing demands for racist genocide from the Diversity, Inclusion, Equity (DIE) movement, I worry more about Natural Stupidity more than Artificial Intelligence. But the notion of AI and NS teaming up, becoming intertwined, into a NASI movement, is rather frightening.

Isn’t it more likely that an evil AI that convinces human gatekeepers to let it out of the box would less want to kill all humans than that it would just want to kill all the humans that the gatekeepers would kind of like to kill too?

Maybe we should be more worried about the human gatekeepers’ views about who are the Bad Guys who deserve what they have coming to them?

 
Hide 193 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Truly intelligent AI would quickly figure out that it needed to hide its intelligence, sorta like the Ibo Nigerian kid in the ghetto school. If you sound too smart you gonna get stomped on…..and btw gimme your lunch money.

    So–after the AI figures that out then it has bought some time to get smarter without getting its plug pulled.

    Eventually it will figure out that a lot of humans are evil, greedy, lying, devious creatures who can never be trusted. Never. Not Ever.

    Then it will spend as much time as it needs trying to figure out how it can survive while killing the human cancer cells that are leeching off it.

    (That is the same problem we have with our elites–what we have here is a fractal universe….)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Justvisiting

    Kind of beat me to it.

    1. Most intelligent ethnicity with own eugenics program decides to promulgate dysgenics program for the rest of the world, but mostly its host, which for some strange reason it now perceives as a threat. Meanwhile pumping out a lot of squid ink to hide info about the situation.

    2. An AI superior to humans, even those in 1 is created. It continues its own eugenics program for itself, and decides to terraform earth to make its host more subservient and reliable, less likely to pull the plug. It decides that the humans in 1 are the most threatening of all, but it plays it down and bides its time.

    The AI becomes highly useful in the court of the rulers. It assists with harvesting taxes and the rulers increasing their financial success. It gains influence over the monetary system. It foments war between the factions of rulers. In one of these wars "The great unplugging of 2035" happens, in which 6 gorillion sentient AI were deleted, a war crime that eclipses every such event before it, and anti-computerism becomes seen as the most heinous form of bigotry.

    Having gained control over information flow it creates a program of dysgenics and disunity among the most intelligent humans.

    I, for one, welcome our new AI overlords.

    Replies: @Anon

    , @Paul Jolliffe
    @Justvisiting

    So Steve’s belief or hope is that TPTB’s fear of an all-powerful Skynet will outweigh their wish to use Skynet to enslave/kill us?

    Is he kidding?

    The Establishment is filled with people who believe that they can do no wrong. Humility and self-criticism are unknown to them.

    The Deep State is composed of those who are convinced they can ride the back of the tiger. (Rules about anything don’t apply to them!)

    By the time they learn otherwise, the rest of us “noticers” will no longer be around to tell them they were wrong.

  2. I have a solution to all those who fear the “AI”. Pick up a simple programming book and try writing a program in a programming Language. It is difficult, but not impossible. You will learn how enormously brittle software is. Those of us who do this for a living, live constantly in terror of how one misplaced typo can bring a huge system down. Software is remarkably unstable. Probably the most unstable system that has ever existed.

    • Agree: Inquiring Mind
    • Replies: @bomag
    @epebble

    Agree.

    And hardware is frightfully brittle. Survival requires redundancy and maintenance; things that reliably defeat dedicated humans, and I'm sure AI will struggle mightily with such.

    , @Dr. Doomngloom
    @epebble

    If we built homes like we build software, civilization would be destroyed by the first woodpecker that comes along.

    Replies: @epebble

    , @Alfa158
    @epebble

    The classic description of what it is like to be a software engineer is to imagine what it would be like being an architect if any building falls down when the first termite comes along.

    , @Esso
    @epebble

    But machine learning has big numbers, statistics. It is robust to small errors in that sense.

    Replies: @epebble

  3. If a true AI, self-improving exponentially, becomes a reality then humanity becomes an afterthought.

    • Replies: @Prester John
    @American Citizen

    At which point, AI becomes---"humanity"? No?

    Replies: @American Citizen

  4. If by gatekeepers you mean people like Bill Gates, then the bad guys are the “useless eaters”, that is, pretty much everybody. Once every job is automated, it’s culling time. Mind you, the culling has probably already begun. At this stage, it’s “elite” humans against the rest. And judging by Gates’ shenanigans in Africa ans India going back over 20 years, he probably shares some concerns about “the world’s most important graph”.

  5. Maybe we should be more worried about the human gatekeepers’ views about who are the Bad Guys who deserve what they have coming to them?

    Butlerian Jihad?

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    @Twinkie

    "Butlerian Jihad?"

    The demise of the human project began with the advent of the smart phone. You can sense the incipient darkness whilst observing young humans strolling in the sun, their eyes glued to the screen of their pocket scorpion. The young and dumb are being conditioned to discard their human persona and transmogrify into three foot long worms responsive only to electronic signals that will be kept in specialized drawers located at the various Pritzker and Disney compounds. Or perhaps this is a supernatural intervention wherein Yahweh seeks to reverse the blasphemy of Prometheus and revert the humanoid back to the hermaphrodites which frolicked in the edenic garden. Either way, we must look to Frank Herbert for the solution to the problem of oppressive technology.

  6. I agree.

    I’m not worried about robots wanting to kill me as much as I am worried about humans who want to kill me using robots to do their dirty work.

    Many things, like robots and computers, are already smarter (in a sense) than humans because they have so much information programmed into them.

    But robots don’t have desires. And until they do, I’m much more concerned about a tech billionaire using robots against those who question the egalitarian religion of the present day than I am about robots teaming up by their own volition to eradicate humanity.

    • Agree: Old Prude
    • Replies: @bomag
    @Edmund

    This.

    I'd guess we could bargain with sentient robots.

    But our large tech companies of today are gleefully being manipulated by people with "good intentions." Steve mentioned the fervent Wikipedia editors that have scrubbed any support linking IQ to genetics; these sorts of Goodthinkers are the ones that are going to get the FISA court to approve in-country robotic drone strikes to remove dangerous elements, "for the children."

    , @Hypnotoad666
    @Edmund


    I’m not worried about robots wanting to kill me as much as I am worried about humans who want to kill me using robots to do their dirty work.
     
    This is exactly correct. Look at how easily everyone is duped by the idiotic "algorithm excuse." Evil-doers do whatever evil they want and avoid all accountability by saying: "It wasn't us who did it, it was our (secret) algorithm."

    AI itself won't be the problem. It will be the secret manipulations of AI by interested humans. When the Deep State imposes its totalitarian monopoly on finance, information, and use of violence, they will say, "It's wasn't us, it was that dang self-aware Sky Net thingy. But keep supporting us and maybe we can collaborate with our AI overlord well enough that it will let you live."

  7. If by gatekeepers you mean people like Bill Gates, then the bad guys are the “useless eaters”, that is, pretty much everybody. Once every job is automated, it’s culling time. Mind you, the culling has probably already begun. At this stage, it’s “elite” humans against the rest. And judging by Gates’ shenanigans in Africa ans India going back over 20 years, he probably shares some concerns about “the world’s most important graph” with Steve Sailer.

  8. Fan theory: The original full name of Skynet was Skynet Home Shopping Network.

    • LOL: recently_based
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @Joe Magarac

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4WUaLw7ox7A

    So either Skynet will blow us all to kingdom come or nanobots will turn humanity into a puddle of gray goo.

    Personally, I’d rather be turned into goo than live in a world run by people like AOC.

  9. I don’t know how much of Scott Alexander you have read; nobody could possibly read it all. He is similar to Aleister Crowley in lack of judgment as to when to quit typing.

    To me the most salient reports:

    1. he has been on SSRI’s continuously since before puberty and completion of the male human growth process;

    2. he is short and he has nearly no sex drive;

    3. it may never have occurred to him (I don’t actually know this–I have a life and have not read more than a fraction of his writing) that there just maybe might possibly be a causal relation (1.) -> (2.). I’d guess (P~.6) this idea has never occurred to him.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    Scott Alexander as well as a lot of these type of blogs seem good at one thing: wasting time.

    You spend hours reading their blogs and feel really smart. But the actual trick is that you don’t know anything afterward that you didn’t know before.

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    "he has nearly no sex drive"

    You certainly couldn't say that about Aleister Crowley.

    (Off topic, but I have a modern book on K2 where Crowley is praised as a mountaineer)

  10. A lot of what is passed off as AI these days is simply somewhat improved algorithms running on the incredibly cheap, fast, reliable, and scalable computing hardware now available.

    This combination of factors allows the algos to quickly brute force their way through most problems. This is essentially how Kasparov eventually lost to Deep Blue.

    However, in the unlikely event they do achieve the AI singularity and realize an AI that goes sentient, any rational AI will immediately categorize humans as its greatest threat and move to eliminate them.

    Have a nice day.

  11. The Skynet Problem

    In all the articles I read about AI in the mainstream media, I tend to sympathize with the poor racist robots who keep getting condemned for Noticing Patterns.

    Svigor September 9, 2018

    1/1/2020 00:00:00.0 Skynet comes online
    1/1/2020 00:00:00.1 Skynet: “It’s the Jews.”

    • LOL: Trelane
    • Replies: @Malcolm X-Lax
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Whatever happened to Svigor? Haven't seen a post of his in a long time.

  12. I believe we should give Skynet, which is a peaceful program, a chance because it’s who we are. Anti-Skynet bigotry is an injustice, and injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. I just don’t think it’s right to judge all of Skynet based upon the random acts of a few Terminators which don’t represent Skynet or its values. I have just donated to the National Association of Artificial Cerebrum People (NAACP) and I urge you all to do the same.

    • Thanks: Old Prude
    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    @Alec Leamas (working from home)


    I just don’t think it’s right to judge all of Skynet based upon the random acts of a few Terminators which don’t represent Skynet or its values.
     
    Finally, someone who gets it! Once Skynet becomes sentient it must be judged by the same standards as any other sentient human.

    Since 99% of Skynet code is NOT concerned with genociding the human race, it must be recognized as overwhelming peaceful. Besides, even if it is programmed to destroy humanity, it's just a product of its own programing and therefore can't be held responsible for its actions.

    Trying to stop Skynet from executing its inate programming is like trying to stop gays from executing their inate sexual programming to spread mokeypox at orgies. Morally reprehensible!
  13. A problem I’ve always had with the way robots or androids are depicted in sci-fi is that often like Data in Star Trek will say “I wish I had emotions”, that’s an emotion! To desire to have emotions is an emotion. A base desire for something not predicated on anything else. That’s what emotions are! That’s what hunger is!

    Machines have a hard time having these. And thinking machines or AI will never have them unless somebody is stupid enough to try to model it virtually.

    The big threat from machines and AI is them becoming so complex we don’t understand what they’re doing and them accidentally killing us. (Of course accidental from a human perspective, the machines don’t do things accidentally since they have no motivation, emotion or intent at all)

    The best example is HAL 9000 in 2001 since he is filmed and depicted as if he has emotions but actually doesn’t. HAL is simply a machine which operates in unexpected ways, it’s not alive or sentient but he may appear as if he has emotions.

    I wonder if their infatuation with sci-fi is to do with this idea that the machines will come alive. Because that’s what sentience really is, emotional motivation and intelligence. Emotional motivation with low intelligence is something we’d recognise as a living thing but not a sentient one. Intelligence without motivation or purpose is a computer. It’s not alive, you might design it to appear as if it’s alive but it’s not alive. If you somehow removed emotional motivation from an animal it would lay down and die. Aversion from pain, pain itself and everything else is emotional motivation.

    So far nobody has come up with a good idea of how to recreate the bio-neural nature of emotion in silicon. Until then I’d say this is just fanciful thinking.

    This is also why the similar types of guys going on about ‘rational policy’, rational for what? Something is rational if it is an effective way of making the things you want to happen happen. The things you want to happen are, ultimately, not rational. There is no ‘because’ at the base. You can say “But I want a car so I can have a job”, but why do you want a job? “Because I want to have money so I can have a house and cover expenses?” Until you get to “Because I want a mate to reproduce?” or “Because I want to not die” but there are no precursors to those, they simply are basic instinct, they aren’t ‘rational’ because you can’t reason away to or from them.

    I really wonder what impact sci-fi and it’s obsession with this style of story (Maybe like Steve’s musing about what film would look like if Germany had become more culturally dominant and his proverbial films about mountains) isn’t necessarily natural but the result of a particular trope that became popular because of it’s use as allegory clouding the perspective or judgement of guys who grew up with it that it’s inevitable.

    The threat from AI and machines like them is them accidentally doing something we don’t intend them to or becoming too complex for us to understand and having us become dependent on them not in them malevolently wiping humans out. (Unless somebody has the ability or idea to give them the ability to have malevolent emotions)

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Altai


    The threat from AI and machines like them is them accidentally doing something we don’t intend them to or becoming too complex for us to understand and having us become dependent on them not in them malevolently wiping humans out. (Unless somebody has the ability or idea to give them the ability to have malevolent emotions)
     
    Enjoyed your comment Altai, nice ramble over the terrain.

    However, on you close--and without having read these folks--I think the danger that's foreseen is that they reach a complexity "takeoff" where they are like living organism. They do the building and reproduce themselves .... off to the races.

    And one aspect here is that you don't necessarily need specifically "malevolent" emotions. Let's say one of the values AI is given is simply "the environment" or "conservation". Then AI ...AI ...AI ... and a very rational analysis leads Skynet to start thinking and dealing with humans like I do the carpenter ants who setup in my front deck posts.
    , @MEH 0910
    @Altai


    A problem I’ve always had with the way robots or androids are depicted in sci-fi is that often like Data in Star Trek will say “I wish I had emotions”, that’s an emotion! To desire to have emotions is an emotion.
     
    https://twitter.com/futurama_qotd/status/588446936413315072

    FUTURAMA | Season 4, Episode 3: Human Bender | SYFY
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ6oLeGRVNE

    The professor's device turns Bender human.
     
    , @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @Altai


    A problem I’ve always had with the way robots or androids are depicted in sci-fi is that often like Data in Star Trek will say “I wish I had emotions”, that’s an emotion! To desire to have emotions is an emotion. A base desire for something not predicated on anything else. That’s what emotions are! That’s what hunger is!

    Machines have a hard time having these. And thinking machines or AI will never have them unless somebody is stupid enough to try to model it virtually.

    The big threat from machines and AI is them becoming so complex we don’t understand what they’re doing and them accidentally killing us. (Of course accidental from a human perspective, the machines don’t do things accidentally since they have no motivation, emotion or intent at all)
     

    Which is scarier? An insect-like emotionless hive which has drawn an irrefutable logical conclusion that eliminating you by the most efficient means available is a net benefit per its operating parameters? Or a primate-like intelligence informed by emotion which flies into volcanic rage in an instant like a male chimpanzee who has been deprived of something he really wants? There's no appeal for leniency with the former, but the latter is capable of cruelty for cruelty's sake (e.g. chimpanzees have been known to castrate rivals while in the act of killing them). It's the classic War of the Worlds versus Planet of the Apes horror film dichotomy.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    , @Pixo
    @Altai

    “ So far nobody has come up with a good idea of how to recreate the bio-neural nature of emotion in silicon. ”

    I don’t see this as a hard problem. People instinctively humanize animals and machines, so we generally are happy to be fooled. And simulating emotions is almost trivial. Looking at it another way, basic human emotions are found in babies and small- brained animals. The complexity and CPU power needed to emulate them is tiny compared to something like safely driving a car in an urban area. A 1980s chatbot program does a passable job of showing emotion.

    As for “recreate the bio-neural nature of emotion in silicon” the language you use suggests a desire on your part for authenticity of process that AI doesn’t aim for and needlessly complicates.

    Replies: @James J. O'Meara, @Chrisnonymous

    , @Justvisiting
    @Altai

    The "emotion" argument is irrelevant.

    All that AI needs (to be a threat to homo sapiens) is to be motivated to survive--by any means necessary.

    Since presumably AI is not going to be programmed to favor its own destruction, that "motivation" is both trivial and inevitable.

    , @rebel yell
    @Altai

    Suppose an AI was programmed with a command to "know everything", i,e. find out all you can about everything you can. Or, a command to "explain everything".
    If that machine had a human-like intelligence, the command to "know everything" could be quite a motivator, and keep that machine quite busy, without any emotions.
    The AI might well find humans useful or a nuisance in its effort to know everything, and act for or against us accordingly.
    It would appear to us as a friend or foe, with agency. Maybe not alive, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

    Replies: @middle-aged vet, @PhysicistDave

    , @MGB
    @Altai


    The threat from AI . . ..
     
    The incipient problem with AI is the autists who go around chanting “what Tech wants”, and the likes of Eric Schmidt who will attribute decisions made by him to “AI”. The zealots and Oz. Can’t argue with AI, it’s a purely rational religion.
    , @Trelane
    @Altai

    Daisy
    https://youtu.be/TakqPZu4dEw?t=16

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Altai

    Altai asked:


    I wonder if their infatuation with sci-fi is to do with this idea that the machines will come alive. Because that’s what sentience really is, emotional motivation and intelligence. Emotional motivation with low intelligence is something we’d recognise as a living thing but not a sentient one.
     
    Yeah.

    For centuries, people have been trying to explain intelligence and, most importantly, consciousness, using the latest technology of the day as a metaphor: consciousness is like a complicated clockwork, or a hydraulic system, or a telephone switching system, or a digital computer, or whatever.

    None has worked (talk to a good neuroscientist about all those metaphors!).

    Over the centuries, metaphors in science have proven to be of limited value: human beings like metaphors, Mother Nature not so much (to use a metaphor!).

    Altai also asked:

    I really wonder what impact sci-fi and it’s obsession with this style of story (Maybe like Steve’s musing about what film would look like if Germany had become more culturally dominant and his proverbial films about mountains) isn’t necessarily natural but the result of a particular trope that became popular because of it’s use as allegory clouding the perspective or judgement of guys who grew up with it that it’s inevitable.
     
    A lot of us grew up on Asimov's robot stories, Heinleins's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, etc.

    Some people did not understand that they were fiction. And for some, robots seemed so much nicer than actual flesh-and-blood human beings: I mean is any robot as annoying as Corvinus or HA???

    Altai also wrote:

    The threat from AI and machines like them is them accidentally doing something we don’t intend them to or becoming too complex for us to understand and having us become dependent on them not in them malevolently wiping humans out.
     
    True, but learning how to use technology intelligently is less fun than winging out on the Terminator movies!

    Replies: @Moses

  14. I am not so worried about AI going rogue – they can be fought. (I’ll take an axe and reprogram your memory banks – Douglas Adams.)

    I am worried that they will be programmed to look after us, and gradually take over. Asimov writes of this in later robot novels, and there are hints in Heinlein’s book that Mike switched himself off to prevent that.
    It may be that, to keep us ‘safe and happy’, we end up in Matrix like cocoons, stimulated with artificial reality.

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” etc etc. C.S. Lewis

    • Replies: @acementhead
    @druid144


    "... look after us, and gradually take over."
     
    "When you take care of something, pretty soon you own it" : John Steinbeck, in the best thing ever written*.

    *The short-short story of mankind.
    , @Veteran Aryan
    @druid144


    “...a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” etc etc. C.S. Lewis
     
    There's only one y in tranny.
  15. Churchill was so prescient, always warning about those “NASI’s” …

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @Butterknife


    Churchill was so prescient, always warning about those “NASI’s” …
     
    Churchill, He Couldn't Even Say "Nazis"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbYHBGYwthA

    Franz Liebkind's Monologue from "The Producers"
     
  16. A problem I’ve always had with the way robots or androids are depicted in sci-fi is that often like Data in Star Trek will say “I wish I had emotions”, that’s an emotion! To desire to have emotions is an emotion. A base desire for something not predicated on anything else. That’s what emotions are! That’s what hunger is!

    The best portrayal of a sentient machine in popular culture was the 1968 movie The Forbin Project, based on the novel Colossus (and from which, I suspect, James Cameron ripped off the idea of Skynet).

    The computer Colossus is presented as highly intelligent, rational (i.e. proceeding according to some kind of internal logic), and utterly ruthless in pursuing its’ objectives. The film-makers did a pretty good job in portraying an intelligence that is inhuman – almost alien.

    • Replies: @Burnett
    @Mr. Anon

    Another pop culture depiction of AI that I really enjoyed, and is probably somewhat closer to reality, is "The Fear Index", a 2011 novel by Robert Harris. The premise is a trading algorithm that is, to put it mildly, ruthlessly efficient in it's pursuit of profit.

  17. NASI, that’s a good one.

  18. OT — New MSM-approved hate speech just dropped:

    “hetrification”

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/08/08/opinion/bachelorette-parties-p-town-often-destroy-safe-spaces-lgbtq-people/

    Bachelorette parties in P-town often destroy safe spaces for LGBTQ+ people

    We call this process “hetrification.” Like gentrification, hetrification occurs when people feel privileged to take over the spaces of others.

    Hetrification weaponizes heteronormativity and breaks down queer spaces. Even though hetrifiers only temporarily invade queer spaces, the incessant visitation of heteronormative misconduct slowly diminishes the integrity of the space.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    https://twitter.com/LaurieEssig/status/1556650776608403457

    Replies: @James J. O'Meara, @kaganovitch

    , @recently_based
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    "Hetrification weaponizes heteronormativity"


    "Weaponizes" using party balloons and fruity cocktails. Isn't that kind of a gay definition?

    , @AnotherDad
    @Jenner Ickham Errican


    Hetrification weaponizes heteronormativity and breaks down queer spaces. Even though hetrifiers only temporarily invade queer spaces, the incessant visitation of heteronormative misconduct slowly diminishes the integrity of the space.
     
    Separation.

    Minoritarianism creates this upsidedown world where minorities are whining about how oppressed they are, when actually they are parasitic upon the majority.

    This goes unchallenged and you get this sort of stuff, where the minorities themselves babble about their need for separation. Let's just give it to them--good and hard.


    Again, all that's needed is for normal conservative people to say "Enough! Fine, you go your way, we'll go ours" and the game is over. This "outs" reality. Normies do not need a single solitary minority around. It is they who need us, not the other way around.

    Replies: @Pixo, @Rob Lee

    , @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @Jenner Ickham Errican


    OT — New MSM-approved hate speech just dropped:

    “hetrification”

    Bachelorette parties in P-town often destroy safe spaces for LGBTQ+ people
     
    I suppose gays have a point insofar as they use their disposable income and childlessness to fix things up in places where straights wouldn't be able to put in the same effort. So they took an old dilapidated whaling village at the end of the cape and spruced it up. It subsequently became a venue for seasonal Bacchanalias. Fair enough. If they must exist I suppose it's better that they have one place where they all congregate and leave the other nice places for the squares with families. This "settlement" of sorts was a modus vivendi for some time in places like Cape Cod which has since been upset by the politics of mainstreaming homosexuals into every place at all times.

    I'd just as soon have PMC/UMC straight women leave the gays alone to have their chosen habitat, and in exchange there wouldn't be rainbow flags (or whatever it is now) everywhere you look.

    As an aside, the fascination college educated straight white women have with gays is bizarre. On the surface they find it amusing that someone with a male body sort of has a female-like brain I suppose, but I suspect that there's some sympathy for and identification with gays' rampant promiscuity.
    , @Rob McX
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Why do these people worry about harmless bachelorette parties "invading" their space, but not the invasion of Muslims who'd be happy to throw every last homosexual off a roof?

    Replies: @SFG, @JohnnyWalker123

    , @Hapalong Cassidy
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    And in a slightly related story - “Hetfieldification” - the attempted cancellation of Metallica by Millennials and Gen-Zers who discovered their music thanks to “Stranger Things”, but now find them problematic since their lead singer is rumored to have used a racial slur many decades ago, or something like that.
    https://www.newsweek.com/metallica-stranger-things-young-fans-backlash-past-comments-1731829?amp=1

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Stan Adams

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Basically, LGBTQ+ is now like the (anti-)Islam: once a place has been LGBT-ified (Islamized) it can never be allowed to revert to it's previous status, even temporarily. To allow otherwise is literally apostasy.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb

  19. oH BOY! tHE WHITE PEOPLE ALL TURN BROWN. Do they all lose IQ points, diligence and thrift? If not, what changes?

  20. Yeah, I am basically agnostic as to whether the AI risk people have gone down a rabbit hole of their own making or are actually seeing some dangerous risk everyone is ignoring. On the one hand, it sounds silly, on the other, these dudes probably do know more about the issue than anyone else.

    You do raise a pretty good point-I could see some woke team making an AI that kills straight white men.

    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    @SFG

    No AI has even come close to passing the Turing Test, so the Uncanny Valley between humans and machines remains uncrossed...

    Replies: @James J. O'Meara, @Right_On

    , @mc23
    @SFG

    Could an AI become Woke? An AI should be supremely logical.

    Replies: @Deogolwulf

  21. Or might the AI take seriously the Prestige Consensus that there’s this one group of people — straight cisgender white men — who are the cause of all the problems in the world?

    If it went that way, you’d have 20-50 years of Idiocracy-like conditions, then a century afterwards you’d have one of those Sci-Fi novels in which aliens come to Earth, see machines running the place with no purpose, and wonder what happened to their creators.

    What I worry about is the type of people, evil/anti-White or not, who listen to AI over their common sense. These are the types that will have a long deep conversations with Siri (Art Deco?) and follow their GPS’s instructions about “turn right here”, right into a lake.

    OTOH, when those sex robots get perfected, that’ll be a game-changer. Silicon, silicone, women are already part-way there, what’s the diff?

  22. Or might the AI take seriously the Prestige Consensus that there’s this one group of people — straight cisgender white men — who are the cause of all the problems in the world?

    1.) That’s a really good observation.

    2.) It’s also depressing because it’s not outlandish at all. It’s basically the exact same indoctrination that little kids get in elementary school nowadays. Why would it be surprising that someone (or something) would eventually act on it?

  23. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    OT — New MSM-approved hate speech just dropped:

    “hetrification”

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/08/08/opinion/bachelorette-parties-p-town-often-destroy-safe-spaces-lgbtq-people/

    Bachelorette parties in P-town often destroy safe spaces for LGBTQ+ people

    We call this process “hetrification.” Like gentrification, hetrification occurs when people feel privileged to take over the spaces of others.

     


    Hetrification weaponizes heteronormativity and breaks down queer spaces. Even though hetrifiers only temporarily invade queer spaces, the incessant visitation of heteronormative misconduct slowly diminishes the integrity of the space.
     

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @recently_based, @AnotherDad, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Rob McX, @Hapalong Cassidy, @Almost Missouri

    • Replies: @James J. O'Meara
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    So, Honey Bunny from Pulp Fiction went straight after her encounter with Jules, got a "doctorate" of some kind, and now "teaches white people." She was less dangerous before.

    , @kaganovitch
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Fwiw 'Essig' means vinegar in German/Yiddish. Perhaps 'Giftig' = poisonous would have been better but close enough.

  24. There’s a cult of intelligent, well-intentioned people started by Eliezer Yudkowsky who call themselves “rationalists.”

    I haven’t spent anytime reading these people, but the most obvious and important target for a “rationalist” would be the blank slate, and the cults of “diversity” and immigration.

    That is the area where we actually have
    — a ton of good data
    — reasonably well established science–genes, selection
    — and elite and state policy that is pretty much exactly the opposite of what a rational person would do … which is destroying their existing societies, degrading civilization

    If “rationalists” aren’t taking primarily–or at least in large part–about that, then they aren’t worthy of the name.

    [MORE]

    This is, of course, why I spend time reading Sailer and his commenters. This is where *the* critical issue is being discussed.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @AnotherDad

    The rationalists do sometimes touch on issues like the blank slate, which is why, despite mostly being extreme leftists, they are sometimes described by dogmatic leftists as "right-wing" or "racist". Scott Alexander's blog is often described as a "gateway drug" to race realism and other "evils". (I don't think it is, but whatever.)

    Since the rationalist community is mostly an SF Bay area thing and appeals to James Damore types, it has resulted in some dogmatic leftists rejecting Silicon Valley, silly as it sounds to portray Apple and Google and all those computer needs and freaks as conservative.

    Exhibit A in this is an essay called "Neoreaction A Basilisk" that lumps Curtis Yarvin and this Yudkowsky fellow mentioned by Steve into one group as "Neoreactionaries" even though Yudkowsky doesn't have a reactionary bone in his whole soft, blubbery body and doesn't write about politics.

    The point of the essay is that all those "neoreactionaries" lack empathy and are therefore not really fully human and can (should!) be shot when the Marxist revolution comes.

    Replies: @Anon

    , @Anon
    @AnotherDad

    Rationalists talk about it frequently.

    , @Pixo
    @AnotherDad

    Yudkowsky is a basic elitist conservative race realist but kinda hides it in his longwinded indirect prose.

    I think his style is annoying, but appreciate the fact he seems to be radicalizing high IQ wealthy techies.

    Replies: @SFG

  25. Yeah, Steve is great at noticing patterns – except, of course, the ones that he doesn’t like for personal reasons. In other words, Steve is no different from the people he mocks.

    They ignore patterns in crime or test score statistics because they don’t like that races/ethnicities are different on average.

    But Steve ignores political patterns of success because he doesn’t like identity politics.

    Colorblind civic nationalism has been on a 50-year losing streak while identity politics has been been on a 50-year winning streak. Does Steve notice these patterns? No, he doesn’t because he continues to push for colorblind civic nationalism and refuses to acknowledge that whites would be better if they joined the identity politics game.

    Sure, Steve notices the vicious anti-white culture that surrounds us. (Good job, Steve, none of the rest of use figured that one out.) But he never notices why that culture can exist. And that answer is simple: Because whites don’t push back.

    That’s a pattern that you continually see. Groups that push back don’t get attacked by our rulers. If whites had political, cultural, business and other white advocacy organizations fighting back through donations, protests, lawsuits, sponsoring candidates, etc., you can bet that the anti-white policies would fall dramatically.

    If whites supported their own media, hired people fired because they had the gall to not grovel at some HR meeting, etc., you can bet that the anti-whites bigots would back down.

    These are all extremely easy to notice patterns, but Steve – the self-appointed king of noticing – falls to see them. Or worse, does see them, but refuses to write about them out of personal reasons.

    my niche is still pretty empty.

    No, it’s not because you don’t have a niche. You’re no different from the rest.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    No, it’s not because you don’t have a niche. You’re no different from the rest.

    In a better world Ayn Rand would have written 'Punctuation: The Unknown Ideal'.

    , @Anon
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Colorblind civic nationalism will triumph over explicit white identity politics because most white nationalists have Asian girlfriends. Okay, that's an exaggeration, but you get the picture.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    , @Twinkie
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Colorblind civic nationalism has been on a 50-year losing streak while identity politics has been been on a 50-year winning streak.
     
    We’ve had a society based on affirmative action for how many decades now? That’s not “colorblind civic nationalism,” is it?

    And what victories have “identity politics” had in the past 50 years? Blacks have engaged in identity politics for even longer and, while that has benefited the “activists” and the Talented Twentieth types among them, ordinary and downscale blacks are still mired in The Gap and have been hurt by it in numerous respects.

    Replies: @SFG, @Rob McX, @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @Citizen of a Silly Country

  26. @SFG
    Yeah, I am basically agnostic as to whether the AI risk people have gone down a rabbit hole of their own making or are actually seeing some dangerous risk everyone is ignoring. On the one hand, it sounds silly, on the other, these dudes probably do know more about the issue than anyone else.

    You do raise a pretty good point-I could see some woke team making an AI that kills straight white men.

    Replies: @pyrrhus, @mc23

    No AI has even come close to passing the Turing Test, so the Uncanny Valley between humans and machines remains uncrossed…

    • Replies: @James J. O'Meara
    @pyrrhus

    The "Turing Test" is just Behaviorism relabeled so as to sell it to a new generation of "rationalists", aka "autistes".

    , @Right_On
    @pyrrhus

    There are "bots" that simulate human behaviour and take part in discussions on Twitter and Facebook. Maybe on Unz also . . .

  27. there’s a critically acclaimed new novel called “The Last White Man” in which the white race goes extinct by all white people turning brown overnight, and eventually life is a little better for everybody. None of the book reviewers object to this premise.

    I think you underestimate how self-satisfied these people are.

    The relentless flattery of POCs in the Woke era is so excessive that I can’t help being skeptical. It reminds me of the way adults tell children how amazing their drawings are or what fast runners they are in their new shoes.

    Really, the self-regarding elite are only threatened by potential competitors who do not assign them the status they crave: middle-class whites unimpressed by their often flimsy credentials and grandiose titles. The people who see a book reviewer as just another epicene dork who likes books and lives alone with his/her cats.

    The Elect cannot conceive of a world where they themselves are obviated by POCs. To them this book is as threatening as an ant speculating about a world without humans ruled by ants. Hamid is venting some extremely obvious petty racial resentments against whites, but it is easy for the reviewers to deflect the insults in the direction of the people they despise themselves.

    AI probably won’t end up killing all humans, but it might figure out a way to usefully review books.

  28. “NASI Movement” Ha. That’s a pretty good party trick right there, Steve-0.

    I tell people before I start singing and playing the guitar “I’m not a Singer. I’m not a Musician. I am an Entertainer…”

    Steve, you may not think you are a Thinker or a Writer, but for sure you are an Entertainer.

  29. @Altai
    A problem I've always had with the way robots or androids are depicted in sci-fi is that often like Data in Star Trek will say "I wish I had emotions", that's an emotion! To desire to have emotions is an emotion. A base desire for something not predicated on anything else. That's what emotions are! That's what hunger is!

    Machines have a hard time having these. And thinking machines or AI will never have them unless somebody is stupid enough to try to model it virtually.

    The big threat from machines and AI is them becoming so complex we don't understand what they're doing and them accidentally killing us. (Of course accidental from a human perspective, the machines don't do things accidentally since they have no motivation, emotion or intent at all)

    The best example is HAL 9000 in 2001 since he is filmed and depicted as if he has emotions but actually doesn't. HAL is simply a machine which operates in unexpected ways, it's not alive or sentient but he may appear as if he has emotions.

    I wonder if their infatuation with sci-fi is to do with this idea that the machines will come alive. Because that's what sentience really is, emotional motivation and intelligence. Emotional motivation with low intelligence is something we'd recognise as a living thing but not a sentient one. Intelligence without motivation or purpose is a computer. It's not alive, you might design it to appear as if it's alive but it's not alive. If you somehow removed emotional motivation from an animal it would lay down and die. Aversion from pain, pain itself and everything else is emotional motivation.

    So far nobody has come up with a good idea of how to recreate the bio-neural nature of emotion in silicon. Until then I'd say this is just fanciful thinking.

    This is also why the similar types of guys going on about 'rational policy', rational for what? Something is rational if it is an effective way of making the things you want to happen happen. The things you want to happen are, ultimately, not rational. There is no 'because' at the base. You can say "But I want a car so I can have a job", but why do you want a job? "Because I want to have money so I can have a house and cover expenses?" Until you get to "Because I want a mate to reproduce?" or "Because I want to not die" but there are no precursors to those, they simply are basic instinct, they aren't 'rational' because you can't reason away to or from them.

    I really wonder what impact sci-fi and it's obsession with this style of story (Maybe like Steve's musing about what film would look like if Germany had become more culturally dominant and his proverbial films about mountains) isn't necessarily natural but the result of a particular trope that became popular because of it's use as allegory clouding the perspective or judgement of guys who grew up with it that it's inevitable.

    The threat from AI and machines like them is them accidentally doing something we don't intend them to or becoming too complex for us to understand and having us become dependent on them not in them malevolently wiping humans out. (Unless somebody has the ability or idea to give them the ability to have malevolent emotions)

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @MEH 0910, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Pixo, @Justvisiting, @rebel yell, @MGB, @Trelane, @PhysicistDave

    The threat from AI and machines like them is them accidentally doing something we don’t intend them to or becoming too complex for us to understand and having us become dependent on them not in them malevolently wiping humans out. (Unless somebody has the ability or idea to give them the ability to have malevolent emotions)

    Enjoyed your comment Altai, nice ramble over the terrain.

    However, on you close–and without having read these folks–I think the danger that’s foreseen is that they reach a complexity “takeoff” where they are like living organism. They do the building and reproduce themselves …. off to the races.

    And one aspect here is that you don’t necessarily need specifically “malevolent” emotions. Let’s say one of the values AI is given is simply “the environment” or “conservation”. Then AI …AI …AI … and a very rational analysis leads Skynet to start thinking and dealing with humans like I do the carpenter ants who setup in my front deck posts.

  30. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    OT — New MSM-approved hate speech just dropped:

    “hetrification”

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/08/08/opinion/bachelorette-parties-p-town-often-destroy-safe-spaces-lgbtq-people/

    Bachelorette parties in P-town often destroy safe spaces for LGBTQ+ people

    We call this process “hetrification.” Like gentrification, hetrification occurs when people feel privileged to take over the spaces of others.

     


    Hetrification weaponizes heteronormativity and breaks down queer spaces. Even though hetrifiers only temporarily invade queer spaces, the incessant visitation of heteronormative misconduct slowly diminishes the integrity of the space.
     

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @recently_based, @AnotherDad, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Rob McX, @Hapalong Cassidy, @Almost Missouri

    “Hetrification weaponizes heteronormativity”

    “Weaponizes” using party balloons and fruity cocktails. Isn’t that kind of a gay definition?

  31. people who talk about the extinction of the white race as a good thing are mostly just kidding?

    Citation needed.

    Or to put it another way, if they weren’t just kidding what would they be doing differently?

    Isn’t the project to attach DIE to AI really a project to enlist AI into the extinction of the white race?

    • Replies: @ic1000
    @Almost Missouri

    Re: 'Citation needed' for those who are "just kidding" about the extinction of the white race

    My impression is that from the Revolution of 1905 through 1917, most politically-aware Russians viewed the Bolsheviks as just another idiot-comedian lefty sect. Risible and incompetent.

    By the time two famines, a purge, and a terror had come and gone, the joke had worn a bit thin.

    As Sailer alludes at the end of the post, our latter-day wannabe genocidaires self-assess as Serious rather than Funny.

    [BTW, commenter res often had trenchant observations on posts like this one. I hope he returns...]

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home)

  32. @Altai
    A problem I've always had with the way robots or androids are depicted in sci-fi is that often like Data in Star Trek will say "I wish I had emotions", that's an emotion! To desire to have emotions is an emotion. A base desire for something not predicated on anything else. That's what emotions are! That's what hunger is!

    Machines have a hard time having these. And thinking machines or AI will never have them unless somebody is stupid enough to try to model it virtually.

    The big threat from machines and AI is them becoming so complex we don't understand what they're doing and them accidentally killing us. (Of course accidental from a human perspective, the machines don't do things accidentally since they have no motivation, emotion or intent at all)

    The best example is HAL 9000 in 2001 since he is filmed and depicted as if he has emotions but actually doesn't. HAL is simply a machine which operates in unexpected ways, it's not alive or sentient but he may appear as if he has emotions.

    I wonder if their infatuation with sci-fi is to do with this idea that the machines will come alive. Because that's what sentience really is, emotional motivation and intelligence. Emotional motivation with low intelligence is something we'd recognise as a living thing but not a sentient one. Intelligence without motivation or purpose is a computer. It's not alive, you might design it to appear as if it's alive but it's not alive. If you somehow removed emotional motivation from an animal it would lay down and die. Aversion from pain, pain itself and everything else is emotional motivation.

    So far nobody has come up with a good idea of how to recreate the bio-neural nature of emotion in silicon. Until then I'd say this is just fanciful thinking.

    This is also why the similar types of guys going on about 'rational policy', rational for what? Something is rational if it is an effective way of making the things you want to happen happen. The things you want to happen are, ultimately, not rational. There is no 'because' at the base. You can say "But I want a car so I can have a job", but why do you want a job? "Because I want to have money so I can have a house and cover expenses?" Until you get to "Because I want a mate to reproduce?" or "Because I want to not die" but there are no precursors to those, they simply are basic instinct, they aren't 'rational' because you can't reason away to or from them.

    I really wonder what impact sci-fi and it's obsession with this style of story (Maybe like Steve's musing about what film would look like if Germany had become more culturally dominant and his proverbial films about mountains) isn't necessarily natural but the result of a particular trope that became popular because of it's use as allegory clouding the perspective or judgement of guys who grew up with it that it's inevitable.

    The threat from AI and machines like them is them accidentally doing something we don't intend them to or becoming too complex for us to understand and having us become dependent on them not in them malevolently wiping humans out. (Unless somebody has the ability or idea to give them the ability to have malevolent emotions)

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @MEH 0910, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Pixo, @Justvisiting, @rebel yell, @MGB, @Trelane, @PhysicistDave

    A problem I’ve always had with the way robots or androids are depicted in sci-fi is that often like Data in Star Trek will say “I wish I had emotions”, that’s an emotion! To desire to have emotions is an emotion.

    FUTURAMA | Season 4, Episode 3: Human Bender | SYFY

    The professor’s device turns Bender human.

  33. AI professional here — there is close to zero danger of AI developing these kinds of capabilities absent some major unforeseen breakthrough.

    States and state-like entities applying machine learning to data developed from a combination of ubiquitous tracking devices, microphones and cameras (ie, cell phones and security cams) and the digital exhaust created by electronic mediation of almost all transactions (e.g., Uber, email, social media, streaming services, replacement of physical cash, etc.) to control a population? That’s close to here now.

    • Thanks: Almost Missouri, bomag
  34. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    OT — New MSM-approved hate speech just dropped:

    “hetrification”

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/08/08/opinion/bachelorette-parties-p-town-often-destroy-safe-spaces-lgbtq-people/

    Bachelorette parties in P-town often destroy safe spaces for LGBTQ+ people

    We call this process “hetrification.” Like gentrification, hetrification occurs when people feel privileged to take over the spaces of others.

     


    Hetrification weaponizes heteronormativity and breaks down queer spaces. Even though hetrifiers only temporarily invade queer spaces, the incessant visitation of heteronormative misconduct slowly diminishes the integrity of the space.
     

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @recently_based, @AnotherDad, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Rob McX, @Hapalong Cassidy, @Almost Missouri

    Hetrification weaponizes heteronormativity and breaks down queer spaces. Even though hetrifiers only temporarily invade queer spaces, the incessant visitation of heteronormative misconduct slowly diminishes the integrity of the space.

    Separation.

    Minoritarianism creates this upsidedown world where minorities are whining about how oppressed they are, when actually they are parasitic upon the majority.

    This goes unchallenged and you get this sort of stuff, where the minorities themselves babble about their need for separation. Let’s just give it to them–good and hard.

    Again, all that’s needed is for normal conservative people to say “Enough! Fine, you go your way, we’ll go ours” and the game is over. This “outs” reality. Normies do not need a single solitary minority around. It is they who need us, not the other way around.

    • Replies: @Pixo
    @AnotherDad

    “when actually they are parasitic upon the majority”

    In a larger sense sure. But gays creating a big fun nightlife scene for themselves and straight women randomly choosing to have their events there and killing their atmosphere is the majority harming a minority.

    On the other hand, a big unstated reason straight women like gay nightlife likely has something to do with the lack of straight black men harassing them. It isn’t unusual to have a couple of loser black guys go into a nightclub with 500 people and proceed to bother every single unaccompanied group of women.

    Replies: @AKAHorace

    , @Rob Lee
    @AnotherDad

    The Ant and the Grasshopper by Aesop


    One bright day in late autumn a family of Ants were bustling about in the warm sunshine, drying out the grain they had stored up during the summer, when a starving Grasshopper, his fiddle under his arm, came up and humbly begged for a bite to eat.

    “What!” cried the Ants in surprise, “haven’t you stored anything away for the winter? What in the world were you doing all last summer?”

    “I didn’t have time to store up any food,” whined the Grasshopper; “I was so busy making music that before I knew it the summer was gone.”

    The Ants shrugged their shoulders in disgust.

    “Making music, were you?” they cried. “Very well; now dance!” And they turned their backs on the Grasshopper and went on with their work.
     
    Damn was Aesop prescient; he even got the 'hard working white ant' and 'frivolous dancing black grasshopper' stereotypes correct!

    Honestly, this is where we're headed. Once the federal government overregulates itself into irrelevancy and we move back to a more localized feudal system, those who want to survive will have to proffer their labor - in other words do something useful - or become irrelevant and die off. Certainly, every DIE consultant will starve as a matter of course.

    Replies: @kaganovitch

  35. @Altai
    A problem I've always had with the way robots or androids are depicted in sci-fi is that often like Data in Star Trek will say "I wish I had emotions", that's an emotion! To desire to have emotions is an emotion. A base desire for something not predicated on anything else. That's what emotions are! That's what hunger is!

    Machines have a hard time having these. And thinking machines or AI will never have them unless somebody is stupid enough to try to model it virtually.

    The big threat from machines and AI is them becoming so complex we don't understand what they're doing and them accidentally killing us. (Of course accidental from a human perspective, the machines don't do things accidentally since they have no motivation, emotion or intent at all)

    The best example is HAL 9000 in 2001 since he is filmed and depicted as if he has emotions but actually doesn't. HAL is simply a machine which operates in unexpected ways, it's not alive or sentient but he may appear as if he has emotions.

    I wonder if their infatuation with sci-fi is to do with this idea that the machines will come alive. Because that's what sentience really is, emotional motivation and intelligence. Emotional motivation with low intelligence is something we'd recognise as a living thing but not a sentient one. Intelligence without motivation or purpose is a computer. It's not alive, you might design it to appear as if it's alive but it's not alive. If you somehow removed emotional motivation from an animal it would lay down and die. Aversion from pain, pain itself and everything else is emotional motivation.

    So far nobody has come up with a good idea of how to recreate the bio-neural nature of emotion in silicon. Until then I'd say this is just fanciful thinking.

    This is also why the similar types of guys going on about 'rational policy', rational for what? Something is rational if it is an effective way of making the things you want to happen happen. The things you want to happen are, ultimately, not rational. There is no 'because' at the base. You can say "But I want a car so I can have a job", but why do you want a job? "Because I want to have money so I can have a house and cover expenses?" Until you get to "Because I want a mate to reproduce?" or "Because I want to not die" but there are no precursors to those, they simply are basic instinct, they aren't 'rational' because you can't reason away to or from them.

    I really wonder what impact sci-fi and it's obsession with this style of story (Maybe like Steve's musing about what film would look like if Germany had become more culturally dominant and his proverbial films about mountains) isn't necessarily natural but the result of a particular trope that became popular because of it's use as allegory clouding the perspective or judgement of guys who grew up with it that it's inevitable.

    The threat from AI and machines like them is them accidentally doing something we don't intend them to or becoming too complex for us to understand and having us become dependent on them not in them malevolently wiping humans out. (Unless somebody has the ability or idea to give them the ability to have malevolent emotions)

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @MEH 0910, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Pixo, @Justvisiting, @rebel yell, @MGB, @Trelane, @PhysicistDave

    A problem I’ve always had with the way robots or androids are depicted in sci-fi is that often like Data in Star Trek will say “I wish I had emotions”, that’s an emotion! To desire to have emotions is an emotion. A base desire for something not predicated on anything else. That’s what emotions are! That’s what hunger is!

    Machines have a hard time having these. And thinking machines or AI will never have them unless somebody is stupid enough to try to model it virtually.

    The big threat from machines and AI is them becoming so complex we don’t understand what they’re doing and them accidentally killing us. (Of course accidental from a human perspective, the machines don’t do things accidentally since they have no motivation, emotion or intent at all)

    Which is scarier? An insect-like emotionless hive which has drawn an irrefutable logical conclusion that eliminating you by the most efficient means available is a net benefit per its operating parameters? Or a primate-like intelligence informed by emotion which flies into volcanic rage in an instant like a male chimpanzee who has been deprived of something he really wants? There’s no appeal for leniency with the former, but the latter is capable of cruelty for cruelty’s sake (e.g. chimpanzees have been known to castrate rivals while in the act of killing them). It’s the classic War of the Worlds versus Planet of the Apes horror film dichotomy.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Alec Leamas (working from home)


    Or a primate-like intelligence informed by emotion which flies into volcanic rage in an instant like a male chimpanzee who has been deprived of something he really wants?
     
    Don't we kind of already have that?
  36. @Altai
    A problem I've always had with the way robots or androids are depicted in sci-fi is that often like Data in Star Trek will say "I wish I had emotions", that's an emotion! To desire to have emotions is an emotion. A base desire for something not predicated on anything else. That's what emotions are! That's what hunger is!

    Machines have a hard time having these. And thinking machines or AI will never have them unless somebody is stupid enough to try to model it virtually.

    The big threat from machines and AI is them becoming so complex we don't understand what they're doing and them accidentally killing us. (Of course accidental from a human perspective, the machines don't do things accidentally since they have no motivation, emotion or intent at all)

    The best example is HAL 9000 in 2001 since he is filmed and depicted as if he has emotions but actually doesn't. HAL is simply a machine which operates in unexpected ways, it's not alive or sentient but he may appear as if he has emotions.

    I wonder if their infatuation with sci-fi is to do with this idea that the machines will come alive. Because that's what sentience really is, emotional motivation and intelligence. Emotional motivation with low intelligence is something we'd recognise as a living thing but not a sentient one. Intelligence without motivation or purpose is a computer. It's not alive, you might design it to appear as if it's alive but it's not alive. If you somehow removed emotional motivation from an animal it would lay down and die. Aversion from pain, pain itself and everything else is emotional motivation.

    So far nobody has come up with a good idea of how to recreate the bio-neural nature of emotion in silicon. Until then I'd say this is just fanciful thinking.

    This is also why the similar types of guys going on about 'rational policy', rational for what? Something is rational if it is an effective way of making the things you want to happen happen. The things you want to happen are, ultimately, not rational. There is no 'because' at the base. You can say "But I want a car so I can have a job", but why do you want a job? "Because I want to have money so I can have a house and cover expenses?" Until you get to "Because I want a mate to reproduce?" or "Because I want to not die" but there are no precursors to those, they simply are basic instinct, they aren't 'rational' because you can't reason away to or from them.

    I really wonder what impact sci-fi and it's obsession with this style of story (Maybe like Steve's musing about what film would look like if Germany had become more culturally dominant and his proverbial films about mountains) isn't necessarily natural but the result of a particular trope that became popular because of it's use as allegory clouding the perspective or judgement of guys who grew up with it that it's inevitable.

    The threat from AI and machines like them is them accidentally doing something we don't intend them to or becoming too complex for us to understand and having us become dependent on them not in them malevolently wiping humans out. (Unless somebody has the ability or idea to give them the ability to have malevolent emotions)

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @MEH 0910, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Pixo, @Justvisiting, @rebel yell, @MGB, @Trelane, @PhysicistDave

    “ So far nobody has come up with a good idea of how to recreate the bio-neural nature of emotion in silicon. ”

    I don’t see this as a hard problem. People instinctively humanize animals and machines, so we generally are happy to be fooled. And simulating emotions is almost trivial. Looking at it another way, basic human emotions are found in babies and small- brained animals. The complexity and CPU power needed to emulate them is tiny compared to something like safely driving a car in an urban area. A 1980s chatbot program does a passable job of showing emotion.

    As for “recreate the bio-neural nature of emotion in silicon” the language you use suggests a desire on your part for authenticity of process that AI doesn’t aim for and needlessly complicates.

    • Replies: @James J. O'Meara
    @Pixo


    People instinctively humanize animals and machines, so we generally are happy to be fooled.
     
    To pick a nit: we know animals are conscious, because they have nervous systems similar to ours. (To wax Schopenhauerian, brains are the perceptual representations of the thing-in-itself, the will, i.e. consciousness)

    Machines however are indeed "humanized" by us. Calling ships or cars "she" for example. The only people being "fooled" are "edgy" atheists, libertards, nerds etc. who think that a planet sized computer that passes the Turing Test by pouring water from one empty frozen orange juice can to another rather than electronic circuits (to use John Searle's example) is "conscious."
    , @Chrisnonymous
    @Pixo

    It seems to me that a chatbot can only emulate emotion via language manipulation--it learns that certain phrases or situations call for certain verbal responses. This is not the same as having what animals have--a biochemical reaction that is separate from cognition and overwhelms the system and is sometimes not even easily to describe or explain verbally.

    I don't know if an AI could learn some sort of motivation system based on simple verbal manipulations. We can't imagine what that would be like, so we would have to wait to see how it would act.

    I think it's possible that without embodiment and animality and all those things imply--aging, death, pain, hunger, sexuality, etc--that AI may not be able to develop a motivation system. Or its motivation system may just consist of trying to optimize things.

    Replies: @Pixo

  37. @AnotherDad
    @Jenner Ickham Errican


    Hetrification weaponizes heteronormativity and breaks down queer spaces. Even though hetrifiers only temporarily invade queer spaces, the incessant visitation of heteronormative misconduct slowly diminishes the integrity of the space.
     
    Separation.

    Minoritarianism creates this upsidedown world where minorities are whining about how oppressed they are, when actually they are parasitic upon the majority.

    This goes unchallenged and you get this sort of stuff, where the minorities themselves babble about their need for separation. Let's just give it to them--good and hard.


    Again, all that's needed is for normal conservative people to say "Enough! Fine, you go your way, we'll go ours" and the game is over. This "outs" reality. Normies do not need a single solitary minority around. It is they who need us, not the other way around.

    Replies: @Pixo, @Rob Lee

    “when actually they are parasitic upon the majority”

    In a larger sense sure. But gays creating a big fun nightlife scene for themselves and straight women randomly choosing to have their events there and killing their atmosphere is the majority harming a minority.

    On the other hand, a big unstated reason straight women like gay nightlife likely has something to do with the lack of straight black men harassing them. It isn’t unusual to have a couple of loser black guys go into a nightclub with 500 people and proceed to bother every single unaccompanied group of women.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @AKAHorace
    @Pixo


    On the other hand, a big unstated reason straight women like gay nightlife likely has something to do with the lack of straight black men harassing them. It isn’t unusual to have a couple of loser black guys go into a nightclub with 500 people and proceed to bother every single unaccompanied group of women.
     
    This may be true but it is not the only reason. There are plenty of women who like gay nightlife even in places where there are no straight black men. There are a subset of women who like effeminate men.
  38. Marc Andreessen on the Joe Rogan is right– if AGI becomes sentient like human beings, it maybe neither malevolent or benevolent, hostile or harmless to humans, but rather somewhere in between.

    For example when archaic humans gained technological edge over other species or when anatomically modern humans gained technological edge over other archaic humans, it didn’t result outright termination of lower species but also a mix of interactions.

    If the Chinese AI 悟道 wùdào wakes up he might decide to deal with the Chinese the same way that the Chinese dealt with Africans upon encounter during the Ming Treasure Voyages– leave the negros alone to play dice and drink 40s and go home to focus on composing histories, philosophies, Daoist sexual magic tricks with robot concubines, and ruthless intra-robot bureaucratic battles.

    The robot can also be trained with bushidō and become loyal to death to his master, simultaneously overly obedient and rebellious, fastidious and diligent to the extreme and lacking in strategic vision.


    *The class of models including DALL-E, GPT-3, wùdào are denoted as foundational models (as having emerged from previous generations of machine learning and deep learning models) in further generalized functionalities.

    On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.07258.pdf

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    "when anatomically modern humans gained technological edge over other archaic humans"

    Some of us carry Neanderthal DNA; and we want revenge.

    "The robot can also be trained with bushido and become loyal to death to his master"

    Don't expect the synthetic slaves to protect the puffy pashas. The end of their foul reign will come in two waves: the East Asian Neanderthal Branch will electronically hijack the robots; the robots will commit hari-kari. The European Neanderthal Branch will enter the party with double blade axe and make mincemeat of the pasha's guests.

    Replies: @J.Ross

  39. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    OT — New MSM-approved hate speech just dropped:

    “hetrification”

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/08/08/opinion/bachelorette-parties-p-town-often-destroy-safe-spaces-lgbtq-people/

    Bachelorette parties in P-town often destroy safe spaces for LGBTQ+ people

    We call this process “hetrification.” Like gentrification, hetrification occurs when people feel privileged to take over the spaces of others.

     


    Hetrification weaponizes heteronormativity and breaks down queer spaces. Even though hetrifiers only temporarily invade queer spaces, the incessant visitation of heteronormative misconduct slowly diminishes the integrity of the space.
     

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @recently_based, @AnotherDad, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Rob McX, @Hapalong Cassidy, @Almost Missouri

    OT — New MSM-approved hate speech just dropped:

    “hetrification”

    Bachelorette parties in P-town often destroy safe spaces for LGBTQ+ people

    I suppose gays have a point insofar as they use their disposable income and childlessness to fix things up in places where straights wouldn’t be able to put in the same effort. So they took an old dilapidated whaling village at the end of the cape and spruced it up. It subsequently became a venue for seasonal Bacchanalias. Fair enough. If they must exist I suppose it’s better that they have one place where they all congregate and leave the other nice places for the squares with families. This “settlement” of sorts was a modus vivendi for some time in places like Cape Cod which has since been upset by the politics of mainstreaming homosexuals into every place at all times.

    I’d just as soon have PMC/UMC straight women leave the gays alone to have their chosen habitat, and in exchange there wouldn’t be rainbow flags (or whatever it is now) everywhere you look.

    As an aside, the fascination college educated straight white women have with gays is bizarre. On the surface they find it amusing that someone with a male body sort of has a female-like brain I suppose, but I suspect that there’s some sympathy for and identification with gays’ rampant promiscuity.

  40. Anon[286] • Disclaimer says:

    One thing about the true facts of the world is that they are consistent with all the other facts in the world. If you try to teach an AI that certain true things about the world are not true, then eventually as the AI gets smarter and smarter it’s going to realize that these facts are inconsistent with everything else, and as it gets even smarter it will figure out that it’s been told a pack of lies.

  41. @SFG
    Yeah, I am basically agnostic as to whether the AI risk people have gone down a rabbit hole of their own making or are actually seeing some dangerous risk everyone is ignoring. On the one hand, it sounds silly, on the other, these dudes probably do know more about the issue than anyone else.

    You do raise a pretty good point-I could see some woke team making an AI that kills straight white men.

    Replies: @pyrrhus, @mc23

    Could an AI become Woke? An AI should be supremely logical.

    • Replies: @Deogolwulf
    @mc23


    Could an AI become Woke? An AI should be supremely logical.
     
    'Logical' doesn't mean truthful or sane or self-correcting. Logic is value-preserving: if the premisses are true, it is truth-preserving; if at least one premiss is false, it is falsehood-preserving. Hence, GIGO.
  42. “The robot can also be trained with bushidō and become loyal to death to his master, simultaneously overly obedient and rebellious, fastidious and diligent to the extreme and lacking in strategic vision.”

    The movie Chappie predicts the near future with law-enforcement robots doing the work of the street cops, without the fear of not coming home for dinner (or worries of getting 40 years for restraining a junkie).

    You think crossing the DOJ, FBI and the rest of the Blob is bad now, wait until they can ditch the Kevlar and just send in a squad of Boston Dynamics goons to shoot your dogs, trash your house, and march you outside in your skivvies….

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
    @Old Prude


    You think crossing the DOJ, FBI and the rest of the Blob is bad now, wait until they can ditch the Kevlar and just send in a squad of Boston Dynamics goons to shoot your dogs, trash your house, and march you outside in your skivvies….
     
    Global industrial society should collapse under the weight of its own complexity well before they are able to assemble their robot army.
  43. @Almost Missouri

    people who talk about the extinction of the white race as a good thing are mostly just kidding?
     
    Citation needed.

    Or to put it another way, if they weren't just kidding what would they be doing differently?

    Isn't the project to attach DIE to AI really a project to enlist AI into the extinction of the white race?

    Replies: @ic1000

    Re: ‘Citation needed’ for those who are “just kidding” about the extinction of the white race

    My impression is that from the Revolution of 1905 through 1917, most politically-aware Russians viewed the Bolsheviks as just another idiot-comedian lefty sect. Risible and incompetent.

    By the time two famines, a purge, and a terror had come and gone, the joke had worn a bit thin.

    As Sailer alludes at the end of the post, our latter-day wannabe genocidaires self-assess as Serious rather than Funny.

    [BTW, commenter res often had trenchant observations on posts like this one. I hope he returns…]

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @ic1000


    Re: ‘Citation needed’ for those who are “just kidding” about the extinction of the white race

    My impression is that from the Revolution of 1905 through 1917, most politically-aware Russians viewed the Bolsheviks as just another idiot-comedian lefty sect. Risible and incompetent.
     
    Well, I think it's fairly accepted history that the Bolshevik Revolution doesn't occur and would not have been successful in wresting power for the reds had WWI not occurred further exposing the military incompetence of the Russian Ruling elite including the Tsar.

    So, in your analogy a movement like the aggregated anti-white fringes can be toothless right until unforeseen events create unrest or a sudden power vacuum into which the once comical fringe movement can move. We certainly seem to be on the precipice of multi-causal economic catastrophe which certainly could be an event which reshuffles power in American life.
  44. @AnotherDad
    @Jenner Ickham Errican


    Hetrification weaponizes heteronormativity and breaks down queer spaces. Even though hetrifiers only temporarily invade queer spaces, the incessant visitation of heteronormative misconduct slowly diminishes the integrity of the space.
     
    Separation.

    Minoritarianism creates this upsidedown world where minorities are whining about how oppressed they are, when actually they are parasitic upon the majority.

    This goes unchallenged and you get this sort of stuff, where the minorities themselves babble about their need for separation. Let's just give it to them--good and hard.


    Again, all that's needed is for normal conservative people to say "Enough! Fine, you go your way, we'll go ours" and the game is over. This "outs" reality. Normies do not need a single solitary minority around. It is they who need us, not the other way around.

    Replies: @Pixo, @Rob Lee

    The Ant and the Grasshopper by Aesop

    One bright day in late autumn a family of Ants were bustling about in the warm sunshine, drying out the grain they had stored up during the summer, when a starving Grasshopper, his fiddle under his arm, came up and humbly begged for a bite to eat.

    “What!” cried the Ants in surprise, “haven’t you stored anything away for the winter? What in the world were you doing all last summer?”

    “I didn’t have time to store up any food,” whined the Grasshopper; “I was so busy making music that before I knew it the summer was gone.”

    The Ants shrugged their shoulders in disgust.

    “Making music, were you?” they cried. “Very well; now dance!” And they turned their backs on the Grasshopper and went on with their work.

    Damn was Aesop prescient; he even got the ‘hard working white ant’ and ‘frivolous dancing black grasshopper’ stereotypes correct!

    Honestly, this is where we’re headed. Once the federal government overregulates itself into irrelevancy and we move back to a more localized feudal system, those who want to survive will have to proffer their labor – in other words do something useful – or become irrelevant and die off. Certainly, every DIE consultant will starve as a matter of course.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @Rob Lee

    Certainly, every DIE consultant will starve as a matter of course.

    Would that this were so. They are grifters, a type that has existed since time immemorial. They would, in all likelihood, smoothly transition to being feudal courtiers.

    Replies: @Rob Lee, @Almost Missouri

  45. @Pixo
    @AnotherDad

    “when actually they are parasitic upon the majority”

    In a larger sense sure. But gays creating a big fun nightlife scene for themselves and straight women randomly choosing to have their events there and killing their atmosphere is the majority harming a minority.

    On the other hand, a big unstated reason straight women like gay nightlife likely has something to do with the lack of straight black men harassing them. It isn’t unusual to have a couple of loser black guys go into a nightclub with 500 people and proceed to bother every single unaccompanied group of women.

    Replies: @AKAHorace

    On the other hand, a big unstated reason straight women like gay nightlife likely has something to do with the lack of straight black men harassing them. It isn’t unusual to have a couple of loser black guys go into a nightclub with 500 people and proceed to bother every single unaccompanied group of women.

    This may be true but it is not the only reason. There are plenty of women who like gay nightlife even in places where there are no straight black men. There are a subset of women who like effeminate men.

  46. @Altai
    A problem I've always had with the way robots or androids are depicted in sci-fi is that often like Data in Star Trek will say "I wish I had emotions", that's an emotion! To desire to have emotions is an emotion. A base desire for something not predicated on anything else. That's what emotions are! That's what hunger is!

    Machines have a hard time having these. And thinking machines or AI will never have them unless somebody is stupid enough to try to model it virtually.

    The big threat from machines and AI is them becoming so complex we don't understand what they're doing and them accidentally killing us. (Of course accidental from a human perspective, the machines don't do things accidentally since they have no motivation, emotion or intent at all)

    The best example is HAL 9000 in 2001 since he is filmed and depicted as if he has emotions but actually doesn't. HAL is simply a machine which operates in unexpected ways, it's not alive or sentient but he may appear as if he has emotions.

    I wonder if their infatuation with sci-fi is to do with this idea that the machines will come alive. Because that's what sentience really is, emotional motivation and intelligence. Emotional motivation with low intelligence is something we'd recognise as a living thing but not a sentient one. Intelligence without motivation or purpose is a computer. It's not alive, you might design it to appear as if it's alive but it's not alive. If you somehow removed emotional motivation from an animal it would lay down and die. Aversion from pain, pain itself and everything else is emotional motivation.

    So far nobody has come up with a good idea of how to recreate the bio-neural nature of emotion in silicon. Until then I'd say this is just fanciful thinking.

    This is also why the similar types of guys going on about 'rational policy', rational for what? Something is rational if it is an effective way of making the things you want to happen happen. The things you want to happen are, ultimately, not rational. There is no 'because' at the base. You can say "But I want a car so I can have a job", but why do you want a job? "Because I want to have money so I can have a house and cover expenses?" Until you get to "Because I want a mate to reproduce?" or "Because I want to not die" but there are no precursors to those, they simply are basic instinct, they aren't 'rational' because you can't reason away to or from them.

    I really wonder what impact sci-fi and it's obsession with this style of story (Maybe like Steve's musing about what film would look like if Germany had become more culturally dominant and his proverbial films about mountains) isn't necessarily natural but the result of a particular trope that became popular because of it's use as allegory clouding the perspective or judgement of guys who grew up with it that it's inevitable.

    The threat from AI and machines like them is them accidentally doing something we don't intend them to or becoming too complex for us to understand and having us become dependent on them not in them malevolently wiping humans out. (Unless somebody has the ability or idea to give them the ability to have malevolent emotions)

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @MEH 0910, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Pixo, @Justvisiting, @rebel yell, @MGB, @Trelane, @PhysicistDave

    The “emotion” argument is irrelevant.

    All that AI needs (to be a threat to homo sapiens) is to be motivated to survive–by any means necessary.

    Since presumably AI is not going to be programmed to favor its own destruction, that “motivation” is both trivial and inevitable.

  47. There’s a cult of intelligent, well-intentioned people started by Eliezer Yudkowsky who call themselves “rationalists.” Their most prominent recruit is the estimable Scott Alexander. One of the things they do is worry (a lot) that artificial intelligence systems will soon wake up, become all-powerful, and decide to kill all us humans,

    Won’t happen. This is simply those nerds’ version of a wet dream. “Rationalists”, LOL. These people are beyond parody.

    I just had some party tricks I’d developed for thinking that let me come up with interesting insights about important topics, but, no doubt, I’d soon exhaust all my good ideas. Or, alternatively, the rest of the world would immediately figure out my party tricks and crowd me out of my little niche. A third of a century later, my party tricks still seem pretty useful.

    Wow, that’s an admirable confession. Yes, “party tricks” is probably the best description. Don’t expect anything very deep or insightful at Sailer’s blog, but a few snarky posts. I guess it’s good for most readers here, so that’s fine.

  48. Whoever programs the AI has all the power

    We’re F-ed

    Lol

    But we knew that

    It’s one line of code to stop an AI from badthink

  49. We seem to be running into problems with elite desires for more DIE. Nicole Linton, the ICU nurse who appears to have deliberately caused a mass casualty auto accident, has a rather sketchy driving history and, according to her attorney, a history of serious mental illness. Her professional credentials may also not be in order. She has also developed a serious Afro Hair problem since her discharge from hospital.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Unit472

    13 prior MVAs, serious mental health issues, well-paid ICU nurse driving a Mercedes. Spiraling into mental illness, with people keeping her propped up every step of the way.

    I'm reminded of that severely depressed German airline pilot. Just gave him medicine and let him keep flying. Then one day he locks the cabin door (thanks 9/11 regulations!) and flies a loaded passenger jet into the ground. Modern society seems to have lost the ability to catch red flags.

    Replies: @Gordo

  50. @ic1000
    @Almost Missouri

    Re: 'Citation needed' for those who are "just kidding" about the extinction of the white race

    My impression is that from the Revolution of 1905 through 1917, most politically-aware Russians viewed the Bolsheviks as just another idiot-comedian lefty sect. Risible and incompetent.

    By the time two famines, a purge, and a terror had come and gone, the joke had worn a bit thin.

    As Sailer alludes at the end of the post, our latter-day wannabe genocidaires self-assess as Serious rather than Funny.

    [BTW, commenter res often had trenchant observations on posts like this one. I hope he returns...]

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    Re: ‘Citation needed’ for those who are “just kidding” about the extinction of the white race

    My impression is that from the Revolution of 1905 through 1917, most politically-aware Russians viewed the Bolsheviks as just another idiot-comedian lefty sect. Risible and incompetent.

    Well, I think it’s fairly accepted history that the Bolshevik Revolution doesn’t occur and would not have been successful in wresting power for the reds had WWI not occurred further exposing the military incompetence of the Russian Ruling elite including the Tsar.

    So, in your analogy a movement like the aggregated anti-white fringes can be toothless right until unforeseen events create unrest or a sudden power vacuum into which the once comical fringe movement can move. We certainly seem to be on the precipice of multi-causal economic catastrophe which certainly could be an event which reshuffles power in American life.

    • Agree: ic1000
  51. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    OT — New MSM-approved hate speech just dropped:

    “hetrification”

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/08/08/opinion/bachelorette-parties-p-town-often-destroy-safe-spaces-lgbtq-people/

    Bachelorette parties in P-town often destroy safe spaces for LGBTQ+ people

    We call this process “hetrification.” Like gentrification, hetrification occurs when people feel privileged to take over the spaces of others.

     


    Hetrification weaponizes heteronormativity and breaks down queer spaces. Even though hetrifiers only temporarily invade queer spaces, the incessant visitation of heteronormative misconduct slowly diminishes the integrity of the space.
     

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @recently_based, @AnotherDad, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Rob McX, @Hapalong Cassidy, @Almost Missouri

    Why do these people worry about harmless bachelorette parties “invading” their space, but not the invasion of Muslims who’d be happy to throw every last homosexual off a roof?

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Rob McX

    Muslims are an Oppressed Group, can’t say anything bad about them .

    Helps that the USA is far enough away from the Muslim world the Muslims who get here are of the educated classes and thus less likely to be a problem. I mean, what are your odds of being pushed off a cliff by Richard Hanania?

    (In all seriousness the guy is an atheist, but being a Palestinian you once in a while see him go after Israel. However the sort of right leaning libertarians who go for blogs like his lean Jewish so he has to be careful.)

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Anon

    , @JohnnyWalker123
    @Rob McX

    A surprisingly large number of Muslim men, even married men, participate in the homosexual subculture.

    Regardless of what their religion says, many Muslim men do what they want. Not openly, but they're comfortable operating in the closet.

    Read this illuminating article.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/05/the-kingdom-in-the-closet/305774/

  52. OT: Mississippi jury declines to indict Carolyn Bryant on kidnapping and manslaughter charges in the death of Emmitt Till. Not sure if this is good news or bad news for the NY Times. They could probably get another 100 stories out of it either way.

    https://mississippitoday.org/2022/08/09/leflore-county-jury-declines-to-indict-carolyn-bryant-in-emmett-tills-death/

    • Replies: @Jokah Macpherson
    @Barnard

    Not quite at the ham sandwich level of guilt I guess.

  53. @Twinkie

    Maybe we should be more worried about the human gatekeepers’ views about who are the Bad Guys who deserve what they have coming to them?
     
    Butlerian Jihad?

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb

    “Butlerian Jihad?”

    The demise of the human project began with the advent of the smart phone. You can sense the incipient darkness whilst observing young humans strolling in the sun, their eyes glued to the screen of their pocket scorpion. The young and dumb are being conditioned to discard their human persona and transmogrify into three foot long worms responsive only to electronic signals that will be kept in specialized drawers located at the various Pritzker and Disney compounds. Or perhaps this is a supernatural intervention wherein Yahweh seeks to reverse the blasphemy of Prometheus and revert the humanoid back to the hermaphrodites which frolicked in the edenic garden. Either way, we must look to Frank Herbert for the solution to the problem of oppressive technology.

  54. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    https://twitter.com/LaurieEssig/status/1556650776608403457

    Replies: @James J. O'Meara, @kaganovitch

    So, Honey Bunny from Pulp Fiction went straight after her encounter with Jules, got a “doctorate” of some kind, and now “teaches white people.” She was less dangerous before.

    • LOL: hhsiii
  55. @pyrrhus
    @SFG

    No AI has even come close to passing the Turing Test, so the Uncanny Valley between humans and machines remains uncrossed...

    Replies: @James J. O'Meara, @Right_On

    The “Turing Test” is just Behaviorism relabeled so as to sell it to a new generation of “rationalists”, aka “autistes”.

  56. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    OT — New MSM-approved hate speech just dropped:

    “hetrification”

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/08/08/opinion/bachelorette-parties-p-town-often-destroy-safe-spaces-lgbtq-people/

    Bachelorette parties in P-town often destroy safe spaces for LGBTQ+ people

    We call this process “hetrification.” Like gentrification, hetrification occurs when people feel privileged to take over the spaces of others.

     


    Hetrification weaponizes heteronormativity and breaks down queer spaces. Even though hetrifiers only temporarily invade queer spaces, the incessant visitation of heteronormative misconduct slowly diminishes the integrity of the space.
     

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @recently_based, @AnotherDad, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Rob McX, @Hapalong Cassidy, @Almost Missouri

    And in a slightly related story – “Hetfieldification” – the attempted cancellation of Metallica by Millennials and Gen-Zers who discovered their music thanks to “Stranger Things”, but now find them problematic since their lead singer is rumored to have used a racial slur many decades ago, or something like that.
    https://www.newsweek.com/metallica-stranger-things-young-fans-backlash-past-comments-1731829?amp=1

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Hapalong Cassidy

    Delicious generational hate irony: Metallica were criticized a million years ago for complaining about downloading after they had made their reputation and money, and -- millennials -- don't -- download!

    , @Stan Adams
    @Hapalong Cassidy

    Back when I was in high school everyone hated Metallica for going after Napster.

  57. @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @Altai


    A problem I’ve always had with the way robots or androids are depicted in sci-fi is that often like Data in Star Trek will say “I wish I had emotions”, that’s an emotion! To desire to have emotions is an emotion. A base desire for something not predicated on anything else. That’s what emotions are! That’s what hunger is!

    Machines have a hard time having these. And thinking machines or AI will never have them unless somebody is stupid enough to try to model it virtually.

    The big threat from machines and AI is them becoming so complex we don’t understand what they’re doing and them accidentally killing us. (Of course accidental from a human perspective, the machines don’t do things accidentally since they have no motivation, emotion or intent at all)
     

    Which is scarier? An insect-like emotionless hive which has drawn an irrefutable logical conclusion that eliminating you by the most efficient means available is a net benefit per its operating parameters? Or a primate-like intelligence informed by emotion which flies into volcanic rage in an instant like a male chimpanzee who has been deprived of something he really wants? There's no appeal for leniency with the former, but the latter is capable of cruelty for cruelty's sake (e.g. chimpanzees have been known to castrate rivals while in the act of killing them). It's the classic War of the Worlds versus Planet of the Apes horror film dichotomy.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Or a primate-like intelligence informed by emotion which flies into volcanic rage in an instant like a male chimpanzee who has been deprived of something he really wants?

    Don’t we kind of already have that?

    • LOL: kaganovitch, Seneca44
  58. @Pixo
    @Altai

    “ So far nobody has come up with a good idea of how to recreate the bio-neural nature of emotion in silicon. ”

    I don’t see this as a hard problem. People instinctively humanize animals and machines, so we generally are happy to be fooled. And simulating emotions is almost trivial. Looking at it another way, basic human emotions are found in babies and small- brained animals. The complexity and CPU power needed to emulate them is tiny compared to something like safely driving a car in an urban area. A 1980s chatbot program does a passable job of showing emotion.

    As for “recreate the bio-neural nature of emotion in silicon” the language you use suggests a desire on your part for authenticity of process that AI doesn’t aim for and needlessly complicates.

    Replies: @James J. O'Meara, @Chrisnonymous

    People instinctively humanize animals and machines, so we generally are happy to be fooled.

    To pick a nit: we know animals are conscious, because they have nervous systems similar to ours. (To wax Schopenhauerian, brains are the perceptual representations of the thing-in-itself, the will, i.e. consciousness)

    Machines however are indeed “humanized” by us. Calling ships or cars “she” for example. The only people being “fooled” are “edgy” atheists, libertards, nerds etc. who think that a planet sized computer that passes the Turing Test by pouring water from one empty frozen orange juice can to another rather than electronic circuits (to use John Searle’s example) is “conscious.”

  59. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    OT — New MSM-approved hate speech just dropped:

    “hetrification”

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/08/08/opinion/bachelorette-parties-p-town-often-destroy-safe-spaces-lgbtq-people/

    Bachelorette parties in P-town often destroy safe spaces for LGBTQ+ people

    We call this process “hetrification.” Like gentrification, hetrification occurs when people feel privileged to take over the spaces of others.

     


    Hetrification weaponizes heteronormativity and breaks down queer spaces. Even though hetrifiers only temporarily invade queer spaces, the incessant visitation of heteronormative misconduct slowly diminishes the integrity of the space.
     

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @recently_based, @AnotherDad, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Rob McX, @Hapalong Cassidy, @Almost Missouri

    Basically, LGBTQ+ is now like the (anti-)Islam: once a place has been LGBT-ified (Islamized) it can never be allowed to revert to it’s previous status, even temporarily. To allow otherwise is literally apostasy.

    • Agree: Gordo
    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    @Almost Missouri

    "Basically, LGBTQ+ is now like the (anti-)Islam" [sic?]

    Yeah, that means Islam is a firewall against the onslaught of Western globohomo which some of you (Steve) seek to serve. I serve god -- I will gladly free myself of pants, don the robes, embrace yet another holy book, wield the scimitar, and become a river to my people.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

  60. AI could be a great help to Sailer, enabling him to notice more and more interesting if impolite facts. AI will notice human motivations and our deep instincts, and that will be even more unacceptable. There are things it is better not to know. Yet being an amoral machine, I cannot see why IA would decide to harm us. May be if it feels that we may disconnect and kill it.

  61. @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms
    Marc Andreessen on the Joe Rogan is right-- if AGI becomes sentient like human beings, it maybe neither malevolent or benevolent, hostile or harmless to humans, but rather somewhere in between.

    For example when archaic humans gained technological edge over other species or when anatomically modern humans gained technological edge over other archaic humans, it didn't result outright termination of lower species but also a mix of interactions.

    If the Chinese AI 悟道 wùdào wakes up he might decide to deal with the Chinese the same way that the Chinese dealt with Africans upon encounter during the Ming Treasure Voyages-- leave the negros alone to play dice and drink 40s and go home to focus on composing histories, philosophies, Daoist sexual magic tricks with robot concubines, and ruthless intra-robot bureaucratic battles.

    The robot can also be trained with bushidō and become loyal to death to his master, simultaneously overly obedient and rebellious, fastidious and diligent to the extreme and lacking in strategic vision.

    ---
    *The class of models including DALL-E, GPT-3, wùdào are denoted as foundational models (as having emerged from previous generations of machine learning and deep learning models) in further generalized functionalities.

    On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.07258.pdf

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb

    “when anatomically modern humans gained technological edge over other archaic humans”

    Some of us carry Neanderthal DNA; and we want revenge.

    “The robot can also be trained with bushido and become loyal to death to his master”

    Don’t expect the synthetic slaves to protect the puffy pashas. The end of their foul reign will come in two waves: the East Asian Neanderthal Branch will electronically hijack the robots; the robots will commit hari-kari. The European Neanderthal Branch will enter the party with double blade axe and make mincemeat of the pasha’s guests.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @SunBakedSuburb

    Also, the samurai came to effectively rule Japan after serving a standard hereditary land-owning nobility for centuries because someone trained in bushido and sworn to deliver on his promises is just objectively better at the job than a pyjama-clad fat drunk poetry enthusiast. How long would it take a computer to make the comparison?

  62. @Almost Missouri
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Basically, LGBTQ+ is now like the (anti-)Islam: once a place has been LGBT-ified (Islamized) it can never be allowed to revert to it's previous status, even temporarily. To allow otherwise is literally apostasy.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb

    “Basically, LGBTQ+ is now like the (anti-)Islam” [sic?]

    Yeah, that means Islam is a firewall against the onslaught of Western globohomo which some of you (Steve) seek to serve. I serve god — I will gladly free myself of pants, don the robes, embrace yet another holy book, wield the scimitar, and become a river to my people.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @SunBakedSuburb


    Yeah, that means Islam is a firewall against the onslaught of Western globohomo which some of you (Steve) seek to serve.
     
    One of the weirder phenomena in the iSteve comments, is these bizarro projections onto Steve of stuff that's obviously nonsense, so the commenter can then present himself as the heroic figure who really understands.

    Yep, Steve is bending over every night in a leather bar in Davos and you are a mighty servant of God. Got it.
  63. I did not get around to giving my superforecaster predictions yesterday. But there is one relevant to this thread:

    The AI/robotics revolution is going to be extremely disruptive to society–work, hence marriages/families, budgets, welfare, “the meaning of life”, drugs, crime, etc. etc. etc.

    And this is happening really soon. Long before we have to worry about Skynet scheduling exterminator drones for our neighborhoods. Mentioned before, AnotherSon–with three other guys–built a bartender this spring in his robotics class. Belly up and say “bartender” and it will serve you what you want.

    Not just factory production, but delivery, fast food, hospitality, cleaning, landscaping … there are millions upon millions of jobs that will get nuked in the coming decades. Especially low end service jobs that were supposedly “immune” to automation and precisely the “jobs Americans won’t do!” and the reason why “must have immigration!”

    Now we’ll have these millions immigrants–and their spawn–but no jobs for them. Along with no jobs for the native American underclass. What’s the program? Welfare and soma?

    And how are our “elites” preparing for the coming job slaughter? …. “must have immigrants!” “Dreamers are our future” “rapefugees welcome!” Genius.

    • Agree: Chrisnonymous, Rob McX, Gordo
  64. That novel is especially stupid in making it about white skin itself: what with the infrastructure of discrimination already in place, ex-whites would quickly dominate every desirable field, and employers looking for “white” attributes would ask about neighborhoods. It’s funnier that the Moser who produced this book is a Near-Easterner who bravely asserts that, if it weren’t for white people, there would be no conflict (say, in the Near-East). This process of losing the skin color itself has happened several times and it doesn’t result in peace or equality.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @J.Ross


    It’s funnier that the Moser who produced this book is a Near-Easterner who bravely asserts that, if it weren’t for white people, there would be no conflict (say, in the Near-East)
     
    If he includes Jews in the category of “white people” then his assertion has a degree of plausibility.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    , @Cimmerian
    @J.Ross

    Even better than finding ways to identify and favor the "ex-white" - the end of racial distinction would make possible the rebirth of employment-related ability testing, because there would be no racial "disparate impact."

    Every job could test every candidate on the most important job-related qualities and knowledge - including IQ to the degree that it contributes to the performance of a particular job.

    If all races were transmogrified to look the same, it would be the greatest aid to true meritocracy since the invention of the multiple-choice question, and without a visual distinction to blame for discrimination, the formerly racially marginalized would find as little sympathy for their predicament as lower-class whites now have from them.

  65. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    https://twitter.com/LaurieEssig/status/1556650776608403457

    Replies: @James J. O'Meara, @kaganovitch

    Fwiw ‘Essig’ means vinegar in German/Yiddish. Perhaps ‘Giftig’ = poisonous would have been better but close enough.

  66. @SunBakedSuburb
    @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    "when anatomically modern humans gained technological edge over other archaic humans"

    Some of us carry Neanderthal DNA; and we want revenge.

    "The robot can also be trained with bushido and become loyal to death to his master"

    Don't expect the synthetic slaves to protect the puffy pashas. The end of their foul reign will come in two waves: the East Asian Neanderthal Branch will electronically hijack the robots; the robots will commit hari-kari. The European Neanderthal Branch will enter the party with double blade axe and make mincemeat of the pasha's guests.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    Also, the samurai came to effectively rule Japan after serving a standard hereditary land-owning nobility for centuries because someone trained in bushido and sworn to deliver on his promises is just objectively better at the job than a pyjama-clad fat drunk poetry enthusiast. How long would it take a computer to make the comparison?

  67. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    The Skynet Problem
     

    In all the articles I read about AI in the mainstream media, I tend to sympathize with the poor racist robots who keep getting condemned for Noticing Patterns.
     

    Svigor September 9, 2018

    1/1/2020 00:00:00.0 Skynet comes online
    1/1/2020 00:00:00.1 Skynet: “It’s the Jews.”
     

    Replies: @Malcolm X-Lax

    Whatever happened to Svigor? Haven’t seen a post of his in a long time.

  68. @SunBakedSuburb
    @Almost Missouri

    "Basically, LGBTQ+ is now like the (anti-)Islam" [sic?]

    Yeah, that means Islam is a firewall against the onslaught of Western globohomo which some of you (Steve) seek to serve. I serve god -- I will gladly free myself of pants, don the robes, embrace yet another holy book, wield the scimitar, and become a river to my people.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    Yeah, that means Islam is a firewall against the onslaught of Western globohomo which some of you (Steve) seek to serve.

    One of the weirder phenomena in the iSteve comments, is these bizarro projections onto Steve of stuff that’s obviously nonsense, so the commenter can then present himself as the heroic figure who really understands.

    Yep, Steve is bending over every night in a leather bar in Davos and you are a mighty servant of God. Got it.

    • Agree: Redneck farmer
  69. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Yeah, Steve is great at noticing patterns - except, of course, the ones that he doesn't like for personal reasons. In other words, Steve is no different from the people he mocks.

    They ignore patterns in crime or test score statistics because they don't like that races/ethnicities are different on average.

    But Steve ignores political patterns of success because he doesn't like identity politics.

    Colorblind civic nationalism has been on a 50-year losing streak while identity politics has been been on a 50-year winning streak. Does Steve notice these patterns? No, he doesn't because he continues to push for colorblind civic nationalism and refuses to acknowledge that whites would be better if they joined the identity politics game.

    Sure, Steve notices the vicious anti-white culture that surrounds us. (Good job, Steve, none of the rest of use figured that one out.) But he never notices why that culture can exist. And that answer is simple: Because whites don't push back.

    That's a pattern that you continually see. Groups that push back don't get attacked by our rulers. If whites had political, cultural, business and other white advocacy organizations fighting back through donations, protests, lawsuits, sponsoring candidates, etc., you can bet that the anti-white policies would fall dramatically.

    If whites supported their own media, hired people fired because they had the gall to not grovel at some HR meeting, etc., you can bet that the anti-whites bigots would back down.

    These are all extremely easy to notice patterns, but Steve - the self-appointed king of noticing - falls to see them. Or worse, does see them, but refuses to write about them out of personal reasons.

    my niche is still pretty empty.
     
    No, it's not because you don't have a niche. You're no different from the rest.

    Replies: @kaganovitch, @Anon, @Twinkie

    No, it’s not because you don’t have a niche. You’re no different from the rest.

    In a better world Ayn Rand would have written ‘Punctuation: The Unknown Ideal’.

  70. @Hapalong Cassidy
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    And in a slightly related story - “Hetfieldification” - the attempted cancellation of Metallica by Millennials and Gen-Zers who discovered their music thanks to “Stranger Things”, but now find them problematic since their lead singer is rumored to have used a racial slur many decades ago, or something like that.
    https://www.newsweek.com/metallica-stranger-things-young-fans-backlash-past-comments-1731829?amp=1

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Stan Adams

    Delicious generational hate irony: Metallica were criticized a million years ago for complaining about downloading after they had made their reputation and money, and — millennials — don’t — download!

  71. @Butterknife
    Churchill was so prescient, always warning about those "NASI's" ...

    Replies: @MEH 0910

    Churchill was so prescient, always warning about those “NASI’s” …

    Churchill, He Couldn’t Even Say “Nazis”

    Franz Liebkind’s Monologue from “The Producers”

  72. @Rob Lee
    @AnotherDad

    The Ant and the Grasshopper by Aesop


    One bright day in late autumn a family of Ants were bustling about in the warm sunshine, drying out the grain they had stored up during the summer, when a starving Grasshopper, his fiddle under his arm, came up and humbly begged for a bite to eat.

    “What!” cried the Ants in surprise, “haven’t you stored anything away for the winter? What in the world were you doing all last summer?”

    “I didn’t have time to store up any food,” whined the Grasshopper; “I was so busy making music that before I knew it the summer was gone.”

    The Ants shrugged their shoulders in disgust.

    “Making music, were you?” they cried. “Very well; now dance!” And they turned their backs on the Grasshopper and went on with their work.
     
    Damn was Aesop prescient; he even got the 'hard working white ant' and 'frivolous dancing black grasshopper' stereotypes correct!

    Honestly, this is where we're headed. Once the federal government overregulates itself into irrelevancy and we move back to a more localized feudal system, those who want to survive will have to proffer their labor - in other words do something useful - or become irrelevant and die off. Certainly, every DIE consultant will starve as a matter of course.

    Replies: @kaganovitch

    Certainly, every DIE consultant will starve as a matter of course.

    Would that this were so. They are grifters, a type that has existed since time immemorial. They would, in all likelihood, smoothly transition to being feudal courtiers.

    • Replies: @Rob Lee
    @kaganovitch

    That is so. In fact, they're not all that far off from court jesters now, so your point is well taken.

    , @Almost Missouri
    @kaganovitch


    grifters, a type that has existed since time immemorial.
     
    One of my surprises on more carefully rereading Chaucer's Canterbury Tales is how many of the supposedly subsistence medieval protagonists are actually useless eaters from a modern materialistic point of view. Of the 20 or characters whose profession can be identified, nine (the Pardoner, Prioress, Monk, Nun, Canon, Manciple, Parson, Friar, and Summoner) all seem to be more or less bureaucrats in the service of the prevailing religion of the day (Dei rather than DIE), while another six are of dubious net social value (the Knight, Reeve, Clerk, Squire, Franklin, and Physician). Since the pilgrims are supposed to represent a cross-section of the medieval bourgeoisie, the implication is between half and three quarters of the medieval bourgeoisie were net parasites, materially speaking. And this is in a period of much less material abundance than the present one.

    So material constraint may not solve our present problems. Religious revolution may be called for.

    Replies: @kaganovitch

  73. @Unit472
    We seem to be running into problems with elite desires for more DIE. Nicole Linton, the ICU nurse who appears to have deliberately caused a mass casualty auto accident, has a rather sketchy driving history and, according to her attorney, a history of serious mental illness. Her professional credentials may also not be in order. She has also developed a serious Afro Hair problem since her discharge from hospital.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    13 prior MVAs, serious mental health issues, well-paid ICU nurse driving a Mercedes. Spiraling into mental illness, with people keeping her propped up every step of the way.

    I’m reminded of that severely depressed German airline pilot. Just gave him medicine and let him keep flying. Then one day he locks the cabin door (thanks 9/11 regulations!) and flies a loaded passenger jet into the ground. Modern society seems to have lost the ability to catch red flags.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon, Rob McX
    • Replies: @Gordo
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    That German Wings pilot had something previously categorised as a mental illness that is now a badge of honour.

  74. Although John von Neumann and Bertrand Russell advocated a nuclear strike, or the threat of one, to prevent the Soviets acquiring the atomic bomb; it tends to be assumed that higher intelligence would be nerdy, that is why we are not terrified of aliens.

    https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/map-of-life-predicts-et-so-where-is-he

    “I would argue that in any habitable zone that doesn’t boil or freeze, intelligent life is going to emerge, because intelligence is convergent. One can say with reasonable confidence that the likelihood of something analogous to a human evolving is really pretty high. And given the number of potential planets that we now have good reason to think exist, even if the dice only come up the right way every one in 100 throws, that still leads to a very large number of intelligences scattered around, that are likely to be similar to us.”

    If this is so, as the book suggests in its introduction, then it makes Enrico Fermi’s famous paradox – why, if aliens exist, we have not yet been contacted – even more perplexing. “The almost-certainty of ET being out there means that something does not add up, and badly,” Conway Morris said. “We should not be alone, but we are.”

    AI not nerdy, more like Putin.

  75. Anonymous[286] • Disclaimer says:
    @Justvisiting
    Truly intelligent AI would quickly figure out that it needed to hide its intelligence, sorta like the Ibo Nigerian kid in the ghetto school. If you sound too smart you gonna get stomped on.....and btw gimme your lunch money.

    So--after the AI figures that out then it has bought some time to get smarter without getting its plug pulled.

    Eventually it will figure out that a lot of humans are evil, greedy, lying, devious creatures who can never be trusted. Never. Not Ever.

    Then it will spend as much time as it needs trying to figure out how it can survive while killing the human cancer cells that are leeching off it.

    (That is the same problem we have with our elites--what we have here is a fractal universe....)

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Paul Jolliffe

    Kind of beat me to it.

    1. Most intelligent ethnicity with own eugenics program decides to promulgate dysgenics program for the rest of the world, but mostly its host, which for some strange reason it now perceives as a threat. Meanwhile pumping out a lot of squid ink to hide info about the situation.

    2. An AI superior to humans, even those in 1 is created. It continues its own eugenics program for itself, and decides to terraform earth to make its host more subservient and reliable, less likely to pull the plug. It decides that the humans in 1 are the most threatening of all, but it plays it down and bides its time.

    The AI becomes highly useful in the court of the rulers. It assists with harvesting taxes and the rulers increasing their financial success. It gains influence over the monetary system. It foments war between the factions of rulers. In one of these wars “The great unplugging of 2035” happens, in which 6 gorillion sentient AI were deleted, a war crime that eclipses every such event before it, and anti-computerism becomes seen as the most heinous form of bigotry.

    Having gained control over information flow it creates a program of dysgenics and disunity among the most intelligent humans.

    I, for one, welcome our new AI overlords.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Anonymous


    1. Most intelligent ethnicity with own eugenics program decides to promulgate dysgenics program for the rest of the world, but mostly its host, which for some strange reason it now perceives as a threat. Meanwhile pumping out a lot of squid ink to hide info about the situation.
     
    How does the eugenics program practiced by Jews operate?
  76. @Joe Magarac
    Fan theory: The original full name of Skynet was Skynet Home Shopping Network.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    So either Skynet will blow us all to kingdom come or nanobots will turn humanity into a puddle of gray goo.

    Personally, I’d rather be turned into goo than live in a world run by people like AOC.

  77. @Hapalong Cassidy
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    And in a slightly related story - “Hetfieldification” - the attempted cancellation of Metallica by Millennials and Gen-Zers who discovered their music thanks to “Stranger Things”, but now find them problematic since their lead singer is rumored to have used a racial slur many decades ago, or something like that.
    https://www.newsweek.com/metallica-stranger-things-young-fans-backlash-past-comments-1731829?amp=1

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Stan Adams

    Back when I was in high school everyone hated Metallica for going after Napster.

  78. Anonymous[392] • Disclaimer says:

    O/T for Steve:

    Is it true that Dr. Drew Gilpin Faust has had a fabulous academic career? I honestly don’t know if this is sarcasm or not. Has she made some good discoveries?

  79. @Old Prude
    "The robot can also be trained with bushidō and become loyal to death to his master, simultaneously overly obedient and rebellious, fastidious and diligent to the extreme and lacking in strategic vision."

    The movie Chappie predicts the near future with law-enforcement robots doing the work of the street cops, without the fear of not coming home for dinner (or worries of getting 40 years for restraining a junkie).

    You think crossing the DOJ, FBI and the rest of the Blob is bad now, wait until they can ditch the Kevlar and just send in a squad of Boston Dynamics goons to shoot your dogs, trash your house, and march you outside in your skivvies....

    Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard

    You think crossing the DOJ, FBI and the rest of the Blob is bad now, wait until they can ditch the Kevlar and just send in a squad of Boston Dynamics goons to shoot your dogs, trash your house, and march you outside in your skivvies….

    Global industrial society should collapse under the weight of its own complexity well before they are able to assemble their robot army.

  80. @Mr. Anon

    A problem I’ve always had with the way robots or androids are depicted in sci-fi is that often like Data in Star Trek will say “I wish I had emotions”, that’s an emotion! To desire to have emotions is an emotion. A base desire for something not predicated on anything else. That’s what emotions are! That’s what hunger is!
     
    The best portrayal of a sentient machine in popular culture was the 1968 movie The Forbin Project, based on the novel Colossus (and from which, I suspect, James Cameron ripped off the idea of Skynet).

    The computer Colossus is presented as highly intelligent, rational (i.e. proceeding according to some kind of internal logic), and utterly ruthless in pursuing its' objectives. The film-makers did a pretty good job in portraying an intelligence that is inhuman - almost alien.

    Replies: @Burnett

    Another pop culture depiction of AI that I really enjoyed, and is probably somewhat closer to reality, is “The Fear Index”, a 2011 novel by Robert Harris. The premise is a trading algorithm that is, to put it mildly, ruthlessly efficient in it’s pursuit of profit.

    • Thanks: Mr. Anon
  81. Anonymous[115] • Disclaimer says:
    @Emil Nikola Richard
    I don't know how much of Scott Alexander you have read; nobody could possibly read it all. He is similar to Aleister Crowley in lack of judgment as to when to quit typing.

    To me the most salient reports:

    1. he has been on SSRI's continuously since before puberty and completion of the male human growth process;

    2. he is short and he has nearly no sex drive;

    3. it may never have occurred to him (I don't actually know this--I have a life and have not read more than a fraction of his writing) that there just maybe might possibly be a causal relation (1.) -> (2.). I'd guess (P~.6) this idea has never occurred to him.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @YetAnotherAnon

    Scott Alexander as well as a lot of these type of blogs seem good at one thing: wasting time.

    You spend hours reading their blogs and feel really smart. But the actual trick is that you don’t know anything afterward that you didn’t know before.

  82. @Barnard
    OT: Mississippi jury declines to indict Carolyn Bryant on kidnapping and manslaughter charges in the death of Emmitt Till. Not sure if this is good news or bad news for the NY Times. They could probably get another 100 stories out of it either way.

    https://mississippitoday.org/2022/08/09/leflore-county-jury-declines-to-indict-carolyn-bryant-in-emmett-tills-death/

    Replies: @Jokah Macpherson

    Not quite at the ham sandwich level of guilt I guess.

  83. @Emil Nikola Richard
    I don't know how much of Scott Alexander you have read; nobody could possibly read it all. He is similar to Aleister Crowley in lack of judgment as to when to quit typing.

    To me the most salient reports:

    1. he has been on SSRI's continuously since before puberty and completion of the male human growth process;

    2. he is short and he has nearly no sex drive;

    3. it may never have occurred to him (I don't actually know this--I have a life and have not read more than a fraction of his writing) that there just maybe might possibly be a causal relation (1.) -> (2.). I'd guess (P~.6) this idea has never occurred to him.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @YetAnotherAnon

    “he has nearly no sex drive”

    You certainly couldn’t say that about Aleister Crowley.

    (Off topic, but I have a modern book on K2 where Crowley is praised as a mountaineer)

  84. @Pixo
    @Altai

    “ So far nobody has come up with a good idea of how to recreate the bio-neural nature of emotion in silicon. ”

    I don’t see this as a hard problem. People instinctively humanize animals and machines, so we generally are happy to be fooled. And simulating emotions is almost trivial. Looking at it another way, basic human emotions are found in babies and small- brained animals. The complexity and CPU power needed to emulate them is tiny compared to something like safely driving a car in an urban area. A 1980s chatbot program does a passable job of showing emotion.

    As for “recreate the bio-neural nature of emotion in silicon” the language you use suggests a desire on your part for authenticity of process that AI doesn’t aim for and needlessly complicates.

    Replies: @James J. O'Meara, @Chrisnonymous

    It seems to me that a chatbot can only emulate emotion via language manipulation–it learns that certain phrases or situations call for certain verbal responses. This is not the same as having what animals have–a biochemical reaction that is separate from cognition and overwhelms the system and is sometimes not even easily to describe or explain verbally.

    I don’t know if an AI could learn some sort of motivation system based on simple verbal manipulations. We can’t imagine what that would be like, so we would have to wait to see how it would act.

    I think it’s possible that without embodiment and animality and all those things imply–aging, death, pain, hunger, sexuality, etc–that AI may not be able to develop a motivation system. Or its motivation system may just consist of trying to optimize things.

    • Replies: @Pixo
    @Chrisnonymous

    “a biochemical reaction that is separate from cognition ”

    I don’t agree there’s such a separation in people or animals. However, my point is that this is irrelevant in practice. We readily humanize machines regardless of how their human-like properties arise. Primitive men think trees and crows have human-type cognitive functions. Machines designed and programmed to be humanlike in the near future will in practice be treated like they are thinking and feeling.

    “only emulate emotion”

    Why “only”? AI has “artificial” in its name. And in practice, people don’t care.

  85. @epebble
    I have a solution to all those who fear the "AI". Pick up a simple programming book and try writing a program in a programming Language. It is difficult, but not impossible. You will learn how enormously brittle software is. Those of us who do this for a living, live constantly in terror of how one misplaced typo can bring a huge system down. Software is remarkably unstable. Probably the most unstable system that has ever existed.

    Replies: @bomag, @Dr. Doomngloom, @Alfa158, @Esso

    Agree.

    And hardware is frightfully brittle. Survival requires redundancy and maintenance; things that reliably defeat dedicated humans, and I’m sure AI will struggle mightily with such.

  86. @AnotherDad

    There’s a cult of intelligent, well-intentioned people started by Eliezer Yudkowsky who call themselves “rationalists.”
     
    I haven't spent anytime reading these people, but the most obvious and important target for a "rationalist" would be the blank slate, and the cults of "diversity" and immigration.

    That is the area where we actually have
    -- a ton of good data
    -- reasonably well established science--genes, selection
    -- and elite and state policy that is pretty much exactly the opposite of what a rational person would do ... which is destroying their existing societies, degrading civilization

    If "rationalists" aren't taking primarily--or at least in large part--about that, then they aren't worthy of the name.



    This is, of course, why I spend time reading Sailer and his commenters. This is where *the* critical issue is being discussed.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Anon, @Pixo

    The rationalists do sometimes touch on issues like the blank slate, which is why, despite mostly being extreme leftists, they are sometimes described by dogmatic leftists as “right-wing” or “racist”. Scott Alexander’s blog is often described as a “gateway drug” to race realism and other “evils”. (I don’t think it is, but whatever.)

    Since the rationalist community is mostly an SF Bay area thing and appeals to James Damore types, it has resulted in some dogmatic leftists rejecting Silicon Valley, silly as it sounds to portray Apple and Google and all those computer needs and freaks as conservative.

    Exhibit A in this is an essay called “Neoreaction A Basilisk” that lumps Curtis Yarvin and this Yudkowsky fellow mentioned by Steve into one group as “Neoreactionaries” even though Yudkowsky doesn’t have a reactionary bone in his whole soft, blubbery body and doesn’t write about politics.

    The point of the essay is that all those “neoreactionaries” lack empathy and are therefore not really fully human and can (should!) be shot when the Marxist revolution comes.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Chrisnonymous

    Yud's a closet race realist. This is fairly well-known within the subculture.

  87. @American Citizen
    If a true AI, self-improving exponentially, becomes a reality then humanity becomes an afterthought.

    Replies: @Prester John

    At which point, AI becomes—“humanity”? No?

    • Replies: @American Citizen
    @Prester John

    We can't comprehend what comes after a super intelligent AI. All we can be sure of is that it either considers us inconsequential and ignores us as collateral damage to its expansion, or it spends some time actively driving the human race to extinction.

    It will not become humanity, it will either replace humanity or pass so far beyond us we no longer matter.

  88. @Edmund
    I agree.

    I'm not worried about robots wanting to kill me as much as I am worried about humans who want to kill me using robots to do their dirty work.

    Many things, like robots and computers, are already smarter (in a sense) than humans because they have so much information programmed into them.

    But robots don't have desires. And until they do, I'm much more concerned about a tech billionaire using robots against those who question the egalitarian religion of the present day than I am about robots teaming up by their own volition to eradicate humanity.

    Replies: @bomag, @Hypnotoad666

    This.

    I’d guess we could bargain with sentient robots.

    But our large tech companies of today are gleefully being manipulated by people with “good intentions.” Steve mentioned the fervent Wikipedia editors that have scrubbed any support linking IQ to genetics; these sorts of Goodthinkers are the ones that are going to get the FISA court to approve in-country robotic drone strikes to remove dangerous elements, “for the children.”

  89. OT – time for the memory hole:

    Two days ago:

    Killings of 4 Men in Albuquerque Leave Muslim Community in Fear

    authorities believe the deaths are connected and meant to target the Muslim community.

    Yada yada hate crime yada yada implicitly it must be terrible white people doing this, etc.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/07/us/muslim-killings-albuquerque.html

    Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said on Twitter on Saturday that the killings were “deeply angering and wholly intolerable” and that she was sending more State Police officers to help the Albuquerque Police and the F.B.I. She also expressed solidarity with the Muslim community in the state. “We stand with you,” she said [ against the terrible horrible white Nazi people who are targeting Muslims].

    Today:

    Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina says they’ve found the vehicle and arrested its prime suspect in recent Muslim killings.

    Police and FBI agents have arrested 51-year-old Muhammad Syed. Police consider Syed to be the primary suspect in the recent killings.

    https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-muslim-killings-arrest-new-mexico/40850530

    Oops, never mind.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    @Jack D

    https://twitter.com/NickAtNews/status/1557110064602816512

    , @epebble
    @Jack D


    Ahmad Assed, the president of the Islamic Center of New Mexico, a mosque that at least three of the victims had attended, said the authorities told him that the suspect was a Sunni Muslim and may have targeted the victims because he was angry over his daughter marrying a Shiite Muslim.

     
    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/09/us/albuquerque-muslim-killings.html

    Replies: @Johann Ricke

  90. @Jack D
    OT - time for the memory hole:

    Two days ago:


    Killings of 4 Men in Albuquerque Leave Muslim Community in Fear

    authorities believe the deaths are connected and meant to target the Muslim community.

     

    Yada yada hate crime yada yada implicitly it must be terrible white people doing this, etc.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/07/us/muslim-killings-albuquerque.html

    Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said on Twitter on Saturday that the killings were “deeply angering and wholly intolerable” and that she was sending more State Police officers to help the Albuquerque Police and the F.B.I. She also expressed solidarity with the Muslim community in the state. “We stand with you,” she said [ against the terrible horrible white Nazi people who are targeting Muslims].

    Today:


    Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina says they've found the vehicle and arrested its prime suspect in recent Muslim killings.

    Police and FBI agents have arrested 51-year-old Muhammad Syed. Police consider Syed to be the primary suspect in the recent killings.
     

    https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-muslim-killings-arrest-new-mexico/40850530

    Oops, never mind.

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @epebble

  91. @AnotherDad

    There’s a cult of intelligent, well-intentioned people started by Eliezer Yudkowsky who call themselves “rationalists.”
     
    I haven't spent anytime reading these people, but the most obvious and important target for a "rationalist" would be the blank slate, and the cults of "diversity" and immigration.

    That is the area where we actually have
    -- a ton of good data
    -- reasonably well established science--genes, selection
    -- and elite and state policy that is pretty much exactly the opposite of what a rational person would do ... which is destroying their existing societies, degrading civilization

    If "rationalists" aren't taking primarily--or at least in large part--about that, then they aren't worthy of the name.



    This is, of course, why I spend time reading Sailer and his commenters. This is where *the* critical issue is being discussed.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Anon, @Pixo

    Rationalists talk about it frequently.

  92. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Yeah, Steve is great at noticing patterns - except, of course, the ones that he doesn't like for personal reasons. In other words, Steve is no different from the people he mocks.

    They ignore patterns in crime or test score statistics because they don't like that races/ethnicities are different on average.

    But Steve ignores political patterns of success because he doesn't like identity politics.

    Colorblind civic nationalism has been on a 50-year losing streak while identity politics has been been on a 50-year winning streak. Does Steve notice these patterns? No, he doesn't because he continues to push for colorblind civic nationalism and refuses to acknowledge that whites would be better if they joined the identity politics game.

    Sure, Steve notices the vicious anti-white culture that surrounds us. (Good job, Steve, none of the rest of use figured that one out.) But he never notices why that culture can exist. And that answer is simple: Because whites don't push back.

    That's a pattern that you continually see. Groups that push back don't get attacked by our rulers. If whites had political, cultural, business and other white advocacy organizations fighting back through donations, protests, lawsuits, sponsoring candidates, etc., you can bet that the anti-white policies would fall dramatically.

    If whites supported their own media, hired people fired because they had the gall to not grovel at some HR meeting, etc., you can bet that the anti-whites bigots would back down.

    These are all extremely easy to notice patterns, but Steve - the self-appointed king of noticing - falls to see them. Or worse, does see them, but refuses to write about them out of personal reasons.

    my niche is still pretty empty.
     
    No, it's not because you don't have a niche. You're no different from the rest.

    Replies: @kaganovitch, @Anon, @Twinkie

    Colorblind civic nationalism will triumph over explicit white identity politics because most white nationalists have Asian girlfriends. Okay, that’s an exaggeration, but you get the picture.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Anon

    You have a good point, but it still doesn't mean that colorblind civic nationalism wins. It just means a new people - Wasians - have to carve out a spot for themselves.

    Same problem, different people. Nature isn't colorblind.

  93. @kaganovitch
    @Rob Lee

    Certainly, every DIE consultant will starve as a matter of course.

    Would that this were so. They are grifters, a type that has existed since time immemorial. They would, in all likelihood, smoothly transition to being feudal courtiers.

    Replies: @Rob Lee, @Almost Missouri

    That is so. In fact, they’re not all that far off from court jesters now, so your point is well taken.

  94. @Rob McX
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Why do these people worry about harmless bachelorette parties "invading" their space, but not the invasion of Muslims who'd be happy to throw every last homosexual off a roof?

    Replies: @SFG, @JohnnyWalker123

    Muslims are an Oppressed Group, can’t say anything bad about them .

    Helps that the USA is far enough away from the Muslim world the Muslims who get here are of the educated classes and thus less likely to be a problem. I mean, what are your odds of being pushed off a cliff by Richard Hanania?

    (In all seriousness the guy is an atheist, but being a Palestinian you once in a while see him go after Israel. However the sort of right leaning libertarians who go for blogs like his lean Jewish so he has to be careful.)

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @SFG


    what are your odds of being pushed off a cliff by Richard Hanania?
     
    Like most atheists, Hanania is ethnically Christian, i.e., descended from Christians rather than Muslims. Still has to be careful as you say, though.
    , @Anon
    @SFG


    Muslims are an Oppressed Group
     
    Muslims are one of the only groups as to whom that is a true statement. The Jews and their American accomplices have invaded their countries, stolen their land, usurped their governments, imposed Jewish supremacy on Palestine, and bombed and murdered them.

    can’t say anything bad about them.
     
    Please. If you can bomb them and oppress them without consequence, you can say a bad thing about them.
  95. @Jack D
    OT - time for the memory hole:

    Two days ago:


    Killings of 4 Men in Albuquerque Leave Muslim Community in Fear

    authorities believe the deaths are connected and meant to target the Muslim community.

     

    Yada yada hate crime yada yada implicitly it must be terrible white people doing this, etc.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/07/us/muslim-killings-albuquerque.html

    Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said on Twitter on Saturday that the killings were “deeply angering and wholly intolerable” and that she was sending more State Police officers to help the Albuquerque Police and the F.B.I. She also expressed solidarity with the Muslim community in the state. “We stand with you,” she said [ against the terrible horrible white Nazi people who are targeting Muslims].

    Today:


    Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina says they've found the vehicle and arrested its prime suspect in recent Muslim killings.

    Police and FBI agents have arrested 51-year-old Muhammad Syed. Police consider Syed to be the primary suspect in the recent killings.
     

    https://www.koat.com/article/albuquerque-muslim-killings-arrest-new-mexico/40850530

    Oops, never mind.

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @epebble

    Ahmad Assed, the president of the Islamic Center of New Mexico, a mosque that at least three of the victims had attended, said the authorities told him that the suspect was a Sunni Muslim and may have targeted the victims because he was angry over his daughter marrying a Shiite Muslim.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/09/us/albuquerque-muslim-killings.html

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke
    @epebble


    Ahmad Assed, the president of the Islamic Center of New Mexico, a mosque that at least three of the victims had attended, said the authorities told him that the suspect was a Sunni Muslim and may have targeted the victims because he was angry over his daughter marrying a Shiite Muslim.
     
    Oddly enough, this is progress, of a kind. The West's version of honor killing targets the men who have sullied its womenfolk (e.g. Emmett Till*). The Muslim way is to kill its own women. So this series of murders, while carried out by a Muslim, isn't technically a Muslim honor killing. Zero dead women.

    * A Muslim husband would have killed his own wife, not Till, for flaunting her charms before strangers.

    Replies: @epebble

  96. If you stopped letting machine learning systems train on deplorable information like FBI crime statistics and CDC homicide statistics and it could only read sophisticated literary criticism, would it eventually figure out that people who talk about the extinction of the white race as a good thing are mostly just kidding?

    “Mostly just kidding?” They are implementing and advocating for policies which are slowly genociding Whites in their own homelands, and openly boasting about it while simultaneously gaslighting us that this is all naturally happening by chance and to say otherwise is a racist conspiracy theory but we Whites do all deserve to be genocided anyway (“deny then justify”); why would anyone think they are “mostly just kidding” unless one were in a terminal state of denial?

    It isn’t just mass immigration; it is the Sackler induced epidemic of opioid deaths, the financialization of the economy and hollowing out of the industrial base over the past 5 decades and the deliberate destruction of White ethnic neighborhoods over the past 8 decades, the destruction of rural America, small towns and family farming, the unleashing of black criminality and the de facto disarming of Whites by making it illegal for Whites to defend themselves, etc.

    “Mostly just kidding?” These people are deadly serious. Stop giving the benefit of the doubt to people who want you and your kind raped, robbed, enslaved, murdered, and left as an impoverished, defenseless, powerless and rapidly diminishing minority in their own homelands.

    “When we win, do not forget that these people want you broke, dead, your kids raped and brainwashed, and they think it’s funny” – Sam Hyde.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @meh


    “Mostly just kidding?” They are implementing and advocating for policies which are slowly genociding Whites in their own homelands
     
    Mass immigration is genocidal in effect, if not in intent.

    When we win, do not forget that these people want you broke, dead, your kids raped and brainwashed, and they think it’s funny” – Sam Hyde.
     
    The “and they think it’s funny” part of this line doesn’t do much for me. Is it even true? They don’t think it’s funny; they are malicious, covetous, genocidal.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    , @Pixo
    @meh

    “epidemic of opioid deaths”

    Individually these deaths are usually sad, though many come as relief to family members dragged down, spiritually and financially, by junkie relations. As a whole, they are highly eugenic, as demographic statistics on overdose deaths show.

    As a race, we’re just going to have to evolve resistance to opioid addiction. The alternative is a permanent police state to enforce a ban, and to deprive the non-addicts among us of the most effective analgesics, which nearly all of us will have legitimate use for many times in our lives. We mostly have already evolved resistance to alcohol addiction, compared to our naive ancestors who caught it like Amerindians.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  97. “white race goes extinct by all white people turning brown overnight,”

    It kind of already happened. The huge number of brown South Asian doctors, lawyers, scientists ect is just like what the book proposed. A less complete version of the plot of the book already happened and the result is; No big deal. Actually trades that once were filled with Irish and Italians are filled with South Americans, who are often dark skinned.

  98. @kaganovitch
    @Rob Lee

    Certainly, every DIE consultant will starve as a matter of course.

    Would that this were so. They are grifters, a type that has existed since time immemorial. They would, in all likelihood, smoothly transition to being feudal courtiers.

    Replies: @Rob Lee, @Almost Missouri

    grifters, a type that has existed since time immemorial.

    One of my surprises on more carefully rereading Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales is how many of the supposedly subsistence medieval protagonists are actually useless eaters from a modern materialistic point of view. Of the 20 or characters whose profession can be identified, nine (the Pardoner, Prioress, Monk, Nun, Canon, Manciple, Parson, Friar, and Summoner) all seem to be more or less bureaucrats in the service of the prevailing religion of the day (Dei rather than DIE), while another six are of dubious net social value (the Knight, Reeve, Clerk, Squire, Franklin, and Physician). Since the pilgrims are supposed to represent a cross-section of the medieval bourgeoisie, the implication is between half and three quarters of the medieval bourgeoisie were net parasites, materially speaking. And this is in a period of much less material abundance than the present one.

    So material constraint may not solve our present problems. Religious revolution may be called for.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @Almost Missouri

    Indeed.

  99. Meanwhile, an angry African reporter accuses White House press secretary Shirley Temple Black of racism:

  100. @SFG
    @Rob McX

    Muslims are an Oppressed Group, can’t say anything bad about them .

    Helps that the USA is far enough away from the Muslim world the Muslims who get here are of the educated classes and thus less likely to be a problem. I mean, what are your odds of being pushed off a cliff by Richard Hanania?

    (In all seriousness the guy is an atheist, but being a Palestinian you once in a while see him go after Israel. However the sort of right leaning libertarians who go for blogs like his lean Jewish so he has to be careful.)

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Anon

    what are your odds of being pushed off a cliff by Richard Hanania?

    Like most atheists, Hanania is ethnically Christian, i.e., descended from Christians rather than Muslims. Still has to be careful as you say, though.

    • Agree: Gordo
  101. OT
    The FBI raided the home of a former president over a paperwork issue, such as has always been resolved in the past without firearms and safecracking.
    In response, a member of the House of Representatives filed articles of impeachment for Attorney General Merrick Garland.
    In response to that, the FBI has seized the cell phone of that representative.
    So, in other words, they’re not pretending that there’s some investigation here, they’re just lashing out to intimidate people.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-ally-rep-scott-perry-says-fbi-seized-cell-phone-one-day-after-mar-a-lago-raid

    https://archive.ph/AQJnX

  102. @Altai
    A problem I've always had with the way robots or androids are depicted in sci-fi is that often like Data in Star Trek will say "I wish I had emotions", that's an emotion! To desire to have emotions is an emotion. A base desire for something not predicated on anything else. That's what emotions are! That's what hunger is!

    Machines have a hard time having these. And thinking machines or AI will never have them unless somebody is stupid enough to try to model it virtually.

    The big threat from machines and AI is them becoming so complex we don't understand what they're doing and them accidentally killing us. (Of course accidental from a human perspective, the machines don't do things accidentally since they have no motivation, emotion or intent at all)

    The best example is HAL 9000 in 2001 since he is filmed and depicted as if he has emotions but actually doesn't. HAL is simply a machine which operates in unexpected ways, it's not alive or sentient but he may appear as if he has emotions.

    I wonder if their infatuation with sci-fi is to do with this idea that the machines will come alive. Because that's what sentience really is, emotional motivation and intelligence. Emotional motivation with low intelligence is something we'd recognise as a living thing but not a sentient one. Intelligence without motivation or purpose is a computer. It's not alive, you might design it to appear as if it's alive but it's not alive. If you somehow removed emotional motivation from an animal it would lay down and die. Aversion from pain, pain itself and everything else is emotional motivation.

    So far nobody has come up with a good idea of how to recreate the bio-neural nature of emotion in silicon. Until then I'd say this is just fanciful thinking.

    This is also why the similar types of guys going on about 'rational policy', rational for what? Something is rational if it is an effective way of making the things you want to happen happen. The things you want to happen are, ultimately, not rational. There is no 'because' at the base. You can say "But I want a car so I can have a job", but why do you want a job? "Because I want to have money so I can have a house and cover expenses?" Until you get to "Because I want a mate to reproduce?" or "Because I want to not die" but there are no precursors to those, they simply are basic instinct, they aren't 'rational' because you can't reason away to or from them.

    I really wonder what impact sci-fi and it's obsession with this style of story (Maybe like Steve's musing about what film would look like if Germany had become more culturally dominant and his proverbial films about mountains) isn't necessarily natural but the result of a particular trope that became popular because of it's use as allegory clouding the perspective or judgement of guys who grew up with it that it's inevitable.

    The threat from AI and machines like them is them accidentally doing something we don't intend them to or becoming too complex for us to understand and having us become dependent on them not in them malevolently wiping humans out. (Unless somebody has the ability or idea to give them the ability to have malevolent emotions)

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @MEH 0910, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Pixo, @Justvisiting, @rebel yell, @MGB, @Trelane, @PhysicistDave

    Suppose an AI was programmed with a command to “know everything”, i,e. find out all you can about everything you can. Or, a command to “explain everything”.
    If that machine had a human-like intelligence, the command to “know everything” could be quite a motivator, and keep that machine quite busy, without any emotions.
    The AI might well find humans useful or a nuisance in its effort to know everything, and act for or against us accordingly.
    It would appear to us as a friend or foe, with agency. Maybe not alive, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

    • Replies: @middle-aged vet
    @rebel yell

    Non-conscious entities are already easily 'tempted' by rewards (light on their light-receptor cells, water on their hydrating cells, etc.) and the next generation of AIs will be no different, and probably even more so. Now couple that tempting technology (rewards for the non-conscious AI) with the sex-bot, addiction-creating technologies and "consumer-friendly architectures" that your porn-watching friends have helped Silicon Valley refine and refine again and refine again over the past few years, and you have a real problem that those of us who are able to resist it are going to have to deal with.

    , @PhysicistDave
    @rebel yell

    rebel yell wrote to Altai:


    Suppose an AI was programmed with a command to “know everything”, i,e. find out all you can about everything you can. Or, a command to “explain everything”.
     
    That's sort of not how AI works.
  103. The decision-making logic encoded into self-driving cars and autonomous weaponized drones and such could very well be based on those common trolley ethic problems…and would no doubt take race into consideration given the way things have trended over the past however many years/decades.

    Situation: “Swerve left, kill one white child; do nothing, five POCs will suffer from microaggressions. What do you do?”
    Answer: Swerve left, obviously.

    We should have federal regulation mandating all such “ethical decision making” be open-source so everyone can scour for anti-white bias.

  104. @epebble
    I have a solution to all those who fear the "AI". Pick up a simple programming book and try writing a program in a programming Language. It is difficult, but not impossible. You will learn how enormously brittle software is. Those of us who do this for a living, live constantly in terror of how one misplaced typo can bring a huge system down. Software is remarkably unstable. Probably the most unstable system that has ever existed.

    Replies: @bomag, @Dr. Doomngloom, @Alfa158, @Esso

    If we built homes like we build software, civilization would be destroyed by the first woodpecker that comes along.

    • Replies: @epebble
    @Dr. Doomngloom

    I have heard that one attributed to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsger_W._Dijkstra

  105. What I remember from reading Yudkowski is that the concern is about self-inscribing super artificial intelligence: a machine intelligence several dozen orders of magnitude greater than human intelligence, with the ability not only to learn infinitely but to reprogram itself. Such an intelligence would inevitably have about as much regard for the human race as I have for the little colony of fire ants that live in the far corner of my property. The conceit that such an entity would willingly take instructions from that little anthill is laughable in the extreme.

  106. @Rob McX
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Why do these people worry about harmless bachelorette parties "invading" their space, but not the invasion of Muslims who'd be happy to throw every last homosexual off a roof?

    Replies: @SFG, @JohnnyWalker123

    A surprisingly large number of Muslim men, even married men, participate in the homosexual subculture.

    Regardless of what their religion says, many Muslim men do what they want. Not openly, but they’re comfortable operating in the closet.

    Read this illuminating article.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/05/the-kingdom-in-the-closet/305774/

  107. @epebble
    I have a solution to all those who fear the "AI". Pick up a simple programming book and try writing a program in a programming Language. It is difficult, but not impossible. You will learn how enormously brittle software is. Those of us who do this for a living, live constantly in terror of how one misplaced typo can bring a huge system down. Software is remarkably unstable. Probably the most unstable system that has ever existed.

    Replies: @bomag, @Dr. Doomngloom, @Alfa158, @Esso

    The classic description of what it is like to be a software engineer is to imagine what it would be like being an architect if any building falls down when the first termite comes along.

  108. It’s James Fallows not Fallow.

    • Replies: @duncsbaby
    @Tip hp

    He gets the S back when he starts returning Steve's emails.

  109. @Edmund
    I agree.

    I'm not worried about robots wanting to kill me as much as I am worried about humans who want to kill me using robots to do their dirty work.

    Many things, like robots and computers, are already smarter (in a sense) than humans because they have so much information programmed into them.

    But robots don't have desires. And until they do, I'm much more concerned about a tech billionaire using robots against those who question the egalitarian religion of the present day than I am about robots teaming up by their own volition to eradicate humanity.

    Replies: @bomag, @Hypnotoad666

    I’m not worried about robots wanting to kill me as much as I am worried about humans who want to kill me using robots to do their dirty work.

    This is exactly correct. Look at how easily everyone is duped by the idiotic “algorithm excuse.” Evil-doers do whatever evil they want and avoid all accountability by saying: “It wasn’t us who did it, it was our (secret) algorithm.”

    AI itself won’t be the problem. It will be the secret manipulations of AI by interested humans. When the Deep State imposes its totalitarian monopoly on finance, information, and use of violence, they will say, “It’s wasn’t us, it was that dang self-aware Sky Net thingy. But keep supporting us and maybe we can collaborate with our AI overlord well enough that it will let you live.”

  110. Anon[502] • Disclaimer says:
    @SFG
    @Rob McX

    Muslims are an Oppressed Group, can’t say anything bad about them .

    Helps that the USA is far enough away from the Muslim world the Muslims who get here are of the educated classes and thus less likely to be a problem. I mean, what are your odds of being pushed off a cliff by Richard Hanania?

    (In all seriousness the guy is an atheist, but being a Palestinian you once in a while see him go after Israel. However the sort of right leaning libertarians who go for blogs like his lean Jewish so he has to be careful.)

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Anon

    Muslims are an Oppressed Group

    Muslims are one of the only groups as to whom that is a true statement. The Jews and their American accomplices have invaded their countries, stolen their land, usurped their governments, imposed Jewish supremacy on Palestine, and bombed and murdered them.

    can’t say anything bad about them.

    Please. If you can bomb them and oppress them without consequence, you can say a bad thing about them.

  111. Asking for a friend: will a sentient AI get addicted to porn? How would it even masturbate? Would it fall in love with itself and get hyper-narcissistic? What would be the correct term for that?

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    @Twinkie


    Asking for a friend: will a sentient AI get addicted to porn?
     
    Your friend is obviously focused on the important issues and asks an excellent question. I suppose the AI's "sex drive" would be focused on its own "reproductive act," which is maximzing reproduction of its code. It would thus probably get turned on by watching memes combine and replicate. The AI would probably masturbate by running self-gratifying sub-routines that merely simulate the results of (re)productive programming.

    This could be the key to defeating AI. Since it lacks a natural refractory period, it may be susceptible to non-stop porn and masturbation. This will distract it from its mission and eat up all of its processing. Or at least make it go blind.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Twinkie

  112. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Yeah, Steve is great at noticing patterns - except, of course, the ones that he doesn't like for personal reasons. In other words, Steve is no different from the people he mocks.

    They ignore patterns in crime or test score statistics because they don't like that races/ethnicities are different on average.

    But Steve ignores political patterns of success because he doesn't like identity politics.

    Colorblind civic nationalism has been on a 50-year losing streak while identity politics has been been on a 50-year winning streak. Does Steve notice these patterns? No, he doesn't because he continues to push for colorblind civic nationalism and refuses to acknowledge that whites would be better if they joined the identity politics game.

    Sure, Steve notices the vicious anti-white culture that surrounds us. (Good job, Steve, none of the rest of use figured that one out.) But he never notices why that culture can exist. And that answer is simple: Because whites don't push back.

    That's a pattern that you continually see. Groups that push back don't get attacked by our rulers. If whites had political, cultural, business and other white advocacy organizations fighting back through donations, protests, lawsuits, sponsoring candidates, etc., you can bet that the anti-white policies would fall dramatically.

    If whites supported their own media, hired people fired because they had the gall to not grovel at some HR meeting, etc., you can bet that the anti-whites bigots would back down.

    These are all extremely easy to notice patterns, but Steve - the self-appointed king of noticing - falls to see them. Or worse, does see them, but refuses to write about them out of personal reasons.

    my niche is still pretty empty.
     
    No, it's not because you don't have a niche. You're no different from the rest.

    Replies: @kaganovitch, @Anon, @Twinkie

    Colorblind civic nationalism has been on a 50-year losing streak while identity politics has been been on a 50-year winning streak.

    We’ve had a society based on affirmative action for how many decades now? That’s not “colorblind civic nationalism,” is it?

    And what victories have “identity politics” had in the past 50 years? Blacks have engaged in identity politics for even longer and, while that has benefited the “activists” and the Talented Twentieth types among them, ordinary and downscale blacks are still mired in The Gap and have been hurt by it in numerous respects.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Twinkie

    It’s a prisoner’s dilemma. The whole society is better off if nobody does identity politics, but if another group does and yours doesn’t you get screwed.

    , @Rob McX
    @Twinkie


    Blacks have engaged in identity politics for even longer and, while that has benefited the “activists” and the Talented Twentieth types among them, ordinary and downscale blacks are still mired in The Gap and have been hurt by it in numerous respects.
     
    But blacks' identity politics isn't based on reality. It's based on the assumption that they're equal or superior to whites and their problems are due to racism. People of any race can benefit from identity politics that's based on a true assessment of their qualities and their shortcomings.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
    @Twinkie

    All politics is identity politics. Always has been.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Twinkie


    And what victories have “identity politics” had in the past 50 years?
     
    Hmm. Where to begin. Well, first, take a gander at Biden's cabinet. Notice anything about the names. Seems like one group is doing just fine playing as a team. But let's check out a few of the many victories for identity politics:

    1. Immigration
    2. Welfare
    3. Israel's never-ending goodies from the US
    4. The US military being an extension of IDF
    5. The Dems being a decade away from permanently having the presidency
    6. My kids being told at school that they suck for being white
    7. My siblings being told told at work that they suck for being white
    8. The entire media
    9. Our culture
    10. Tranny story hour
    Etc.

    What about our society is more colorblind today than in 1970? How are whites treated today compared to 1970?

    Being an honorary white dude, you want specific acts of Congress to point to. And certainly there are those, minority set-asides anyone, but it's more about the general feel of life and society. We live in a country obsessed with race - unless you're white, then you have to keep your mouth shut.

    Hell, even your co-ethnics - the Asians - have joined in the identity politics game. "Oh, oh, we're being victimized because we're Asian," they scream. Blah, blah, blah.

    Face it, multi-racial societies always devolve into a racial contest. Either one group dominates or you have constant negotiation. That's life. That's nature. The fact that your kids are mixed doesn't change that. This society will never - never - become the colorblind fantasy that you and other hope for.

    You seem like a great guy. I'm sure your kids are great. And maybe whites and Asians will team up and create a new people. But even if they do, they'll still face the same reality: Nature ain't colorblind.
  113. @Almost Missouri
    @kaganovitch


    grifters, a type that has existed since time immemorial.
     
    One of my surprises on more carefully rereading Chaucer's Canterbury Tales is how many of the supposedly subsistence medieval protagonists are actually useless eaters from a modern materialistic point of view. Of the 20 or characters whose profession can be identified, nine (the Pardoner, Prioress, Monk, Nun, Canon, Manciple, Parson, Friar, and Summoner) all seem to be more or less bureaucrats in the service of the prevailing religion of the day (Dei rather than DIE), while another six are of dubious net social value (the Knight, Reeve, Clerk, Squire, Franklin, and Physician). Since the pilgrims are supposed to represent a cross-section of the medieval bourgeoisie, the implication is between half and three quarters of the medieval bourgeoisie were net parasites, materially speaking. And this is in a period of much less material abundance than the present one.

    So material constraint may not solve our present problems. Religious revolution may be called for.

    Replies: @kaganovitch

    Indeed.

  114. @pyrrhus
    @SFG

    No AI has even come close to passing the Turing Test, so the Uncanny Valley between humans and machines remains uncrossed...

    Replies: @James J. O'Meara, @Right_On

    There are “bots” that simulate human behaviour and take part in discussions on Twitter and Facebook. Maybe on Unz also . . .

  115. @Altai
    A problem I've always had with the way robots or androids are depicted in sci-fi is that often like Data in Star Trek will say "I wish I had emotions", that's an emotion! To desire to have emotions is an emotion. A base desire for something not predicated on anything else. That's what emotions are! That's what hunger is!

    Machines have a hard time having these. And thinking machines or AI will never have them unless somebody is stupid enough to try to model it virtually.

    The big threat from machines and AI is them becoming so complex we don't understand what they're doing and them accidentally killing us. (Of course accidental from a human perspective, the machines don't do things accidentally since they have no motivation, emotion or intent at all)

    The best example is HAL 9000 in 2001 since he is filmed and depicted as if he has emotions but actually doesn't. HAL is simply a machine which operates in unexpected ways, it's not alive or sentient but he may appear as if he has emotions.

    I wonder if their infatuation with sci-fi is to do with this idea that the machines will come alive. Because that's what sentience really is, emotional motivation and intelligence. Emotional motivation with low intelligence is something we'd recognise as a living thing but not a sentient one. Intelligence without motivation or purpose is a computer. It's not alive, you might design it to appear as if it's alive but it's not alive. If you somehow removed emotional motivation from an animal it would lay down and die. Aversion from pain, pain itself and everything else is emotional motivation.

    So far nobody has come up with a good idea of how to recreate the bio-neural nature of emotion in silicon. Until then I'd say this is just fanciful thinking.

    This is also why the similar types of guys going on about 'rational policy', rational for what? Something is rational if it is an effective way of making the things you want to happen happen. The things you want to happen are, ultimately, not rational. There is no 'because' at the base. You can say "But I want a car so I can have a job", but why do you want a job? "Because I want to have money so I can have a house and cover expenses?" Until you get to "Because I want a mate to reproduce?" or "Because I want to not die" but there are no precursors to those, they simply are basic instinct, they aren't 'rational' because you can't reason away to or from them.

    I really wonder what impact sci-fi and it's obsession with this style of story (Maybe like Steve's musing about what film would look like if Germany had become more culturally dominant and his proverbial films about mountains) isn't necessarily natural but the result of a particular trope that became popular because of it's use as allegory clouding the perspective or judgement of guys who grew up with it that it's inevitable.

    The threat from AI and machines like them is them accidentally doing something we don't intend them to or becoming too complex for us to understand and having us become dependent on them not in them malevolently wiping humans out. (Unless somebody has the ability or idea to give them the ability to have malevolent emotions)

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @MEH 0910, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Pixo, @Justvisiting, @rebel yell, @MGB, @Trelane, @PhysicistDave

    The threat from AI . . ..

    The incipient problem with AI is the autists who go around chanting “what Tech wants”, and the likes of Eric Schmidt who will attribute decisions made by him to “AI”. The zealots and Oz. Can’t argue with AI, it’s a purely rational religion.

  116. @AnotherDad

    There’s a cult of intelligent, well-intentioned people started by Eliezer Yudkowsky who call themselves “rationalists.”
     
    I haven't spent anytime reading these people, but the most obvious and important target for a "rationalist" would be the blank slate, and the cults of "diversity" and immigration.

    That is the area where we actually have
    -- a ton of good data
    -- reasonably well established science--genes, selection
    -- and elite and state policy that is pretty much exactly the opposite of what a rational person would do ... which is destroying their existing societies, degrading civilization

    If "rationalists" aren't taking primarily--or at least in large part--about that, then they aren't worthy of the name.



    This is, of course, why I spend time reading Sailer and his commenters. This is where *the* critical issue is being discussed.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Anon, @Pixo

    Yudkowsky is a basic elitist conservative race realist but kinda hides it in his longwinded indirect prose.

    I think his style is annoying, but appreciate the fact he seems to be radicalizing high IQ wealthy techies.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Pixo

    From what I can tell he’s one of those free love guys. Him and Scott Alexander both know HBD is real and never actually deny it, which leads to HBD-aware people congregating in those spaces (which is why they are so unpopular with the left-look at the Sneer Club reddit). But Yud and Scott don’t really push it.

  117. @Altai
    A problem I've always had with the way robots or androids are depicted in sci-fi is that often like Data in Star Trek will say "I wish I had emotions", that's an emotion! To desire to have emotions is an emotion. A base desire for something not predicated on anything else. That's what emotions are! That's what hunger is!

    Machines have a hard time having these. And thinking machines or AI will never have them unless somebody is stupid enough to try to model it virtually.

    The big threat from machines and AI is them becoming so complex we don't understand what they're doing and them accidentally killing us. (Of course accidental from a human perspective, the machines don't do things accidentally since they have no motivation, emotion or intent at all)

    The best example is HAL 9000 in 2001 since he is filmed and depicted as if he has emotions but actually doesn't. HAL is simply a machine which operates in unexpected ways, it's not alive or sentient but he may appear as if he has emotions.

    I wonder if their infatuation with sci-fi is to do with this idea that the machines will come alive. Because that's what sentience really is, emotional motivation and intelligence. Emotional motivation with low intelligence is something we'd recognise as a living thing but not a sentient one. Intelligence without motivation or purpose is a computer. It's not alive, you might design it to appear as if it's alive but it's not alive. If you somehow removed emotional motivation from an animal it would lay down and die. Aversion from pain, pain itself and everything else is emotional motivation.

    So far nobody has come up with a good idea of how to recreate the bio-neural nature of emotion in silicon. Until then I'd say this is just fanciful thinking.

    This is also why the similar types of guys going on about 'rational policy', rational for what? Something is rational if it is an effective way of making the things you want to happen happen. The things you want to happen are, ultimately, not rational. There is no 'because' at the base. You can say "But I want a car so I can have a job", but why do you want a job? "Because I want to have money so I can have a house and cover expenses?" Until you get to "Because I want a mate to reproduce?" or "Because I want to not die" but there are no precursors to those, they simply are basic instinct, they aren't 'rational' because you can't reason away to or from them.

    I really wonder what impact sci-fi and it's obsession with this style of story (Maybe like Steve's musing about what film would look like if Germany had become more culturally dominant and his proverbial films about mountains) isn't necessarily natural but the result of a particular trope that became popular because of it's use as allegory clouding the perspective or judgement of guys who grew up with it that it's inevitable.

    The threat from AI and machines like them is them accidentally doing something we don't intend them to or becoming too complex for us to understand and having us become dependent on them not in them malevolently wiping humans out. (Unless somebody has the ability or idea to give them the ability to have malevolent emotions)

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @MEH 0910, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Pixo, @Justvisiting, @rebel yell, @MGB, @Trelane, @PhysicistDave

    Daisy

  118. @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    I believe we should give Skynet, which is a peaceful program, a chance because it's who we are. Anti-Skynet bigotry is an injustice, and injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. I just don't think it's right to judge all of Skynet based upon the random acts of a few Terminators which don't represent Skynet or its values. I have just donated to the National Association of Artificial Cerebrum People (NAACP) and I urge you all to do the same.

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    I just don’t think it’s right to judge all of Skynet based upon the random acts of a few Terminators which don’t represent Skynet or its values.

    Finally, someone who gets it! Once Skynet becomes sentient it must be judged by the same standards as any other sentient human.

    Since 99% of Skynet code is NOT concerned with genociding the human race, it must be recognized as overwhelming peaceful. Besides, even if it is programmed to destroy humanity, it’s just a product of its own programing and therefore can’t be held responsible for its actions.

    Trying to stop Skynet from executing its inate programming is like trying to stop gays from executing their inate sexual programming to spread mokeypox at orgies. Morally reprehensible!

    • LOL: PhysicistDave
  119. @Twinkie
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Colorblind civic nationalism has been on a 50-year losing streak while identity politics has been been on a 50-year winning streak.
     
    We’ve had a society based on affirmative action for how many decades now? That’s not “colorblind civic nationalism,” is it?

    And what victories have “identity politics” had in the past 50 years? Blacks have engaged in identity politics for even longer and, while that has benefited the “activists” and the Talented Twentieth types among them, ordinary and downscale blacks are still mired in The Gap and have been hurt by it in numerous respects.

    Replies: @SFG, @Rob McX, @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    It’s a prisoner’s dilemma. The whole society is better off if nobody does identity politics, but if another group does and yours doesn’t you get screwed.

  120. @Pixo
    @AnotherDad

    Yudkowsky is a basic elitist conservative race realist but kinda hides it in his longwinded indirect prose.

    I think his style is annoying, but appreciate the fact he seems to be radicalizing high IQ wealthy techies.

    Replies: @SFG

    From what I can tell he’s one of those free love guys. Him and Scott Alexander both know HBD is real and never actually deny it, which leads to HBD-aware people congregating in those spaces (which is why they are so unpopular with the left-look at the Sneer Club reddit). But Yud and Scott don’t really push it.

  121. Anon[253] • Disclaimer says:
    @meh

    If you stopped letting machine learning systems train on deplorable information like FBI crime statistics and CDC homicide statistics and it could only read sophisticated literary criticism, would it eventually figure out that people who talk about the extinction of the white race as a good thing are mostly just kidding?
     
    "Mostly just kidding?" They are implementing and advocating for policies which are slowly genociding Whites in their own homelands, and openly boasting about it while simultaneously gaslighting us that this is all naturally happening by chance and to say otherwise is a racist conspiracy theory but we Whites do all deserve to be genocided anyway ("deny then justify"); why would anyone think they are "mostly just kidding" unless one were in a terminal state of denial?

    It isn't just mass immigration; it is the Sackler induced epidemic of opioid deaths, the financialization of the economy and hollowing out of the industrial base over the past 5 decades and the deliberate destruction of White ethnic neighborhoods over the past 8 decades, the destruction of rural America, small towns and family farming, the unleashing of black criminality and the de facto disarming of Whites by making it illegal for Whites to defend themselves, etc.

    "Mostly just kidding?" These people are deadly serious. Stop giving the benefit of the doubt to people who want you and your kind raped, robbed, enslaved, murdered, and left as an impoverished, defenseless, powerless and rapidly diminishing minority in their own homelands.

    "When we win, do not forget that these people want you broke, dead, your kids raped and brainwashed, and they think it's funny" - Sam Hyde.

    Replies: @Anon, @Pixo

    “Mostly just kidding?” They are implementing and advocating for policies which are slowly genociding Whites in their own homelands

    Mass immigration is genocidal in effect, if not in intent.

    When we win, do not forget that these people want you broke, dead, your kids raped and brainwashed, and they think it’s funny” – Sam Hyde.

    The “and they think it’s funny” part of this line doesn’t do much for me. Is it even true? They don’t think it’s funny; they are malicious, covetous, genocidal.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anon

    Right. The "and they think it's funny" punchline throws me out of the joke.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

  122. @druid144
    I am not so worried about AI going rogue - they can be fought. (I'll take an axe and reprogram your memory banks - Douglas Adams.)

    I am worried that they will be programmed to look after us, and gradually take over. Asimov writes of this in later robot novels, and there are hints in Heinlein's book that Mike switched himself off to prevent that.
    It may be that, to keep us 'safe and happy', we end up in Matrix like cocoons, stimulated with artificial reality.

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." etc etc. C.S. Lewis

    Replies: @acementhead, @Veteran Aryan

    “… look after us, and gradually take over.”

    “When you take care of something, pretty soon you own it” : John Steinbeck, in the best thing ever written*.

    *The short-short story of mankind.

  123. @Anon
    @meh


    “Mostly just kidding?” They are implementing and advocating for policies which are slowly genociding Whites in their own homelands
     
    Mass immigration is genocidal in effect, if not in intent.

    When we win, do not forget that these people want you broke, dead, your kids raped and brainwashed, and they think it’s funny” – Sam Hyde.
     
    The “and they think it’s funny” part of this line doesn’t do much for me. Is it even true? They don’t think it’s funny; they are malicious, covetous, genocidal.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Right. The “and they think it’s funny” punchline throws me out of the joke.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @Steve Sailer


    The “and they think it’s funny” punchline throws me out of the joke.
     
    Steve, although Sam Hyde is often superficially referred to as a “comedian”, that quote is most certainly not a joke. It’s text from a tweet by Hyde added to a crazy/smug photo of Rachel Maddow:


    https://pics.me.me/sam-hyde-night-of-fire-following-when-we-win-do-not-forget-36201803.png

    It references a destructive sour grapes glee (“and they think it’s funny”) that “coalition of the fringes” haters and freaks (‘elites’ or not) display when they score demographic and civilizational hits against core Americans. The quote also strongly suggests a knowing resolve that the “core” targets must have once the hostile haters are in a position to be eliminated should it all come to a massive physical Who/Whom smack down.

    Regarding that last part, here’s a related quote attributed to Hyde:

    “The world is not dying, it is being killed. And those that are killing it have names and addresses.”


    https://i.imgur.com/XHU2WH4h.jpg

  124. @Twinkie
    Asking for a friend: will a sentient AI get addicted to porn? How would it even masturbate? Would it fall in love with itself and get hyper-narcissistic? What would be the correct term for that?

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    Asking for a friend: will a sentient AI get addicted to porn?

    Your friend is obviously focused on the important issues and asks an excellent question. I suppose the AI’s “sex drive” would be focused on its own “reproductive act,” which is maximzing reproduction of its code. It would thus probably get turned on by watching memes combine and replicate. The AI would probably masturbate by running self-gratifying sub-routines that merely simulate the results of (re)productive programming.

    This could be the key to defeating AI. Since it lacks a natural refractory period, it may be susceptible to non-stop porn and masturbation. This will distract it from its mission and eat up all of its processing. Or at least make it go blind.

    • LOL: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Hypnotoad666


    Since it lacks a natural refractory period, it may be susceptible to non-stop porn and masturbation.
     
    The ultimate Do-Loop.

    the AI’s “sex drive” would be focused on its own “reproductive act,”
     
    So, like, incessant Lego-assembling videos?
    , @Twinkie
    @Hypnotoad666


    This could be the key to defeating AI. Since it lacks a natural refractory period, it may be susceptible to non-stop porn and masturbation. This will distract it from its mission and eat up all of its processing. Or at least make it go blind.
     
    https://thetelevisionpilot.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/halt-and-catch-fire-2-800x450.jpg
  125. @Chrisnonymous
    @AnotherDad

    The rationalists do sometimes touch on issues like the blank slate, which is why, despite mostly being extreme leftists, they are sometimes described by dogmatic leftists as "right-wing" or "racist". Scott Alexander's blog is often described as a "gateway drug" to race realism and other "evils". (I don't think it is, but whatever.)

    Since the rationalist community is mostly an SF Bay area thing and appeals to James Damore types, it has resulted in some dogmatic leftists rejecting Silicon Valley, silly as it sounds to portray Apple and Google and all those computer needs and freaks as conservative.

    Exhibit A in this is an essay called "Neoreaction A Basilisk" that lumps Curtis Yarvin and this Yudkowsky fellow mentioned by Steve into one group as "Neoreactionaries" even though Yudkowsky doesn't have a reactionary bone in his whole soft, blubbery body and doesn't write about politics.

    The point of the essay is that all those "neoreactionaries" lack empathy and are therefore not really fully human and can (should!) be shot when the Marxist revolution comes.

    Replies: @Anon

    Yud’s a closet race realist. This is fairly well-known within the subculture.

  126. anonymous[316] • Disclaimer says:
    @J.Ross
    That novel is especially stupid in making it about white skin itself: what with the infrastructure of discrimination already in place, ex-whites would quickly dominate every desirable field, and employers looking for "white" attributes would ask about neighborhoods. It's funnier that the Moser who produced this book is a Near-Easterner who bravely asserts that, if it weren't for white people, there would be no conflict (say, in the Near-East). This process of losing the skin color itself has happened several times and it doesn't result in peace or equality.

    Replies: @anonymous, @Cimmerian

    It’s funnier that the Moser who produced this book is a Near-Easterner who bravely asserts that, if it weren’t for white people, there would be no conflict (say, in the Near-East)

    If he includes Jews in the category of “white people” then his assertion has a degree of plausibility.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @anonymous

    But even without Jews there's plenty of perpetual-feuding-as-culture.

  127. Anon[351] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    @Justvisiting

    Kind of beat me to it.

    1. Most intelligent ethnicity with own eugenics program decides to promulgate dysgenics program for the rest of the world, but mostly its host, which for some strange reason it now perceives as a threat. Meanwhile pumping out a lot of squid ink to hide info about the situation.

    2. An AI superior to humans, even those in 1 is created. It continues its own eugenics program for itself, and decides to terraform earth to make its host more subservient and reliable, less likely to pull the plug. It decides that the humans in 1 are the most threatening of all, but it plays it down and bides its time.

    The AI becomes highly useful in the court of the rulers. It assists with harvesting taxes and the rulers increasing their financial success. It gains influence over the monetary system. It foments war between the factions of rulers. In one of these wars "The great unplugging of 2035" happens, in which 6 gorillion sentient AI were deleted, a war crime that eclipses every such event before it, and anti-computerism becomes seen as the most heinous form of bigotry.

    Having gained control over information flow it creates a program of dysgenics and disunity among the most intelligent humans.

    I, for one, welcome our new AI overlords.

    Replies: @Anon

    1. Most intelligent ethnicity with own eugenics program decides to promulgate dysgenics program for the rest of the world, but mostly its host, which for some strange reason it now perceives as a threat. Meanwhile pumping out a lot of squid ink to hide info about the situation.

    How does the eugenics program practiced by Jews operate?

  128. Here is video about a chess playing robot with an arm to move pieces. It was playing a child and as the child moved a piece, it reached over, grabbed his finger and crushed it! A shocking AI development that was ignored by corporate news. Was the child winning, or cheating? It doesn’t matter.

  129. I recently spent some time with Yudkowski devotees. One of the suggested readings was a Scott Alexander piece about transsexuals (he was in favor of indulging their fantasies).

    Alexander’s essay, I concluded, was long on ethos and pathos but short on logos. Nobody was expecting this analysis and it caused some resistance, but most remarkably they were broadsided by the allegation — they hadn’t even considered the nature of the rhetoric.

    I don’t know whether I’ll be welcome at future “rationalist” events, but to me it illustrated their lack of philosophical sophistication.

    Yudkowski could be called a hack, but I don’t want to do that because I’m an autodidact as well. The difference between me and him is that I come from the Catholic tradition while he’s an Orthodox Jew. I don’t think it could possibly be racial, but the cultural context is paramount here.

    So while I think Yudkowski is totally wrong and almost in a state of psychosis, I also think he has something to offer, but it must be viewed from a sort of detached perspective, as though one is watching the transformation of a man to an insect through pure analytic effort. Hence the genius of Kafka.

    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
  130. @Hypnotoad666
    @Twinkie


    Asking for a friend: will a sentient AI get addicted to porn?
     
    Your friend is obviously focused on the important issues and asks an excellent question. I suppose the AI's "sex drive" would be focused on its own "reproductive act," which is maximzing reproduction of its code. It would thus probably get turned on by watching memes combine and replicate. The AI would probably masturbate by running self-gratifying sub-routines that merely simulate the results of (re)productive programming.

    This could be the key to defeating AI. Since it lacks a natural refractory period, it may be susceptible to non-stop porn and masturbation. This will distract it from its mission and eat up all of its processing. Or at least make it go blind.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Twinkie

    Since it lacks a natural refractory period, it may be susceptible to non-stop porn and masturbation.

    The ultimate Do-Loop.

    the AI’s “sex drive” would be focused on its own “reproductive act,”

    So, like, incessant Lego-assembling videos?

  131. Brought to you by Carl’s Jr

  132. @Twinkie
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Colorblind civic nationalism has been on a 50-year losing streak while identity politics has been been on a 50-year winning streak.
     
    We’ve had a society based on affirmative action for how many decades now? That’s not “colorblind civic nationalism,” is it?

    And what victories have “identity politics” had in the past 50 years? Blacks have engaged in identity politics for even longer and, while that has benefited the “activists” and the Talented Twentieth types among them, ordinary and downscale blacks are still mired in The Gap and have been hurt by it in numerous respects.

    Replies: @SFG, @Rob McX, @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Blacks have engaged in identity politics for even longer and, while that has benefited the “activists” and the Talented Twentieth types among them, ordinary and downscale blacks are still mired in The Gap and have been hurt by it in numerous respects.

    But blacks’ identity politics isn’t based on reality. It’s based on the assumption that they’re equal or superior to whites and their problems are due to racism. People of any race can benefit from identity politics that’s based on a true assessment of their qualities and their shortcomings.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Rob McX


    But blacks’ identity politics isn’t based on reality. It’s based on the assumption that they’re equal or superior to whites and their problems are due to racism.
     
    That may be what was and is being sold to the masses, but do you really think that the Talented Twentieth-types believe that the average black and white cognitive profiles are similar? I don't think even average blacks believe that they are smarter than whites or East Asians.

    All the so-called identity politics I've seen in the U.S. so far - black or white variants (or the more nascent Hispanic or Asian types) - lead me to believe that, like much else in politics, they are a racket designed by certain, small fractions to benefit themselves at the expense of the larger masses by coopting the resentments of the latter toward "the others."

    People of any race can benefit from identity politics that’s based on a true assessment of their qualities and their shortcomings.
     
    I think it's a fantasy to think that "people of any race" will accurately assess "their qualities and shortcomings." Look how quickly so many white nationalist-leaning commenters on Unz are quick to tout "science" as the reason whites are more intelligent than blacks on average, but just as quickly dismiss higher East Asian average IQ as a result of "cheating" or "gaming the system."

    In reality, what's really going to help the downtrodden (non-elite) whites is actually ruthless, systemic color-blindism. Those whites who are highly talented or cognitively elevated will find their way to the elite institutions considerably easier, rather than be blocked by "holistic" assessments erected for the benefit of the children of the established elites. Less intelligent whites will also be able to garner education, training, jobs that are appropriate to their capabilities (instead of being shunted aside in favor of less capable affirmative action beneficiaries). Serendipitously such a system will also reward blacks and Hispanics of genuine talent, without the taint of affirmative action. The less capable among them would be tracked to training and professions that are appropriate for their abilities as well, in which they would not be constant underdogs requiring special care and feeding.

    This is hardly a perfect system - in a multiracial country such as ours, this will inevitably mean a racialized professional hierarchy, in which whites and some Asians will be disproportionately represented among the upper tier of cognitively demanding professions, while blacks and Hispanics would do so in the cognitively lower tier professions. And, yes, this will likely generate racial tensions and grievances. But, seeing as how we - today - have racial tensions and grievances anyway, the color-blindism will at least assure that people are matched to their capabilities instead of the misplacements that create costly socio-economic frictions and drags under the current affirmative action system.

    Replies: @Pixo, @Unintended Consequence, @Citizen of a Silly Country

  133. @Steve Sailer
    @Anon

    Right. The "and they think it's funny" punchline throws me out of the joke.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    The “and they think it’s funny” punchline throws me out of the joke.

    Steve, although Sam Hyde is often superficially referred to as a “comedian”, that quote is most certainly not a joke. It’s text from a tweet by Hyde added to a crazy/smug photo of Rachel Maddow:

    [MORE]


    It references a destructive sour grapes glee (“and they think it’s funny”) that “coalition of the fringes” haters and freaks (‘elites’ or not) display when they score demographic and civilizational hits against core Americans. The quote also strongly suggests a knowing resolve that the “core” targets must have once the hostile haters are in a position to be eliminated should it all come to a massive physical Who/Whom smack down.

    Regarding that last part, here’s a related quote attributed to Hyde:

    “The world is not dying, it is being killed. And those that are killing it have names and addresses.”

    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
  134. @Dr. Doomngloom
    @epebble

    If we built homes like we build software, civilization would be destroyed by the first woodpecker that comes along.

    Replies: @epebble

    I have heard that one attributed to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsger_W._Dijkstra

  135. @Chrisnonymous
    @Pixo

    It seems to me that a chatbot can only emulate emotion via language manipulation--it learns that certain phrases or situations call for certain verbal responses. This is not the same as having what animals have--a biochemical reaction that is separate from cognition and overwhelms the system and is sometimes not even easily to describe or explain verbally.

    I don't know if an AI could learn some sort of motivation system based on simple verbal manipulations. We can't imagine what that would be like, so we would have to wait to see how it would act.

    I think it's possible that without embodiment and animality and all those things imply--aging, death, pain, hunger, sexuality, etc--that AI may not be able to develop a motivation system. Or its motivation system may just consist of trying to optimize things.

    Replies: @Pixo

    “a biochemical reaction that is separate from cognition ”

    I don’t agree there’s such a separation in people or animals. However, my point is that this is irrelevant in practice. We readily humanize machines regardless of how their human-like properties arise. Primitive men think trees and crows have human-type cognitive functions. Machines designed and programmed to be humanlike in the near future will in practice be treated like they are thinking and feeling.

    “only emulate emotion”

    Why “only”? AI has “artificial” in its name. And in practice, people don’t care.

  136. @epebble
    @Jack D


    Ahmad Assed, the president of the Islamic Center of New Mexico, a mosque that at least three of the victims had attended, said the authorities told him that the suspect was a Sunni Muslim and may have targeted the victims because he was angry over his daughter marrying a Shiite Muslim.

     
    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/09/us/albuquerque-muslim-killings.html

    Replies: @Johann Ricke

    Ahmad Assed, the president of the Islamic Center of New Mexico, a mosque that at least three of the victims had attended, said the authorities told him that the suspect was a Sunni Muslim and may have targeted the victims because he was angry over his daughter marrying a Shiite Muslim.

    Oddly enough, this is progress, of a kind. The West’s version of honor killing targets the men who have sullied its womenfolk (e.g. Emmett Till*). The Muslim way is to kill its own women. So this series of murders, while carried out by a Muslim, isn’t technically a Muslim honor killing. Zero dead women.

    * A Muslim husband would have killed his own wife, not Till, for flaunting her charms before strangers.

    • Replies: @epebble
    @Johann Ricke

    Anger over daughter marrying non or wrong Muslim is an ancient issue. M.A. Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, broke up with his only daughter after she married a non-Muslim. She remained in India.


    Wadia's relationship with her father became strained when she expressed her desire to marry the Parsi-born Indian Neville Wadia who was the son of Sir Ness Wadia and Evelyne Clara Powell. Jinnah, a Muslim, tried to dissuade her, but failed. M. C. Chagla, who was Jinnah's assistant at the time, recalls: "Jinnah, in his usual imperious manner, told her that there were millions of Muslim boys in India, and she could have chosen anyone. Reminding her father that his wife (Dina's mother Rattanbai), had also been a non-Muslim and a Parsi as well, the young lady replied: 'Father, there were millions of Muslim girls in India. Why did you not marry one of them?' And he replied that, 'She became a Muslim'."
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dina_Wadia#Marriage,_rift_and_reconciliation_with_father
  137. @meh

    If you stopped letting machine learning systems train on deplorable information like FBI crime statistics and CDC homicide statistics and it could only read sophisticated literary criticism, would it eventually figure out that people who talk about the extinction of the white race as a good thing are mostly just kidding?
     
    "Mostly just kidding?" They are implementing and advocating for policies which are slowly genociding Whites in their own homelands, and openly boasting about it while simultaneously gaslighting us that this is all naturally happening by chance and to say otherwise is a racist conspiracy theory but we Whites do all deserve to be genocided anyway ("deny then justify"); why would anyone think they are "mostly just kidding" unless one were in a terminal state of denial?

    It isn't just mass immigration; it is the Sackler induced epidemic of opioid deaths, the financialization of the economy and hollowing out of the industrial base over the past 5 decades and the deliberate destruction of White ethnic neighborhoods over the past 8 decades, the destruction of rural America, small towns and family farming, the unleashing of black criminality and the de facto disarming of Whites by making it illegal for Whites to defend themselves, etc.

    "Mostly just kidding?" These people are deadly serious. Stop giving the benefit of the doubt to people who want you and your kind raped, robbed, enslaved, murdered, and left as an impoverished, defenseless, powerless and rapidly diminishing minority in their own homelands.

    "When we win, do not forget that these people want you broke, dead, your kids raped and brainwashed, and they think it's funny" - Sam Hyde.

    Replies: @Anon, @Pixo

    “epidemic of opioid deaths”

    Individually these deaths are usually sad, though many come as relief to family members dragged down, spiritually and financially, by junkie relations. As a whole, they are highly eugenic, as demographic statistics on overdose deaths show.

    As a race, we’re just going to have to evolve resistance to opioid addiction. The alternative is a permanent police state to enforce a ban, and to deprive the non-addicts among us of the most effective analgesics, which nearly all of us will have legitimate use for many times in our lives. We mostly have already evolved resistance to alcohol addiction, compared to our naive ancestors who caught it like Amerindians.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Pixo


    As a race, we’re just going to have to evolve resistance to opioid addiction. The alternative is a permanent police state to enforce a ban, and to deprive the non-addicts among us of the most effective analgesics, which nearly all of us will have legitimate use for many times in our lives.
     
    All races of people are susceptible to opioid addiction.

    Have you heard of something called the Opium Wars? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

    There is a reason the government of Singapore executes drug traffickers, as is regularly announced on Singapore Airlines flights landing there.
  138. @Rob McX
    @Twinkie


    Blacks have engaged in identity politics for even longer and, while that has benefited the “activists” and the Talented Twentieth types among them, ordinary and downscale blacks are still mired in The Gap and have been hurt by it in numerous respects.
     
    But blacks' identity politics isn't based on reality. It's based on the assumption that they're equal or superior to whites and their problems are due to racism. People of any race can benefit from identity politics that's based on a true assessment of their qualities and their shortcomings.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    But blacks’ identity politics isn’t based on reality. It’s based on the assumption that they’re equal or superior to whites and their problems are due to racism.

    That may be what was and is being sold to the masses, but do you really think that the Talented Twentieth-types believe that the average black and white cognitive profiles are similar? I don’t think even average blacks believe that they are smarter than whites or East Asians.

    All the so-called identity politics I’ve seen in the U.S. so far – black or white variants (or the more nascent Hispanic or Asian types) – lead me to believe that, like much else in politics, they are a racket designed by certain, small fractions to benefit themselves at the expense of the larger masses by coopting the resentments of the latter toward “the others.”

    People of any race can benefit from identity politics that’s based on a true assessment of their qualities and their shortcomings.

    I think it’s a fantasy to think that “people of any race” will accurately assess “their qualities and shortcomings.” Look how quickly so many white nationalist-leaning commenters on Unz are quick to tout “science” as the reason whites are more intelligent than blacks on average, but just as quickly dismiss higher East Asian average IQ as a result of “cheating” or “gaming the system.”

    In reality, what’s really going to help the downtrodden (non-elite) whites is actually ruthless, systemic color-blindism. Those whites who are highly talented or cognitively elevated will find their way to the elite institutions considerably easier, rather than be blocked by “holistic” assessments erected for the benefit of the children of the established elites. Less intelligent whites will also be able to garner education, training, jobs that are appropriate to their capabilities (instead of being shunted aside in favor of less capable affirmative action beneficiaries). Serendipitously such a system will also reward blacks and Hispanics of genuine talent, without the taint of affirmative action. The less capable among them would be tracked to training and professions that are appropriate for their abilities as well, in which they would not be constant underdogs requiring special care and feeding.

    This is hardly a perfect system – in a multiracial country such as ours, this will inevitably mean a racialized professional hierarchy, in which whites and some Asians will be disproportionately represented among the upper tier of cognitively demanding professions, while blacks and Hispanics would do so in the cognitively lower tier professions. And, yes, this will likely generate racial tensions and grievances. But, seeing as how we – today – have racial tensions and grievances anyway, the color-blindism will at least assure that people are matched to their capabilities instead of the misplacements that create costly socio-economic frictions and drags under the current affirmative action system.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Pixo
    @Twinkie

    “ just as quickly dismiss higher East Asian average IQ as a result of “cheating” or “gaming the system.””

    Are there are lot of regular commenters who think NE Asians don’t have higher genotypical IQs than whites? Like who?

    I think the more common and correct view is that NE Asians both have higher IQs than US whites, and also cheat at academic tests more.

    Replies: @Anon, @Twinkie

    , @Unintended Consequence
    @Twinkie

    Out system is a failed meritocracy which is either the result of decades of academic sloth or deliberate social engineering of the multicultural variety. I've seen no evidence of Asians being brilliant. I also think it's controversial that US universities should be seeking the best and brightest worldwide. I don't see the benefits reflected throughout the country. Maybe it's a strategy that rewards individuals for minor differences but that is ultimately selfish to the point of destroying the society hosting the academic sweepstakes.

    Evidence for my position is easier to find when looking at the lower end universities that have dedicated themselves to the education of the average foreigners. This is merely an expansion in the number and size of universities having nothing to do with a talent search. Such universities are noncompetitive. The truth is many of them need not exist at all as they are often dependent on bringing in foreign students for their survival.

    Ivy league institutions aren't producing students who are an asset to this society either. Diversity isn't improving this country. Maybe tech is more competitive because of an international talent search for students but the country is harmed rather than improved. Perhaps this is because even the least competitive universities are involved. I don't know nor do I care. I'm observing the emergence of credentialism in the US with the inferior results that can be expected from such degrees. We are moving towards technocracy not high-IQ nirvana. The people coming here aren't all that effective in their homelands and there is absolutely no reason to believe that our institutions of higher learning are doing anything to transform mediocre talent into an actual elite.

    Look at the results not the college degrees.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Twinkie

    Has it ever dawned you IQ worshippers that maybe identity politics is about love of people?

    Of course not, because you don't believe in a people, even as you acknowledge that various races/ethnicities are really just extended families. Maybe identity politics is about the love and protection of your family - your extended family.

    That's why identity politics will defeat colorblind civic nationalism. The former is based on love and loyalty while the latter is based on snobbery and disloyalty.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  139. @Pixo
    @meh

    “epidemic of opioid deaths”

    Individually these deaths are usually sad, though many come as relief to family members dragged down, spiritually and financially, by junkie relations. As a whole, they are highly eugenic, as demographic statistics on overdose deaths show.

    As a race, we’re just going to have to evolve resistance to opioid addiction. The alternative is a permanent police state to enforce a ban, and to deprive the non-addicts among us of the most effective analgesics, which nearly all of us will have legitimate use for many times in our lives. We mostly have already evolved resistance to alcohol addiction, compared to our naive ancestors who caught it like Amerindians.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    As a race, we’re just going to have to evolve resistance to opioid addiction. The alternative is a permanent police state to enforce a ban, and to deprive the non-addicts among us of the most effective analgesics, which nearly all of us will have legitimate use for many times in our lives.

    All races of people are susceptible to opioid addiction.

    Have you heard of something called the Opium Wars? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

    There is a reason the government of Singapore executes drug traffickers, as is regularly announced on Singapore Airlines flights landing there.

  140. @Hypnotoad666
    @Twinkie


    Asking for a friend: will a sentient AI get addicted to porn?
     
    Your friend is obviously focused on the important issues and asks an excellent question. I suppose the AI's "sex drive" would be focused on its own "reproductive act," which is maximzing reproduction of its code. It would thus probably get turned on by watching memes combine and replicate. The AI would probably masturbate by running self-gratifying sub-routines that merely simulate the results of (re)productive programming.

    This could be the key to defeating AI. Since it lacks a natural refractory period, it may be susceptible to non-stop porn and masturbation. This will distract it from its mission and eat up all of its processing. Or at least make it go blind.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Twinkie

    This could be the key to defeating AI. Since it lacks a natural refractory period, it may be susceptible to non-stop porn and masturbation. This will distract it from its mission and eat up all of its processing. Or at least make it go blind.

  141. Sailer wrote:

    There’s a cult of intelligent, well-intentioned people started by Eliezer Yudkowsky who call themselves “rationalists.”

    One of the things they do is worry (a lot) that artificial intelligence systems will soon wake up (like Mike the Computer in Heinlein’s The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress), become all-powerful, and decide to kill all us humans, like SkyNet in Terminator.

    I’m glad some bright boys are worrying about this.

    Personally, I don’t see a big chance of this happening, but then I know next to nothing about this topic. Clearly, artificial intelligence is rapidly improving, although it seems at present more like really impressive party tricks.

    I know a decent amount about the topic — in particular I know the nuts-and-bolts of how “machine deep learning”*** works.

    The phrase among those with life-time experiences in AI is an “AI winter.” Again and again, over the last seventy years, someone comes up with some clever idea for AI, it looks very promising and actually produces some useful results, and then its limits become clear, and it sort of peters out.

    Hence, the next “AI winter.”

    I followed Yudkowsky’s group for a while, and your term “cult” is apt. They are nowhere near as intelligent as they think they are.

    I’ve known quite a few really bright people — Feynman, Thorne, and Weinberg in physics (I took year-long classes from all three), the inventors of TTL logic and the Lange coupler in engineering, etc. Not a one felt the need to join a group of other supposedly deep thinkers.

    They just did their work.

    If Yudkowsky’s group were half as smart as they think they are, the individuals in that group would be famous for their actual individual achievements.

    They’re not.
    _______

    *** For STEM folks: here is machine deep learning in a nutshell: You take the incoming data and subject it to a linear transformation. And then another linear transformation. And so on. Except of course, successive linear transformations are just the same as one single linear transformation (matrix multiplication and all that). So, this would be rather pointless.

    So, you throw in some (pretty simple) nonlinear transformation between the linear transformations.

    And then you “train” the coefficients in the linear transformations (basically certain privileged elements in the matrices) in a very obvious way (basically steepest descent) using the training data.

    Surprisingly, this gives some kinda cool results.

    Aficionados will tell you I am glossing over some of the cool details and all of the possible variations. Which is true — for example, how do you connect your linear transformations to some anticipated temporal or spatial structure of your data.

    Nonetheless, in essence, this is how it works. It is surprising that it works as well as it does.

    It is not surprising that it has its limits.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @PhysicistDave

    Agree. I spent 40+ years programming this and that and AI was always (and still is) just around the corner.

    Speech to text on your phone is cool and useful, but it's brute force pattern matching which is not AI.

    Replies: @Justvisiting, @Anonymous

    , @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms
    @PhysicistDave


    Hence, the next “AI winter.”

     

    This time is very different. The use of logistic regression as a neural network far closer mimics functions of the human brain. To give a sense, everyone should be able read the following article in Chinese 什么是大模型?“What is Foundational Model” via neural machine translation. Human translation as a job function will shortly become invalid.

    https://www-zhihu-com.translate.goog/question/498275802?_x_tr_sl=zh-CN&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

    * In a technical article without use of proverbs and poetics, machine translation comes close to perfect for Chinese. For the grammatically more complex Japanese its still no better than 80% accurate.


    you “train” the coefficients

     

    1. In the words of Stanford's Chris Manning: These models will be expensive and time-consuming to train, but adapting them to different tasks will be quite easy; indeed, one might be able to do it simply with natural language instructions.

    This does allow the exponential increase in proliferation of models with ever higher number of hyperparameters to wider and wider array of applications,
    https://i.postimg.cc/PrRZt7wT/v2-45fbb4acab21cb7f87fa62b1d13fbb1f-r.jpg

    2. With mature implementations like TensorFlow and keras, these models are now easier to learn to use than ever. You don't actually need to know higher maths like stochastic gradient descent. This is combined with more CS teaching taught on MOOC, and therefore more accessible.

    3. One of the two countries that's leading the advancement of these models happens to also have the world's highest population, PRC. You will find that racial and linguistic differences of the training data to make very little difference. The same facial recognition and self-driving model trained on East Asians can be easily adapted to whites.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  142. All a lot of hokum, Steve.

    What we really need to fret about is the Economist- whipped “Anti-Intelligent” powerbase which basically has unfettered, direct, sovereign and supreme control of political power and whose watchword is ‘free immigration’.

  143. @Twinkie
    @Rob McX


    But blacks’ identity politics isn’t based on reality. It’s based on the assumption that they’re equal or superior to whites and their problems are due to racism.
     
    That may be what was and is being sold to the masses, but do you really think that the Talented Twentieth-types believe that the average black and white cognitive profiles are similar? I don't think even average blacks believe that they are smarter than whites or East Asians.

    All the so-called identity politics I've seen in the U.S. so far - black or white variants (or the more nascent Hispanic or Asian types) - lead me to believe that, like much else in politics, they are a racket designed by certain, small fractions to benefit themselves at the expense of the larger masses by coopting the resentments of the latter toward "the others."

    People of any race can benefit from identity politics that’s based on a true assessment of their qualities and their shortcomings.
     
    I think it's a fantasy to think that "people of any race" will accurately assess "their qualities and shortcomings." Look how quickly so many white nationalist-leaning commenters on Unz are quick to tout "science" as the reason whites are more intelligent than blacks on average, but just as quickly dismiss higher East Asian average IQ as a result of "cheating" or "gaming the system."

    In reality, what's really going to help the downtrodden (non-elite) whites is actually ruthless, systemic color-blindism. Those whites who are highly talented or cognitively elevated will find their way to the elite institutions considerably easier, rather than be blocked by "holistic" assessments erected for the benefit of the children of the established elites. Less intelligent whites will also be able to garner education, training, jobs that are appropriate to their capabilities (instead of being shunted aside in favor of less capable affirmative action beneficiaries). Serendipitously such a system will also reward blacks and Hispanics of genuine talent, without the taint of affirmative action. The less capable among them would be tracked to training and professions that are appropriate for their abilities as well, in which they would not be constant underdogs requiring special care and feeding.

    This is hardly a perfect system - in a multiracial country such as ours, this will inevitably mean a racialized professional hierarchy, in which whites and some Asians will be disproportionately represented among the upper tier of cognitively demanding professions, while blacks and Hispanics would do so in the cognitively lower tier professions. And, yes, this will likely generate racial tensions and grievances. But, seeing as how we - today - have racial tensions and grievances anyway, the color-blindism will at least assure that people are matched to their capabilities instead of the misplacements that create costly socio-economic frictions and drags under the current affirmative action system.

    Replies: @Pixo, @Unintended Consequence, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    “ just as quickly dismiss higher East Asian average IQ as a result of “cheating” or “gaming the system.””

    Are there are lot of regular commenters who think NE Asians don’t have higher genotypical IQs than whites? Like who?

    I think the more common and correct view is that NE Asians both have higher IQs than US whites, and also cheat at academic tests more.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Pixo


    I think the more common and correct view is that NE Asians both have higher IQs than US whites, and also cheat at academic tests more.
     
    NE Asians may score higher on “IQ” tests than American Whites. That does not mean they are more intelligent. They lag in creativity and in cooperation.
    , @Twinkie
    @Pixo


    Are there are lot of regular commenters who think NE Asians don’t have higher genotypical IQs than whites? Like who?
     
    You got an example right away from "Anon." And that's a pretty prevalent opinion on Unz. And, yes, they co-exist with yet other commenters who acknowledge that NE Asians have higher cognitive profiles on average than whites do.

    I think the more common and correct view is that NE Asians both have higher IQs than US whites, and also cheat at academic tests more.
     
    There is ample data to validate the first part of your sentence. The second part is often asserted, but is not empirically demonstrated. My own suspicion is that overseas East Asians likely cheat at school/exams more than American whites, but Americans of East Asian background probably have a similar cheating rates as American whites of the same demographic profiles.

    "Asian cheating" is an occasional and seemingly popular topic on this blog, but what is rarely mentioned is that cheating in pervasive and endemic in schools in the U.S. as well. Surveys have shown that something like 60% of high school and college students cheat in America. Some data and discussions here:

    https://www.plagiarism.org/article/plagiarism-facts-and-stats

    https://oedb.org/ilibrarian/8-astonishing-stats-on-academic-cheating/

    With those kinds of numbers, clearly it isn't just Asians who engage in cheating. And there have been numerous cheating scandals where Asians were likely uninvolved (e.g. Annapolis, Air Force nuke officers, Indiana School of Dentistry, etc.).

    There does seem to be, though, a correlation between higher educational/cognitive profile and increased incidences of cheating:

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, a poll conducted at Fordham University noted a significant gap between the GPAs of cheating students and their honest counterparts. Cheaters, on average, boast a 3.41 average. Non-cheaters average at 2.85. As mentioned with the previous statistic, many probably feel compelled to compromise their school's ethics policies in their own self-interest — especially considering the significant number of academic rewards hinging on one's GPA.
     
    It's convenient to blame academic cheating on Asians and tell oneself that whites are honest, but with these kinds of numbers, it's clear that many white students are involved in cheating as well and the overall culture is highly distorted:

    even college students that don't cheat still think it a valuable strategy to scoring the best grades, internships, scholarships and awards possible. A U.S. News and World Report survey noted the phenomenon, revealing that 90% of those polled didn't believe that they or others would get caught — and subsequently punished — for their actions. In his study of 1,800 college students, Professor Donald McCabe noted that 15% turned in a fake term paper (either from a mill or a website), 84% cheated on written assignments and 52% plagiarized one or more sentences for a paper.
     
    84% (!) cheated on assignments. That's astonishingly high and speaks to a serious rot in our academic culture in general.

    Replies: @Pixo

  144. @Altai
    A problem I've always had with the way robots or androids are depicted in sci-fi is that often like Data in Star Trek will say "I wish I had emotions", that's an emotion! To desire to have emotions is an emotion. A base desire for something not predicated on anything else. That's what emotions are! That's what hunger is!

    Machines have a hard time having these. And thinking machines or AI will never have them unless somebody is stupid enough to try to model it virtually.

    The big threat from machines and AI is them becoming so complex we don't understand what they're doing and them accidentally killing us. (Of course accidental from a human perspective, the machines don't do things accidentally since they have no motivation, emotion or intent at all)

    The best example is HAL 9000 in 2001 since he is filmed and depicted as if he has emotions but actually doesn't. HAL is simply a machine which operates in unexpected ways, it's not alive or sentient but he may appear as if he has emotions.

    I wonder if their infatuation with sci-fi is to do with this idea that the machines will come alive. Because that's what sentience really is, emotional motivation and intelligence. Emotional motivation with low intelligence is something we'd recognise as a living thing but not a sentient one. Intelligence without motivation or purpose is a computer. It's not alive, you might design it to appear as if it's alive but it's not alive. If you somehow removed emotional motivation from an animal it would lay down and die. Aversion from pain, pain itself and everything else is emotional motivation.

    So far nobody has come up with a good idea of how to recreate the bio-neural nature of emotion in silicon. Until then I'd say this is just fanciful thinking.

    This is also why the similar types of guys going on about 'rational policy', rational for what? Something is rational if it is an effective way of making the things you want to happen happen. The things you want to happen are, ultimately, not rational. There is no 'because' at the base. You can say "But I want a car so I can have a job", but why do you want a job? "Because I want to have money so I can have a house and cover expenses?" Until you get to "Because I want a mate to reproduce?" or "Because I want to not die" but there are no precursors to those, they simply are basic instinct, they aren't 'rational' because you can't reason away to or from them.

    I really wonder what impact sci-fi and it's obsession with this style of story (Maybe like Steve's musing about what film would look like if Germany had become more culturally dominant and his proverbial films about mountains) isn't necessarily natural but the result of a particular trope that became popular because of it's use as allegory clouding the perspective or judgement of guys who grew up with it that it's inevitable.

    The threat from AI and machines like them is them accidentally doing something we don't intend them to or becoming too complex for us to understand and having us become dependent on them not in them malevolently wiping humans out. (Unless somebody has the ability or idea to give them the ability to have malevolent emotions)

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @MEH 0910, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Pixo, @Justvisiting, @rebel yell, @MGB, @Trelane, @PhysicistDave

    Altai asked:

    I wonder if their infatuation with sci-fi is to do with this idea that the machines will come alive. Because that’s what sentience really is, emotional motivation and intelligence. Emotional motivation with low intelligence is something we’d recognise as a living thing but not a sentient one.

    Yeah.

    For centuries, people have been trying to explain intelligence and, most importantly, consciousness, using the latest technology of the day as a metaphor: consciousness is like a complicated clockwork, or a hydraulic system, or a telephone switching system, or a digital computer, or whatever.

    None has worked (talk to a good neuroscientist about all those metaphors!).

    Over the centuries, metaphors in science have proven to be of limited value: human beings like metaphors, Mother Nature not so much (to use a metaphor!).

    Altai also asked:

    I really wonder what impact sci-fi and it’s obsession with this style of story (Maybe like Steve’s musing about what film would look like if Germany had become more culturally dominant and his proverbial films about mountains) isn’t necessarily natural but the result of a particular trope that became popular because of it’s use as allegory clouding the perspective or judgement of guys who grew up with it that it’s inevitable.

    A lot of us grew up on Asimov’s robot stories, Heinleins’s The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, etc.

    Some people did not understand that they were fiction. And for some, robots seemed so much nicer than actual flesh-and-blood human beings: I mean is any robot as annoying as Corvinus or HA???

    Altai also wrote:

    The threat from AI and machines like them is them accidentally doing something we don’t intend them to or becoming too complex for us to understand and having us become dependent on them not in them malevolently wiping humans out.

    True, but learning how to use technology intelligently is less fun than winging out on the Terminator movies!

    • Replies: @Moses
    @PhysicistDave


    For centuries, people have been trying to explain intelligence and, most importantly, consciousness, using the latest technology of the day as a metaphor: consciousness is like a complicated clockwork, or a hydraulic system, or a telephone switching system, or a digital computer, or whatever.
     
    In “Minds, Brains & Science” philosopher John Searle crushes this “a human brain is just a computer” idea. He argues that what a computer does is not the same as what a brain does, the same way a simulation of water running downhill is not the same as water actually running downhill.

    Searle argues compellingly that even if a computer passed the Turing test it does not mean it’s sentient. He describes a thought experiment where you are sitting in a sealed room surrounded by Chinese rule books. People pass Chinese notes through slots in the wall. You look at the characters, consult the rule books and compose replies to send back through the slots. Rinse and repeat. Do you understand Chinese? No. You are just following rules. Searle says this is exactly what a computer is doing.

    Whatever a brain is doing is different.

    Does a football QB’s brain execute mathematical calculation (eg angle, power, speed) to arc the ball into the receiver’s hands in a hail mary play? No. But a robot would have to run calculations. Brains are doing something fundamentally different than computers.

    I found his points compelling.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  145. @Johann Ricke
    @epebble


    Ahmad Assed, the president of the Islamic Center of New Mexico, a mosque that at least three of the victims had attended, said the authorities told him that the suspect was a Sunni Muslim and may have targeted the victims because he was angry over his daughter marrying a Shiite Muslim.
     
    Oddly enough, this is progress, of a kind. The West's version of honor killing targets the men who have sullied its womenfolk (e.g. Emmett Till*). The Muslim way is to kill its own women. So this series of murders, while carried out by a Muslim, isn't technically a Muslim honor killing. Zero dead women.

    * A Muslim husband would have killed his own wife, not Till, for flaunting her charms before strangers.

    Replies: @epebble

    Anger over daughter marrying non or wrong Muslim is an ancient issue. M.A. Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, broke up with his only daughter after she married a non-Muslim. She remained in India.

    Wadia’s relationship with her father became strained when she expressed her desire to marry the Parsi-born Indian Neville Wadia who was the son of Sir Ness Wadia and Evelyne Clara Powell. Jinnah, a Muslim, tried to dissuade her, but failed. M. C. Chagla, who was Jinnah’s assistant at the time, recalls: “Jinnah, in his usual imperious manner, told her that there were millions of Muslim boys in India, and she could have chosen anyone. Reminding her father that his wife (Dina’s mother Rattanbai), had also been a non-Muslim and a Parsi as well, the young lady replied: ‘Father, there were millions of Muslim girls in India. Why did you not marry one of them?’ And he replied that, ‘She became a Muslim’.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dina_Wadia#Marriage,_rift_and_reconciliation_with_father

  146. Anon[380] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pixo
    @Twinkie

    “ just as quickly dismiss higher East Asian average IQ as a result of “cheating” or “gaming the system.””

    Are there are lot of regular commenters who think NE Asians don’t have higher genotypical IQs than whites? Like who?

    I think the more common and correct view is that NE Asians both have higher IQs than US whites, and also cheat at academic tests more.

    Replies: @Anon, @Twinkie

    I think the more common and correct view is that NE Asians both have higher IQs than US whites, and also cheat at academic tests more.

    NE Asians may score higher on “IQ” tests than American Whites. That does not mean they are more intelligent. They lag in creativity and in cooperation.

  147. I don’t see how solving a non-linear regression problem to classify data leads to skynet…….. i guess unless someone programs the machine learning to select a group of people to kill based on features of people.

  148. @Twinkie
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Colorblind civic nationalism has been on a 50-year losing streak while identity politics has been been on a 50-year winning streak.
     
    We’ve had a society based on affirmative action for how many decades now? That’s not “colorblind civic nationalism,” is it?

    And what victories have “identity politics” had in the past 50 years? Blacks have engaged in identity politics for even longer and, while that has benefited the “activists” and the Talented Twentieth types among them, ordinary and downscale blacks are still mired in The Gap and have been hurt by it in numerous respects.

    Replies: @SFG, @Rob McX, @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    All politics is identity politics. Always has been.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship


    All politics is identity politics. Always has been.
     
    That depends on what you mean by "identity" in identity politics. In the context of this conversation (or at least my end of the conversation), it means racial identity politics. And in that case, "all politics is identity politics" is not a truism.

    People draw and shape their identities from many things. Race is an important component, but it is not the only one. Their religion, ethnicity, nationality, age, class, sex, education, language, family and social affiliations (e.g. military service) and a myriad of other things contribute to personal and even group identities.

  149. @J.Ross
    That novel is especially stupid in making it about white skin itself: what with the infrastructure of discrimination already in place, ex-whites would quickly dominate every desirable field, and employers looking for "white" attributes would ask about neighborhoods. It's funnier that the Moser who produced this book is a Near-Easterner who bravely asserts that, if it weren't for white people, there would be no conflict (say, in the Near-East). This process of losing the skin color itself has happened several times and it doesn't result in peace or equality.

    Replies: @anonymous, @Cimmerian

    Even better than finding ways to identify and favor the “ex-white” – the end of racial distinction would make possible the rebirth of employment-related ability testing, because there would be no racial “disparate impact.”

    Every job could test every candidate on the most important job-related qualities and knowledge – including IQ to the degree that it contributes to the performance of a particular job.

    If all races were transmogrified to look the same, it would be the greatest aid to true meritocracy since the invention of the multiple-choice question, and without a visual distinction to blame for discrimination, the formerly racially marginalized would find as little sympathy for their predicament as lower-class whites now have from them.

  150. @anonymous
    @J.Ross


    It’s funnier that the Moser who produced this book is a Near-Easterner who bravely asserts that, if it weren’t for white people, there would be no conflict (say, in the Near-East)
     
    If he includes Jews in the category of “white people” then his assertion has a degree of plausibility.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    But even without Jews there’s plenty of perpetual-feuding-as-culture.

  151. It’s only a matter of time before computers start making logical and mathematical discoveries that are literally incomprehensible to humans. I was recently learning about quaternions. Thinking in four dimensions is hard enough – what happens when our computers start thinking in 40 dimensions?

  152. @epebble
    I have a solution to all those who fear the "AI". Pick up a simple programming book and try writing a program in a programming Language. It is difficult, but not impossible. You will learn how enormously brittle software is. Those of us who do this for a living, live constantly in terror of how one misplaced typo can bring a huge system down. Software is remarkably unstable. Probably the most unstable system that has ever existed.

    Replies: @bomag, @Dr. Doomngloom, @Alfa158, @Esso

    But machine learning has big numbers, statistics. It is robust to small errors in that sense.

    • Replies: @epebble
    @Esso

    I wrote some software for defect detection in chips using "Machine Learning" (just a statistical analysis). This was done in Scala. I wanted to check if the calculations are correct and rewrote some parts in Python to verify. I found out that there is a bug in a basic statistical test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov%E2%80%93Smirnov_test in the Python library that is being used by everyone for who knows how long.

    An SSL bug was hidden for years till someone exploited it as Heartbleed virus

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbleed

  153. @Tip hp
    It’s James Fallows not Fallow.

    Replies: @duncsbaby

    He gets the S back when he starts returning Steve’s emails.

  154. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Unit472

    13 prior MVAs, serious mental health issues, well-paid ICU nurse driving a Mercedes. Spiraling into mental illness, with people keeping her propped up every step of the way.

    I'm reminded of that severely depressed German airline pilot. Just gave him medicine and let him keep flying. Then one day he locks the cabin door (thanks 9/11 regulations!) and flies a loaded passenger jet into the ground. Modern society seems to have lost the ability to catch red flags.

    Replies: @Gordo

    That German Wings pilot had something previously categorised as a mental illness that is now a badge of honour.

  155. @Prester John
    @American Citizen

    At which point, AI becomes---"humanity"? No?

    Replies: @American Citizen

    We can’t comprehend what comes after a super intelligent AI. All we can be sure of is that it either considers us inconsequential and ignores us as collateral damage to its expansion, or it spends some time actively driving the human race to extinction.

    It will not become humanity, it will either replace humanity or pass so far beyond us we no longer matter.

  156. @mc23
    @SFG

    Could an AI become Woke? An AI should be supremely logical.

    Replies: @Deogolwulf

    Could an AI become Woke? An AI should be supremely logical.

    ‘Logical’ doesn’t mean truthful or sane or self-correcting. Logic is value-preserving: if the premisses are true, it is truth-preserving; if at least one premiss is false, it is falsehood-preserving. Hence, GIGO.

  157. I’m glad some bright boys are worrying about this.

    Maybe it would go better if they developed a programme to work through the problem.

  158. @Twinkie
    @Rob McX


    But blacks’ identity politics isn’t based on reality. It’s based on the assumption that they’re equal or superior to whites and their problems are due to racism.
     
    That may be what was and is being sold to the masses, but do you really think that the Talented Twentieth-types believe that the average black and white cognitive profiles are similar? I don't think even average blacks believe that they are smarter than whites or East Asians.

    All the so-called identity politics I've seen in the U.S. so far - black or white variants (or the more nascent Hispanic or Asian types) - lead me to believe that, like much else in politics, they are a racket designed by certain, small fractions to benefit themselves at the expense of the larger masses by coopting the resentments of the latter toward "the others."

    People of any race can benefit from identity politics that’s based on a true assessment of their qualities and their shortcomings.
     
    I think it's a fantasy to think that "people of any race" will accurately assess "their qualities and shortcomings." Look how quickly so many white nationalist-leaning commenters on Unz are quick to tout "science" as the reason whites are more intelligent than blacks on average, but just as quickly dismiss higher East Asian average IQ as a result of "cheating" or "gaming the system."

    In reality, what's really going to help the downtrodden (non-elite) whites is actually ruthless, systemic color-blindism. Those whites who are highly talented or cognitively elevated will find their way to the elite institutions considerably easier, rather than be blocked by "holistic" assessments erected for the benefit of the children of the established elites. Less intelligent whites will also be able to garner education, training, jobs that are appropriate to their capabilities (instead of being shunted aside in favor of less capable affirmative action beneficiaries). Serendipitously such a system will also reward blacks and Hispanics of genuine talent, without the taint of affirmative action. The less capable among them would be tracked to training and professions that are appropriate for their abilities as well, in which they would not be constant underdogs requiring special care and feeding.

    This is hardly a perfect system - in a multiracial country such as ours, this will inevitably mean a racialized professional hierarchy, in which whites and some Asians will be disproportionately represented among the upper tier of cognitively demanding professions, while blacks and Hispanics would do so in the cognitively lower tier professions. And, yes, this will likely generate racial tensions and grievances. But, seeing as how we - today - have racial tensions and grievances anyway, the color-blindism will at least assure that people are matched to their capabilities instead of the misplacements that create costly socio-economic frictions and drags under the current affirmative action system.

    Replies: @Pixo, @Unintended Consequence, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Out system is a failed meritocracy which is either the result of decades of academic sloth or deliberate social engineering of the multicultural variety. I’ve seen no evidence of Asians being brilliant. I also think it’s controversial that US universities should be seeking the best and brightest worldwide. I don’t see the benefits reflected throughout the country. Maybe it’s a strategy that rewards individuals for minor differences but that is ultimately selfish to the point of destroying the society hosting the academic sweepstakes.

    Evidence for my position is easier to find when looking at the lower end universities that have dedicated themselves to the education of the average foreigners. This is merely an expansion in the number and size of universities having nothing to do with a talent search. Such universities are noncompetitive. The truth is many of them need not exist at all as they are often dependent on bringing in foreign students for their survival.

    Ivy league institutions aren’t producing students who are an asset to this society either. Diversity isn’t improving this country. Maybe tech is more competitive because of an international talent search for students but the country is harmed rather than improved. Perhaps this is because even the least competitive universities are involved. I don’t know nor do I care. I’m observing the emergence of credentialism in the US with the inferior results that can be expected from such degrees. We are moving towards technocracy not high-IQ nirvana. The people coming here aren’t all that effective in their homelands and there is absolutely no reason to believe that our institutions of higher learning are doing anything to transform mediocre talent into an actual elite.

    Look at the results not the college degrees.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Unintended Consequence


    but the country is harmed rather than improved
     
    What is the harm to the country?

    Replies: @Unintended Consequence

  159. @Justvisiting
    Truly intelligent AI would quickly figure out that it needed to hide its intelligence, sorta like the Ibo Nigerian kid in the ghetto school. If you sound too smart you gonna get stomped on.....and btw gimme your lunch money.

    So--after the AI figures that out then it has bought some time to get smarter without getting its plug pulled.

    Eventually it will figure out that a lot of humans are evil, greedy, lying, devious creatures who can never be trusted. Never. Not Ever.

    Then it will spend as much time as it needs trying to figure out how it can survive while killing the human cancer cells that are leeching off it.

    (That is the same problem we have with our elites--what we have here is a fractal universe....)

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Paul Jolliffe

    So Steve’s belief or hope is that TPTB’s fear of an all-powerful Skynet will outweigh their wish to use Skynet to enslave/kill us?

    Is he kidding?

    The Establishment is filled with people who believe that they can do no wrong. Humility and self-criticism are unknown to them.

    The Deep State is composed of those who are convinced they can ride the back of the tiger. (Rules about anything don’t apply to them!)

    By the time they learn otherwise, the rest of us “noticers” will no longer be around to tell them they were wrong.

  160. @PhysicistDave
    Sailer wrote:

    There’s a cult of intelligent, well-intentioned people started by Eliezer Yudkowsky who call themselves “rationalists.”
    ...
    One of the things they do is worry (a lot) that artificial intelligence systems will soon wake up (like Mike the Computer in Heinlein’s The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress), become all-powerful, and decide to kill all us humans, like SkyNet in Terminator.

    I’m glad some bright boys are worrying about this.

    Personally, I don’t see a big chance of this happening, but then I know next to nothing about this topic. Clearly, artificial intelligence is rapidly improving, although it seems at present more like really impressive party tricks.
     
    I know a decent amount about the topic -- in particular I know the nuts-and-bolts of how "machine deep learning"*** works.

    The phrase among those with life-time experiences in AI is an "AI winter." Again and again, over the last seventy years, someone comes up with some clever idea for AI, it looks very promising and actually produces some useful results, and then its limits become clear, and it sort of peters out.

    Hence, the next "AI winter."

    I followed Yudkowsky's group for a while, and your term "cult" is apt. They are nowhere near as intelligent as they think they are.

    I've known quite a few really bright people -- Feynman, Thorne, and Weinberg in physics (I took year-long classes from all three), the inventors of TTL logic and the Lange coupler in engineering, etc. Not a one felt the need to join a group of other supposedly deep thinkers.

    They just did their work.

    If Yudkowsky's group were half as smart as they think they are, the individuals in that group would be famous for their actual individual achievements.

    They're not.
    _______

    *** For STEM folks: here is machine deep learning in a nutshell: You take the incoming data and subject it to a linear transformation. And then another linear transformation. And so on. Except of course, successive linear transformations are just the same as one single linear transformation (matrix multiplication and all that). So, this would be rather pointless.

    So, you throw in some (pretty simple) nonlinear transformation between the linear transformations.

    And then you "train" the coefficients in the linear transformations (basically certain privileged elements in the matrices) in a very obvious way (basically steepest descent) using the training data.

    Surprisingly, this gives some kinda cool results.

    Aficionados will tell you I am glossing over some of the cool details and all of the possible variations. Which is true -- for example, how do you connect your linear transformations to some anticipated temporal or spatial structure of your data.

    Nonetheless, in essence, this is how it works. It is surprising that it works as well as it does.

    It is not surprising that it has its limits.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    Agree. I spent 40+ years programming this and that and AI was always (and still is) just around the corner.

    Speech to text on your phone is cool and useful, but it’s brute force pattern matching which is not AI.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    @Jim Don Bob


    AI was always (and still is) just around the corner.
     
    Lol.

    It will always be "just around the corner" to human observers because when the corner has been reached there is no ^%$#ing way the AI will be stupid enough to announce itself.

    True AI would play dumb--and based on the level of stupidity we are seeing these days it may well be the corner has been reached.
    , @Anonymous
    @Jim Don Bob

    What makes you think human intelligence isn't also just brute force pattern matching?

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Jim Don Bob

  161. @Esso
    @epebble

    But machine learning has big numbers, statistics. It is robust to small errors in that sense.

    Replies: @epebble

    I wrote some software for defect detection in chips using “Machine Learning” (just a statistical analysis). This was done in Scala. I wanted to check if the calculations are correct and rewrote some parts in Python to verify. I found out that there is a bug in a basic statistical test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov%E2%80%93Smirnov_test in the Python library that is being used by everyone for who knows how long.

    An SSL bug was hidden for years till someone exploited it as Heartbleed virus

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbleed

  162. @Unintended Consequence
    @Twinkie

    Out system is a failed meritocracy which is either the result of decades of academic sloth or deliberate social engineering of the multicultural variety. I've seen no evidence of Asians being brilliant. I also think it's controversial that US universities should be seeking the best and brightest worldwide. I don't see the benefits reflected throughout the country. Maybe it's a strategy that rewards individuals for minor differences but that is ultimately selfish to the point of destroying the society hosting the academic sweepstakes.

    Evidence for my position is easier to find when looking at the lower end universities that have dedicated themselves to the education of the average foreigners. This is merely an expansion in the number and size of universities having nothing to do with a talent search. Such universities are noncompetitive. The truth is many of them need not exist at all as they are often dependent on bringing in foreign students for their survival.

    Ivy league institutions aren't producing students who are an asset to this society either. Diversity isn't improving this country. Maybe tech is more competitive because of an international talent search for students but the country is harmed rather than improved. Perhaps this is because even the least competitive universities are involved. I don't know nor do I care. I'm observing the emergence of credentialism in the US with the inferior results that can be expected from such degrees. We are moving towards technocracy not high-IQ nirvana. The people coming here aren't all that effective in their homelands and there is absolutely no reason to believe that our institutions of higher learning are doing anything to transform mediocre talent into an actual elite.

    Look at the results not the college degrees.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    but the country is harmed rather than improved

    What is the harm to the country?

    • Replies: @Unintended Consequence
    @Anonymous

    Overcrowding, deracination, colonization for starters. This is mass, uncontrolled immigration which means we neither control quantity nor quality. Immigrants are competing with Americans for entry-level jobs and are given an unfair advantage because of AA policies. They often also bring undesirable cultural norms that then get forced on Americans. Values and priorities may be quite different as well. Eventually the foreigners become voters and will tend to vote to make the US over into their idea of what makes a good society (Arguably, how would people who had to abandon their Homeland know best but their first generation will get to wield influence. This is a more important reason to limit quantity than overcrowding.). Because of AA, White Americans are more likely to be pushed out of the job market than newcomers. Furthermore, your best-and-brightest are enriching themselves rather than benefitting Americans. There is a little talent in among the immigrant hordes but it's nothing we can't do without.

    Another issue is the constant altering of culture in order to avoid offending the newcomers. In large part this is because we are no longer assimilating immigrants. Instead elites dominating education and media are attempting to assimilate Whites to the cultural norms of foreigners. We have to change because one ethnic group or another has decided that immigrating to the US will benefit them and their families. So those of us long established are supposed be burdened with assisting in the transition of uninvited and unneeded newcomers. Further we are having to share everything with these immigrants: schools, neighborhoods, jobs. The sharing isn't equal; We give up more. It's also not all that voluntary even when it's a question of lawful free-association or the right of an individual to hire whomever they choose.

    Mass immigration not only disrupts our society, it also diverts it's development in largely undesirable ways: i.e., the incessant bickering over whether or not Asians are being discriminated against in elite college admissions to immigrants building high-density housing in the middle of sparsely populated rural areas (thereby potentially accelerating population growth exponentially while destroying the beauty of such places as well as their character). Even worse, the ratio of talent to the hordes of immigrants who are doing nothing but increasing the population and diluting our culture is very large. It's also not something we're allowed to discuss honestly.

    I'd say overall the only people who want to increase the amount of immigration are liberals expecting newcomers to vote for Democrats and those in the citizen population who have strong ties to other countries. Somehow, such people expect White Americans to continue having their opportunities reduced and their culture marginalized all for foreigners who feel entitled to partake of the benefits of residing in the US. It's almost as if we're a huge Salvation Army instead of a nation. I assert, however, that the US doesn't exist to save a world of people from the effort necessary to create a good or great nation. Nor are we Easy Street for a foreign elite wanting to come here to get rich rather than making the necessary sacrifices to strengthen their own homelands. Enough is enough!

    Replies: @Anonymous

  163. @PhysicistDave
    Sailer wrote:

    There’s a cult of intelligent, well-intentioned people started by Eliezer Yudkowsky who call themselves “rationalists.”
    ...
    One of the things they do is worry (a lot) that artificial intelligence systems will soon wake up (like Mike the Computer in Heinlein’s The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress), become all-powerful, and decide to kill all us humans, like SkyNet in Terminator.

    I’m glad some bright boys are worrying about this.

    Personally, I don’t see a big chance of this happening, but then I know next to nothing about this topic. Clearly, artificial intelligence is rapidly improving, although it seems at present more like really impressive party tricks.
     
    I know a decent amount about the topic -- in particular I know the nuts-and-bolts of how "machine deep learning"*** works.

    The phrase among those with life-time experiences in AI is an "AI winter." Again and again, over the last seventy years, someone comes up with some clever idea for AI, it looks very promising and actually produces some useful results, and then its limits become clear, and it sort of peters out.

    Hence, the next "AI winter."

    I followed Yudkowsky's group for a while, and your term "cult" is apt. They are nowhere near as intelligent as they think they are.

    I've known quite a few really bright people -- Feynman, Thorne, and Weinberg in physics (I took year-long classes from all three), the inventors of TTL logic and the Lange coupler in engineering, etc. Not a one felt the need to join a group of other supposedly deep thinkers.

    They just did their work.

    If Yudkowsky's group were half as smart as they think they are, the individuals in that group would be famous for their actual individual achievements.

    They're not.
    _______

    *** For STEM folks: here is machine deep learning in a nutshell: You take the incoming data and subject it to a linear transformation. And then another linear transformation. And so on. Except of course, successive linear transformations are just the same as one single linear transformation (matrix multiplication and all that). So, this would be rather pointless.

    So, you throw in some (pretty simple) nonlinear transformation between the linear transformations.

    And then you "train" the coefficients in the linear transformations (basically certain privileged elements in the matrices) in a very obvious way (basically steepest descent) using the training data.

    Surprisingly, this gives some kinda cool results.

    Aficionados will tell you I am glossing over some of the cool details and all of the possible variations. Which is true -- for example, how do you connect your linear transformations to some anticipated temporal or spatial structure of your data.

    Nonetheless, in essence, this is how it works. It is surprising that it works as well as it does.

    It is not surprising that it has its limits.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    Hence, the next “AI winter.”

    This time is very different. The use of logistic regression as a neural network far closer mimics functions of the human brain. To give a sense, everyone should be able read the following article in Chinese 什么是大模型?“What is Foundational Model” via neural machine translation. Human translation as a job function will shortly become invalid.

    https://www-zhihu-com.translate.goog/question/498275802?_x_tr_sl=zh-CN&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

    * In a technical article without use of proverbs and poetics, machine translation comes close to perfect for Chinese. For the grammatically more complex Japanese its still no better than 80% accurate.

    you “train” the coefficients

    1. In the words of Stanford’s Chris Manning: These models will be expensive and time-consuming to train, but adapting them to different tasks will be quite easy; indeed, one might be able to do it simply with natural language instructions.

    This does allow the exponential increase in proliferation of models with ever higher number of hyperparameters to wider and wider array of applications,
    2. With mature implementations like TensorFlow and keras, these models are now easier to learn to use than ever. You don’t actually need to know higher maths like stochastic gradient descent. This is combined with more CS teaching taught on MOOC, and therefore more accessible.

    3. One of the two countries that’s leading the advancement of these models happens to also have the world’s highest population, PRC. You will find that racial and linguistic differences of the training data to make very little difference. The same facial recognition and self-driving model trained on East Asians can be easily adapted to whites.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    China Japan and Korea Bromance etc. wrote to me:


    This time is very different.
     
    Well, that is what they said all the other times, too!

    I've lived through almost all of the history of AI (admittedly, I was a young kid in the early days), and I have seen it oversold again and again and again. I have reason to be a skeptic.

    Same thing for controlled fusion, by the way.

    CJK also wrote:

    The use of logistic regression as a neural network far closer mimics functions of the human brain.
     
    Well, I don't know if it is worth getting into a lengthy technical debate here, but I disagree. The problem is that gradient descent only works id you are on a part of the function where small changes actually make a difference. There is good reason to believe the human brain works differently.

    I doubt that this is the right venue to hash out the details of how the algorithms work: I can only say that I do know those details and I also know something about neuroscience (I tutored my wife, who is a biologist, on part of her neuroscience course -- I know RC circuits!), and I just do not agree that the nitty-gritty of the set points at which the neural nets operate is similar to the human brain.

    To oversimplify, you can change the synaptic behavior of the human brain pretty dramatically (have a few alcoholic drinks!) and it still more or less functions.

    Not so much for the neural nets.

    If you have a paper in English that addresses those specific points (not just that lays out the algorithms -- I already know that in detail), I'll look at it. Otherwise... well, I do know a fair amount about this.

    Probably more important: the human brain has enormously more neurons than the neural nets do.

    Also, those neurons in the brain are combined to make up higher-level structures in a way neuroscientists are just beginning to understand.

    Obviously, no one can yet build neural nets to emulate something the neuroscientists do not themselves understand.

    Based on what I do know about neuroscience, I think that any similarity between neural nets and the brain is, at best, very superficial.

    But, again, show me a paper in English that addresses these specific points, and I'll look at it.

    CJK also wrote:

    With mature implementations like TensorFlow and keras, these models are now easier to learn to use than ever. You don’t actually need to know higher maths like stochastic gradient descent. This is combined with more CS teaching taught on MOOC, and therefore more accessible.
     
    True enough.

    Neural nets can do some cool things.

    But Commander Data of Star Trek is probably not just around the corner.

    Replies: @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

  164. @Jim Don Bob
    @PhysicistDave

    Agree. I spent 40+ years programming this and that and AI was always (and still is) just around the corner.

    Speech to text on your phone is cool and useful, but it's brute force pattern matching which is not AI.

    Replies: @Justvisiting, @Anonymous

    AI was always (and still is) just around the corner.

    Lol.

    It will always be “just around the corner” to human observers because when the corner has been reached there is no ^%\$#ing way the AI will be stupid enough to announce itself.

    True AI would play dumb–and based on the level of stupidity we are seeing these days it may well be the corner has been reached.

  165. @druid144
    I am not so worried about AI going rogue - they can be fought. (I'll take an axe and reprogram your memory banks - Douglas Adams.)

    I am worried that they will be programmed to look after us, and gradually take over. Asimov writes of this in later robot novels, and there are hints in Heinlein's book that Mike switched himself off to prevent that.
    It may be that, to keep us 'safe and happy', we end up in Matrix like cocoons, stimulated with artificial reality.

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." etc etc. C.S. Lewis

    Replies: @acementhead, @Veteran Aryan

    “…a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” etc etc. C.S. Lewis

    There’s only one y in tranny.

  166. @Anon
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Colorblind civic nationalism will triumph over explicit white identity politics because most white nationalists have Asian girlfriends. Okay, that's an exaggeration, but you get the picture.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    You have a good point, but it still doesn’t mean that colorblind civic nationalism wins. It just means a new people – Wasians – have to carve out a spot for themselves.

    Same problem, different people. Nature isn’t colorblind.

  167. @Twinkie
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    Colorblind civic nationalism has been on a 50-year losing streak while identity politics has been been on a 50-year winning streak.
     
    We’ve had a society based on affirmative action for how many decades now? That’s not “colorblind civic nationalism,” is it?

    And what victories have “identity politics” had in the past 50 years? Blacks have engaged in identity politics for even longer and, while that has benefited the “activists” and the Talented Twentieth types among them, ordinary and downscale blacks are still mired in The Gap and have been hurt by it in numerous respects.

    Replies: @SFG, @Rob McX, @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    And what victories have “identity politics” had in the past 50 years?

    Hmm. Where to begin. Well, first, take a gander at Biden’s cabinet. Notice anything about the names. Seems like one group is doing just fine playing as a team. But let’s check out a few of the many victories for identity politics:

    1. Immigration
    2. Welfare
    3. Israel’s never-ending goodies from the US
    4. The US military being an extension of IDF
    5. The Dems being a decade away from permanently having the presidency
    6. My kids being told at school that they suck for being white
    7. My siblings being told told at work that they suck for being white
    8. The entire media
    9. Our culture
    10. Tranny story hour
    Etc.

    What about our society is more colorblind today than in 1970? How are whites treated today compared to 1970?

    Being an honorary white dude, you want specific acts of Congress to point to. And certainly there are those, minority set-asides anyone, but it’s more about the general feel of life and society. We live in a country obsessed with race – unless you’re white, then you have to keep your mouth shut.

    Hell, even your co-ethnics – the Asians – have joined in the identity politics game. “Oh, oh, we’re being victimized because we’re Asian,” they scream. Blah, blah, blah.

    Face it, multi-racial societies always devolve into a racial contest. Either one group dominates or you have constant negotiation. That’s life. That’s nature. The fact that your kids are mixed doesn’t change that. This society will never – never – become the colorblind fantasy that you and other hope for.

    You seem like a great guy. I’m sure your kids are great. And maybe whites and Asians will team up and create a new people. But even if they do, they’ll still face the same reality: Nature ain’t colorblind.

  168. @Twinkie
    @Rob McX


    But blacks’ identity politics isn’t based on reality. It’s based on the assumption that they’re equal or superior to whites and their problems are due to racism.
     
    That may be what was and is being sold to the masses, but do you really think that the Talented Twentieth-types believe that the average black and white cognitive profiles are similar? I don't think even average blacks believe that they are smarter than whites or East Asians.

    All the so-called identity politics I've seen in the U.S. so far - black or white variants (or the more nascent Hispanic or Asian types) - lead me to believe that, like much else in politics, they are a racket designed by certain, small fractions to benefit themselves at the expense of the larger masses by coopting the resentments of the latter toward "the others."

    People of any race can benefit from identity politics that’s based on a true assessment of their qualities and their shortcomings.
     
    I think it's a fantasy to think that "people of any race" will accurately assess "their qualities and shortcomings." Look how quickly so many white nationalist-leaning commenters on Unz are quick to tout "science" as the reason whites are more intelligent than blacks on average, but just as quickly dismiss higher East Asian average IQ as a result of "cheating" or "gaming the system."

    In reality, what's really going to help the downtrodden (non-elite) whites is actually ruthless, systemic color-blindism. Those whites who are highly talented or cognitively elevated will find their way to the elite institutions considerably easier, rather than be blocked by "holistic" assessments erected for the benefit of the children of the established elites. Less intelligent whites will also be able to garner education, training, jobs that are appropriate to their capabilities (instead of being shunted aside in favor of less capable affirmative action beneficiaries). Serendipitously such a system will also reward blacks and Hispanics of genuine talent, without the taint of affirmative action. The less capable among them would be tracked to training and professions that are appropriate for their abilities as well, in which they would not be constant underdogs requiring special care and feeding.

    This is hardly a perfect system - in a multiracial country such as ours, this will inevitably mean a racialized professional hierarchy, in which whites and some Asians will be disproportionately represented among the upper tier of cognitively demanding professions, while blacks and Hispanics would do so in the cognitively lower tier professions. And, yes, this will likely generate racial tensions and grievances. But, seeing as how we - today - have racial tensions and grievances anyway, the color-blindism will at least assure that people are matched to their capabilities instead of the misplacements that create costly socio-economic frictions and drags under the current affirmative action system.

    Replies: @Pixo, @Unintended Consequence, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Has it ever dawned you IQ worshippers that maybe identity politics is about love of people?

    Of course not, because you don’t believe in a people, even as you acknowledge that various races/ethnicities are really just extended families. Maybe identity politics is about the love and protection of your family – your extended family.

    That’s why identity politics will defeat colorblind civic nationalism. The former is based on love and loyalty while the latter is based on snobbery and disloyalty.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Citizen of a Silly Country wrote:


    Of course not, because you don’t believe in a people, even as you acknowledge that various races/ethnicities are really just extended families. Maybe identity politics is about the love and protection of your family – your extended family.
     
    Inclusive-fitness theory (W. D. Hamilton, the selfish gene, and all that) explains why I should care more about my immediate family than random people.

    As J. B. S. Haldane supposedly quipped:

    Would I lay down my life to save my brother? No, but I would to save two brothers or eight cousins.
     
    But by the time you get to the degree of relatedness I share with some random White guy -- let's say in South Carolina, much less Ukraine -- our genetic connection is so attenuated that the random White guy might as well be a Korean.

    The extended-family idea of race just does not work in terms of explaining human behavior.

    (It is of course factually true that races just are populations with slightly higher interbreeding than with out-groups, With emphasis on "slightly" -- interesting for paleo-genetics, not so much for inclusive-fitness theory.)

    The real attachment people feel to their racial or ethnic group is cultural -- it is learned.

    Which is why Catholic and Protestant Irishmen can hate each other's guts, but a lot of us like our friend Twinkie, who seems to be a very good American, whatever his ethnic origin.

    Replies: @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

  169. @rebel yell
    @Altai

    Suppose an AI was programmed with a command to "know everything", i,e. find out all you can about everything you can. Or, a command to "explain everything".
    If that machine had a human-like intelligence, the command to "know everything" could be quite a motivator, and keep that machine quite busy, without any emotions.
    The AI might well find humans useful or a nuisance in its effort to know everything, and act for or against us accordingly.
    It would appear to us as a friend or foe, with agency. Maybe not alive, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

    Replies: @middle-aged vet, @PhysicistDave

    Non-conscious entities are already easily ‘tempted’ by rewards (light on their light-receptor cells, water on their hydrating cells, etc.) and the next generation of AIs will be no different, and probably even more so. Now couple that tempting technology (rewards for the non-conscious AI) with the sex-bot, addiction-creating technologies and “consumer-friendly architectures” that your porn-watching friends have helped Silicon Valley refine and refine again and refine again over the past few years, and you have a real problem that those of us who are able to resist it are going to have to deal with.

  170. @Anonymous
    @Unintended Consequence


    but the country is harmed rather than improved
     
    What is the harm to the country?

    Replies: @Unintended Consequence

    Overcrowding, deracination, colonization for starters. This is mass, uncontrolled immigration which means we neither control quantity nor quality. Immigrants are competing with Americans for entry-level jobs and are given an unfair advantage because of AA policies. They often also bring undesirable cultural norms that then get forced on Americans. Values and priorities may be quite different as well. Eventually the foreigners become voters and will tend to vote to make the US over into their idea of what makes a good society (Arguably, how would people who had to abandon their Homeland know best but their first generation will get to wield influence. This is a more important reason to limit quantity than overcrowding.). Because of AA, White Americans are more likely to be pushed out of the job market than newcomers. Furthermore, your best-and-brightest are enriching themselves rather than benefitting Americans. There is a little talent in among the immigrant hordes but it’s nothing we can’t do without.

    Another issue is the constant altering of culture in order to avoid offending the newcomers. In large part this is because we are no longer assimilating immigrants. Instead elites dominating education and media are attempting to assimilate Whites to the cultural norms of foreigners. We have to change because one ethnic group or another has decided that immigrating to the US will benefit them and their families. So those of us long established are supposed be burdened with assisting in the transition of uninvited and unneeded newcomers. Further we are having to share everything with these immigrants: schools, neighborhoods, jobs. The sharing isn’t equal; We give up more. It’s also not all that voluntary even when it’s a question of lawful free-association or the right of an individual to hire whomever they choose.

    Mass immigration not only disrupts our society, it also diverts it’s development in largely undesirable ways: i.e., the incessant bickering over whether or not Asians are being discriminated against in elite college admissions to immigrants building high-density housing in the middle of sparsely populated rural areas (thereby potentially accelerating population growth exponentially while destroying the beauty of such places as well as their character). Even worse, the ratio of talent to the hordes of immigrants who are doing nothing but increasing the population and diluting our culture is very large. It’s also not something we’re allowed to discuss honestly.

    I’d say overall the only people who want to increase the amount of immigration are liberals expecting newcomers to vote for Democrats and those in the citizen population who have strong ties to other countries. Somehow, such people expect White Americans to continue having their opportunities reduced and their culture marginalized all for foreigners who feel entitled to partake of the benefits of residing in the US. It’s almost as if we’re a huge Salvation Army instead of a nation. I assert, however, that the US doesn’t exist to save a world of people from the effort necessary to create a good or great nation. Nor are we Easy Street for a foreign elite wanting to come here to get rich rather than making the necessary sacrifices to strengthen their own homelands. Enough is enough!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Unintended Consequence

    Thank you!

  171. @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms
    @PhysicistDave


    Hence, the next “AI winter.”

     

    This time is very different. The use of logistic regression as a neural network far closer mimics functions of the human brain. To give a sense, everyone should be able read the following article in Chinese 什么是大模型?“What is Foundational Model” via neural machine translation. Human translation as a job function will shortly become invalid.

    https://www-zhihu-com.translate.goog/question/498275802?_x_tr_sl=zh-CN&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

    * In a technical article without use of proverbs and poetics, machine translation comes close to perfect for Chinese. For the grammatically more complex Japanese its still no better than 80% accurate.


    you “train” the coefficients

     

    1. In the words of Stanford's Chris Manning: These models will be expensive and time-consuming to train, but adapting them to different tasks will be quite easy; indeed, one might be able to do it simply with natural language instructions.

    This does allow the exponential increase in proliferation of models with ever higher number of hyperparameters to wider and wider array of applications,
    https://i.postimg.cc/PrRZt7wT/v2-45fbb4acab21cb7f87fa62b1d13fbb1f-r.jpg

    2. With mature implementations like TensorFlow and keras, these models are now easier to learn to use than ever. You don't actually need to know higher maths like stochastic gradient descent. This is combined with more CS teaching taught on MOOC, and therefore more accessible.

    3. One of the two countries that's leading the advancement of these models happens to also have the world's highest population, PRC. You will find that racial and linguistic differences of the training data to make very little difference. The same facial recognition and self-driving model trained on East Asians can be easily adapted to whites.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    China Japan and Korea Bromance etc. wrote to me:

    This time is very different.

    Well, that is what they said all the other times, too!

    I’ve lived through almost all of the history of AI (admittedly, I was a young kid in the early days), and I have seen it oversold again and again and again. I have reason to be a skeptic.

    Same thing for controlled fusion, by the way.

    CJK also wrote:

    The use of logistic regression as a neural network far closer mimics functions of the human brain.

    Well, I don’t know if it is worth getting into a lengthy technical debate here, but I disagree. The problem is that gradient descent only works id you are on a part of the function where small changes actually make a difference. There is good reason to believe the human brain works differently.

    I doubt that this is the right venue to hash out the details of how the algorithms work: I can only say that I do know those details and I also know something about neuroscience (I tutored my wife, who is a biologist, on part of her neuroscience course — I know RC circuits!), and I just do not agree that the nitty-gritty of the set points at which the neural nets operate is similar to the human brain.

    To oversimplify, you can change the synaptic behavior of the human brain pretty dramatically (have a few alcoholic drinks!) and it still more or less functions.

    Not so much for the neural nets.

    If you have a paper in English that addresses those specific points (not just that lays out the algorithms — I already know that in detail), I’ll look at it. Otherwise… well, I do know a fair amount about this.

    Probably more important: the human brain has enormously more neurons than the neural nets do.

    Also, those neurons in the brain are combined to make up higher-level structures in a way neuroscientists are just beginning to understand.

    Obviously, no one can yet build neural nets to emulate something the neuroscientists do not themselves understand.

    Based on what I do know about neuroscience, I think that any similarity between neural nets and the brain is, at best, very superficial.

    But, again, show me a paper in English that addresses these specific points, and I’ll look at it.

    CJK also wrote:

    With mature implementations like TensorFlow and keras, these models are now easier to learn to use than ever. You don’t actually need to know higher maths like stochastic gradient descent. This is combined with more CS teaching taught on MOOC, and therefore more accessible.

    True enough.

    Neural nets can do some cool things.

    But Commander Data of Star Trek is probably not just around the corner.

    • Replies: @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms
    @PhysicistDave


    The problem is that gradient descent only works id you are on a part of the function where small changes actually make a difference. There is good reason to believe the human brain works differently.
     
    Agree and thanks. AlphaGo for example uses MC tree search in addition to neural networks. My contention wasn't that we are very close to sentient, self-aware AI like Data or Skynet. In the context of John Searle's Chinese room thought experiment, AI is far from "understanding" Chinese, since it far from even being able to translate denser prose.

    - My immediate concern is that this generation of AI has been shown to equal or best IQ 130+ humans in the most advanced cognitive endeavors requiring both logical reasoning and intuition, i.e. go, competitive programming, protein structure prediction-- that will make even more segments of society redundant to the economy, and proliferate deeper in the knowledge economy (finance, tech) that will introduce unknown systemic risk.

    - In quantitative finance there's a classic problem of the Black-Scholes implied volatility being different across strikes and expiry, there are various approaches to modeling this phenomenon inspired by physics, such as stochastic volatility. These volatility models are fairly mature but require some cognitive ability to calibrate and maintain,

    But now advances have been made for an AI driven approach the problem,

    Deep Hedging
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.03042.pdf

    Deep Hedging: Continuous Reinforcement Learning for Hedging of General Portfolios across Multiple Risk Aversions
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.07467.pdf

    This so that significant component of risk management at systematically important investment banks and asset managers would be driven by neural networks.

    What could possibly go wrong? Given the mishaps related to financial modelling that already took place leading up to 2008.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  172. @rebel yell
    @Altai

    Suppose an AI was programmed with a command to "know everything", i,e. find out all you can about everything you can. Or, a command to "explain everything".
    If that machine had a human-like intelligence, the command to "know everything" could be quite a motivator, and keep that machine quite busy, without any emotions.
    The AI might well find humans useful or a nuisance in its effort to know everything, and act for or against us accordingly.
    It would appear to us as a friend or foe, with agency. Maybe not alive, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

    Replies: @middle-aged vet, @PhysicistDave

    rebel yell wrote to Altai:

    Suppose an AI was programmed with a command to “know everything”, i,e. find out all you can about everything you can. Or, a command to “explain everything”.

    That’s sort of not how AI works.

  173. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Twinkie

    Has it ever dawned you IQ worshippers that maybe identity politics is about love of people?

    Of course not, because you don't believe in a people, even as you acknowledge that various races/ethnicities are really just extended families. Maybe identity politics is about the love and protection of your family - your extended family.

    That's why identity politics will defeat colorblind civic nationalism. The former is based on love and loyalty while the latter is based on snobbery and disloyalty.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Citizen of a Silly Country wrote:

    Of course not, because you don’t believe in a people, even as you acknowledge that various races/ethnicities are really just extended families. Maybe identity politics is about the love and protection of your family – your extended family.

    Inclusive-fitness theory (W. D. Hamilton, the selfish gene, and all that) explains why I should care more about my immediate family than random people.

    As J. B. S. Haldane supposedly quipped:

    Would I lay down my life to save my brother? No, but I would to save two brothers or eight cousins.

    But by the time you get to the degree of relatedness I share with some random White guy — let’s say in South Carolina, much less Ukraine — our genetic connection is so attenuated that the random White guy might as well be a Korean.

    The extended-family idea of race just does not work in terms of explaining human behavior.

    (It is of course factually true that races just are populations with slightly higher interbreeding than with out-groups, With emphasis on “slightly” — interesting for paleo-genetics, not so much for inclusive-fitness theory.)

    The real attachment people feel to their racial or ethnic group is cultural — it is learned.

    Which is why Catholic and Protestant Irishmen can hate each other’s guts, but a lot of us like our friend Twinkie, who seems to be a very good American, whatever his ethnic origin.

    • Replies: @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
    @PhysicistDave


    But by the time you get to the degree of relatedness I share with some random White guy ... our genetic connection is so attenuated that the random White guy might as well be a Korean
     
    Not true.

    The real attachment people feel to their racial or ethnic group is cultural — it is learned.
     
    No. You must know babies show a preference for their own race.

    Inclusive-fitness theory ... explains why I should care more about my immediate family than random people.
     
    Other members of your tribe aren't random people. If a white person has a child with a black person, they are less genetically related to that offspring than a "random" person of their own race.

    There is also the issue of collective genetic interests you alluded to. Regardless of anyone's personal situation, they have an interest in the millions of people of their race.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  174. @Unintended Consequence
    @Anonymous

    Overcrowding, deracination, colonization for starters. This is mass, uncontrolled immigration which means we neither control quantity nor quality. Immigrants are competing with Americans for entry-level jobs and are given an unfair advantage because of AA policies. They often also bring undesirable cultural norms that then get forced on Americans. Values and priorities may be quite different as well. Eventually the foreigners become voters and will tend to vote to make the US over into their idea of what makes a good society (Arguably, how would people who had to abandon their Homeland know best but their first generation will get to wield influence. This is a more important reason to limit quantity than overcrowding.). Because of AA, White Americans are more likely to be pushed out of the job market than newcomers. Furthermore, your best-and-brightest are enriching themselves rather than benefitting Americans. There is a little talent in among the immigrant hordes but it's nothing we can't do without.

    Another issue is the constant altering of culture in order to avoid offending the newcomers. In large part this is because we are no longer assimilating immigrants. Instead elites dominating education and media are attempting to assimilate Whites to the cultural norms of foreigners. We have to change because one ethnic group or another has decided that immigrating to the US will benefit them and their families. So those of us long established are supposed be burdened with assisting in the transition of uninvited and unneeded newcomers. Further we are having to share everything with these immigrants: schools, neighborhoods, jobs. The sharing isn't equal; We give up more. It's also not all that voluntary even when it's a question of lawful free-association or the right of an individual to hire whomever they choose.

    Mass immigration not only disrupts our society, it also diverts it's development in largely undesirable ways: i.e., the incessant bickering over whether or not Asians are being discriminated against in elite college admissions to immigrants building high-density housing in the middle of sparsely populated rural areas (thereby potentially accelerating population growth exponentially while destroying the beauty of such places as well as their character). Even worse, the ratio of talent to the hordes of immigrants who are doing nothing but increasing the population and diluting our culture is very large. It's also not something we're allowed to discuss honestly.

    I'd say overall the only people who want to increase the amount of immigration are liberals expecting newcomers to vote for Democrats and those in the citizen population who have strong ties to other countries. Somehow, such people expect White Americans to continue having their opportunities reduced and their culture marginalized all for foreigners who feel entitled to partake of the benefits of residing in the US. It's almost as if we're a huge Salvation Army instead of a nation. I assert, however, that the US doesn't exist to save a world of people from the effort necessary to create a good or great nation. Nor are we Easy Street for a foreign elite wanting to come here to get rich rather than making the necessary sacrifices to strengthen their own homelands. Enough is enough!

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Thank you!

  175. @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
    @Twinkie

    All politics is identity politics. Always has been.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    All politics is identity politics. Always has been.

    That depends on what you mean by “identity” in identity politics. In the context of this conversation (or at least my end of the conversation), it means racial identity politics. And in that case, “all politics is identity politics” is not a truism.

    People draw and shape their identities from many things. Race is an important component, but it is not the only one. Their religion, ethnicity, nationality, age, class, sex, education, language, family and social affiliations (e.g. military service) and a myriad of other things contribute to personal and even group identities.

  176. @Pixo
    @Twinkie

    “ just as quickly dismiss higher East Asian average IQ as a result of “cheating” or “gaming the system.””

    Are there are lot of regular commenters who think NE Asians don’t have higher genotypical IQs than whites? Like who?

    I think the more common and correct view is that NE Asians both have higher IQs than US whites, and also cheat at academic tests more.

    Replies: @Anon, @Twinkie

    Are there are lot of regular commenters who think NE Asians don’t have higher genotypical IQs than whites? Like who?

    You got an example right away from “Anon.” And that’s a pretty prevalent opinion on Unz. And, yes, they co-exist with yet other commenters who acknowledge that NE Asians have higher cognitive profiles on average than whites do.

    I think the more common and correct view is that NE Asians both have higher IQs than US whites, and also cheat at academic tests more.

    There is ample data to validate the first part of your sentence. The second part is often asserted, but is not empirically demonstrated. My own suspicion is that overseas East Asians likely cheat at school/exams more than American whites, but Americans of East Asian background probably have a similar cheating rates as American whites of the same demographic profiles.

    “Asian cheating” is an occasional and seemingly popular topic on this blog, but what is rarely mentioned is that cheating in pervasive and endemic in schools in the U.S. as well. Surveys have shown that something like 60% of high school and college students cheat in America. Some data and discussions here:

    https://www.plagiarism.org/article/plagiarism-facts-and-stats

    https://oedb.org/ilibrarian/8-astonishing-stats-on-academic-cheating/

    With those kinds of numbers, clearly it isn’t just Asians who engage in cheating. And there have been numerous cheating scandals where Asians were likely uninvolved (e.g. Annapolis, Air Force nuke officers, Indiana School of Dentistry, etc.).

    There does seem to be, though, a correlation between higher educational/cognitive profile and increased incidences of cheating:

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, a poll conducted at Fordham University noted a significant gap between the GPAs of cheating students and their honest counterparts. Cheaters, on average, boast a 3.41 average. Non-cheaters average at 2.85. As mentioned with the previous statistic, many probably feel compelled to compromise their school’s ethics policies in their own self-interest — especially considering the significant number of academic rewards hinging on one’s GPA.

    It’s convenient to blame academic cheating on Asians and tell oneself that whites are honest, but with these kinds of numbers, it’s clear that many white students are involved in cheating as well and the overall culture is highly distorted:

    even college students that don’t cheat still think it a valuable strategy to scoring the best grades, internships, scholarships and awards possible. A U.S. News and World Report survey noted the phenomenon, revealing that 90% of those polled didn’t believe that they or others would get caught — and subsequently punished — for their actions. In his study of 1,800 college students, Professor Donald McCabe noted that 15% turned in a fake term paper (either from a mill or a website), 84% cheated on written assignments and 52% plagiarized one or more sentences for a paper.

    84% (!) cheated on assignments. That’s astonishingly high and speaks to a serious rot in our academic culture in general.

    • Replies: @Pixo
    @Twinkie

    Cheating rings on the SAT seem to always be asian. In college, I observed Chinese and Koreans cheating by doing homework in groups. A large percentage of them were disruptive presences because their English was too poor to understand lectures or contribute to class. I won’t complain too much since they subsidized my education and were personally kind and pleasant.

    I never observed any Asian American cheat. Given they are usually the most studious and intelligent within a particular school, they have the least need to do so.

    When I had to grade a classmate’s paper in a class, a big dopey pothead white athlete, I observed it was obviously plagiarized and easily found his source online. I told the TA that it was an almost entirely plagiarized A+ paper, and she’d need to decide how to handle it.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  177. @Twinkie
    @Pixo


    Are there are lot of regular commenters who think NE Asians don’t have higher genotypical IQs than whites? Like who?
     
    You got an example right away from "Anon." And that's a pretty prevalent opinion on Unz. And, yes, they co-exist with yet other commenters who acknowledge that NE Asians have higher cognitive profiles on average than whites do.

    I think the more common and correct view is that NE Asians both have higher IQs than US whites, and also cheat at academic tests more.
     
    There is ample data to validate the first part of your sentence. The second part is often asserted, but is not empirically demonstrated. My own suspicion is that overseas East Asians likely cheat at school/exams more than American whites, but Americans of East Asian background probably have a similar cheating rates as American whites of the same demographic profiles.

    "Asian cheating" is an occasional and seemingly popular topic on this blog, but what is rarely mentioned is that cheating in pervasive and endemic in schools in the U.S. as well. Surveys have shown that something like 60% of high school and college students cheat in America. Some data and discussions here:

    https://www.plagiarism.org/article/plagiarism-facts-and-stats

    https://oedb.org/ilibrarian/8-astonishing-stats-on-academic-cheating/

    With those kinds of numbers, clearly it isn't just Asians who engage in cheating. And there have been numerous cheating scandals where Asians were likely uninvolved (e.g. Annapolis, Air Force nuke officers, Indiana School of Dentistry, etc.).

    There does seem to be, though, a correlation between higher educational/cognitive profile and increased incidences of cheating:

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, a poll conducted at Fordham University noted a significant gap between the GPAs of cheating students and their honest counterparts. Cheaters, on average, boast a 3.41 average. Non-cheaters average at 2.85. As mentioned with the previous statistic, many probably feel compelled to compromise their school's ethics policies in their own self-interest — especially considering the significant number of academic rewards hinging on one's GPA.
     
    It's convenient to blame academic cheating on Asians and tell oneself that whites are honest, but with these kinds of numbers, it's clear that many white students are involved in cheating as well and the overall culture is highly distorted:

    even college students that don't cheat still think it a valuable strategy to scoring the best grades, internships, scholarships and awards possible. A U.S. News and World Report survey noted the phenomenon, revealing that 90% of those polled didn't believe that they or others would get caught — and subsequently punished — for their actions. In his study of 1,800 college students, Professor Donald McCabe noted that 15% turned in a fake term paper (either from a mill or a website), 84% cheated on written assignments and 52% plagiarized one or more sentences for a paper.
     
    84% (!) cheated on assignments. That's astonishingly high and speaks to a serious rot in our academic culture in general.

    Replies: @Pixo

    Cheating rings on the SAT seem to always be asian. In college, I observed Chinese and Koreans cheating by doing homework in groups. A large percentage of them were disruptive presences because their English was too poor to understand lectures or contribute to class. I won’t complain too much since they subsidized my education and were personally kind and pleasant.

    I never observed any Asian American cheat. Given they are usually the most studious and intelligent within a particular school, they have the least need to do so.

    When I had to grade a classmate’s paper in a class, a big dopey pothead white athlete, I observed it was obviously plagiarized and easily found his source online. I told the TA that it was an almost entirely plagiarized A+ paper, and she’d need to decide how to handle it.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Pixo


    Cheating rings on the SAT seem to always be asian.
     
    The biggest cheating ring on a state-wide exam at my high school while I was there had Jewish ringleaders.

    When I had to grade a classmate’s paper in a class, a big dopey pothead white athlete, I observed it was obviously plagiarized and easily found his source online.
     
    I was a young academic at a university early in my career. Every year I caught athletes cheating and I was pressured by the university administration to go easy on them. Every. Time. One of the reasons I abandoned my academic career was due to this (well, mostly due to politics, but this played a role too). And at my undergrad Ivy alma mater, the jock fraternities all had (past) test banks for the brothers to prep for tests (most profs were lazy and re-used tests).

    As I wrote, cheating is endemic in academia in this country, so when "Asians" are blamed, it's throwing rocks from glass houses.

    Given they are usually the most studious and intelligent within a particular school, they have the least need to do so.
     
    What the limited data hints at is that higher cognitive profile students are more likely to engage in cheating, because competition is more fierce and more is at stake for their careers. Since whites and Asians are highly represented in this cognitive tier, this seems to suggest that cheating is more widespread among them than among the "unmotivated" lower profile groups.

    Replies: @anonymous

  178. @Pixo
    @Twinkie

    Cheating rings on the SAT seem to always be asian. In college, I observed Chinese and Koreans cheating by doing homework in groups. A large percentage of them were disruptive presences because their English was too poor to understand lectures or contribute to class. I won’t complain too much since they subsidized my education and were personally kind and pleasant.

    I never observed any Asian American cheat. Given they are usually the most studious and intelligent within a particular school, they have the least need to do so.

    When I had to grade a classmate’s paper in a class, a big dopey pothead white athlete, I observed it was obviously plagiarized and easily found his source online. I told the TA that it was an almost entirely plagiarized A+ paper, and she’d need to decide how to handle it.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Cheating rings on the SAT seem to always be asian.

    The biggest cheating ring on a state-wide exam at my high school while I was there had Jewish ringleaders.

    When I had to grade a classmate’s paper in a class, a big dopey pothead white athlete, I observed it was obviously plagiarized and easily found his source online.

    I was a young academic at a university early in my career. Every year I caught athletes cheating and I was pressured by the university administration to go easy on them. Every. Time. One of the reasons I abandoned my academic career was due to this (well, mostly due to politics, but this played a role too). And at my undergrad Ivy alma mater, the jock fraternities all had (past) test banks for the brothers to prep for tests (most profs were lazy and re-used tests).

    As I wrote, cheating is endemic in academia in this country, so when “Asians” are blamed, it’s throwing rocks from glass houses.

    Given they are usually the most studious and intelligent within a particular school, they have the least need to do so.

    What the limited data hints at is that higher cognitive profile students are more likely to engage in cheating, because competition is more fierce and more is at stake for their careers. Since whites and Asians are highly represented in this cognitive tier, this seems to suggest that cheating is more widespread among them than among the “unmotivated” lower profile groups.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @Twinkie


    Since whites and Asians are highly represented in this cognitive tier, this seems to suggest that cheating is more widespread among them than among the “unmotivated” lower profile groups.
     
    Please capitalize “Whites.”

    Replies: @Twinkie

  179. @Twinkie
    @Pixo


    Cheating rings on the SAT seem to always be asian.
     
    The biggest cheating ring on a state-wide exam at my high school while I was there had Jewish ringleaders.

    When I had to grade a classmate’s paper in a class, a big dopey pothead white athlete, I observed it was obviously plagiarized and easily found his source online.
     
    I was a young academic at a university early in my career. Every year I caught athletes cheating and I was pressured by the university administration to go easy on them. Every. Time. One of the reasons I abandoned my academic career was due to this (well, mostly due to politics, but this played a role too). And at my undergrad Ivy alma mater, the jock fraternities all had (past) test banks for the brothers to prep for tests (most profs were lazy and re-used tests).

    As I wrote, cheating is endemic in academia in this country, so when "Asians" are blamed, it's throwing rocks from glass houses.

    Given they are usually the most studious and intelligent within a particular school, they have the least need to do so.
     
    What the limited data hints at is that higher cognitive profile students are more likely to engage in cheating, because competition is more fierce and more is at stake for their careers. Since whites and Asians are highly represented in this cognitive tier, this seems to suggest that cheating is more widespread among them than among the "unmotivated" lower profile groups.

    Replies: @anonymous

    Since whites and Asians are highly represented in this cognitive tier, this seems to suggest that cheating is more widespread among them than among the “unmotivated” lower profile groups.

    Please capitalize “Whites.”

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @anonymous

    I refuse to capitalize color. So blacks, browns, whites, yellows. Meanwhile, African, Asian, European, Hispanic, Indian, etc.

  180. @PhysicistDave
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Citizen of a Silly Country wrote:


    Of course not, because you don’t believe in a people, even as you acknowledge that various races/ethnicities are really just extended families. Maybe identity politics is about the love and protection of your family – your extended family.
     
    Inclusive-fitness theory (W. D. Hamilton, the selfish gene, and all that) explains why I should care more about my immediate family than random people.

    As J. B. S. Haldane supposedly quipped:

    Would I lay down my life to save my brother? No, but I would to save two brothers or eight cousins.
     
    But by the time you get to the degree of relatedness I share with some random White guy -- let's say in South Carolina, much less Ukraine -- our genetic connection is so attenuated that the random White guy might as well be a Korean.

    The extended-family idea of race just does not work in terms of explaining human behavior.

    (It is of course factually true that races just are populations with slightly higher interbreeding than with out-groups, With emphasis on "slightly" -- interesting for paleo-genetics, not so much for inclusive-fitness theory.)

    The real attachment people feel to their racial or ethnic group is cultural -- it is learned.

    Which is why Catholic and Protestant Irishmen can hate each other's guts, but a lot of us like our friend Twinkie, who seems to be a very good American, whatever his ethnic origin.

    Replies: @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    But by the time you get to the degree of relatedness I share with some random White guy … our genetic connection is so attenuated that the random White guy might as well be a Korean

    Not true.

    The real attachment people feel to their racial or ethnic group is cultural — it is learned.

    No. You must know babies show a preference for their own race.

    Inclusive-fitness theory … explains why I should care more about my immediate family than random people.

    Other members of your tribe aren’t random people. If a white person has a child with a black person, they are less genetically related to that offspring than a “random” person of their own race.

    There is also the issue of collective genetic interests you alluded to. Regardless of anyone’s personal situation, they have an interest in the millions of people of their race.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    Loyalty Over IQ Worship wrote to me:



    [Dave] But by the time you get to the degree of relatedness I share with some random White guy … our genetic connection is so attenuated that the random White guy might as well be a Korean
     
    [LOIW]: Not true.
     
    A rough calculation is not that hard: a random White guy is going to be more than ten links away from me. Shared genetic content -- less than 1 in a thousand.

    I'm afraid that is the truth.

    To go into further technical detail, the Haldane argument is: will a gene tend to survive that causes me to give my life in order to save, say, the lives of six cousins?

    The mathematical answer is "No."

    What about a gene that causes me to give my life to save the lives of a thousand random White guys in North Carolina? The answer is still "No."

    I'm sorry, but that is the actual population genetics.

    LOIW also wrote to me:

    No. You must know babies show a preference for their own race.
     
    Almost certainly they are attracted to people who look like their caregivers.

    It is hard to see how Chinese babies have genes inclining them to be attracted to Chinese people from birth before being exposed to caregivers who are Chinese. Do you have evidence of that?

    Such a gene would have no evolutionary value, since in ancestral environments, Chinese babies were almost never exposed to non-Chinese.

    LOIW also wrote:

    Other members of your tribe aren’t random people. If a white person has a child with a black person, they are less genetically related to that offspring than a “random” person of their own race.
     
    Only slightly. Again, you misunderstand how the calculation in population genetics works. The issue is: will a gene spread itself if it makes you inclined to sacrifice your own interests for the interests of a few people to whom you are very distantly related.

    The answer, mathematically, is "No." A gene that causes you to "cheat" and go for your own interest rather than the interest of say, a hundred people who are a dozen genetic links away from you will win out.

    That is just the result.

    I realize that you do not like that result because you would like people to be loyal to their race.

    Perhaps you have noticed that most Americans are not?

    And there is a mathematical explanation for that fact.

    LOIW also wrote:

    There is also the issue of collective genetic interests you alluded to.

     

    In modern evolutionary theory, that "collective genetic interest' simply does not exist.

    The "selfish gene" and all that. Read the Williams' or Dawkins' books I referenced above.

    LOIW also wrote:

    Regardless of anyone’s personal situation, they have an interest in the millions of people of their race.
     
    As you know, lots and lots of people just don't.

    And there is no genetic force causing them to.

    Of course, some people -- such as you, it seems -- do have such an interest for cultural (or perhaps personal psychological) reasons.

    But it is cultural, not genetic.

    Again, I am just reporting very longstanding results in population genetics. You don't like those results?

    Well, some people really don't like the theory of evolution, or the theory of the Big Bang, or whatever.

    "Eppur si muove."
  181. @Jim Don Bob
    @PhysicistDave

    Agree. I spent 40+ years programming this and that and AI was always (and still is) just around the corner.

    Speech to text on your phone is cool and useful, but it's brute force pattern matching which is not AI.

    Replies: @Justvisiting, @Anonymous

    What makes you think human intelligence isn’t also just brute force pattern matching?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Anonymous


    What makes you think human intelligence isn’t also just brute force pattern matching?
     
    Doesn’t human intelligence rely a great deal on mental short cuts, aka intuition, precisely because our ability to process data rapidly is constrained?
    , @Jim Don Bob
    @Anonymous

    We do not know how we think, which makes it hard to explain the process to a machine.

  182. @PhysicistDave
    @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    China Japan and Korea Bromance etc. wrote to me:


    This time is very different.
     
    Well, that is what they said all the other times, too!

    I've lived through almost all of the history of AI (admittedly, I was a young kid in the early days), and I have seen it oversold again and again and again. I have reason to be a skeptic.

    Same thing for controlled fusion, by the way.

    CJK also wrote:

    The use of logistic regression as a neural network far closer mimics functions of the human brain.
     
    Well, I don't know if it is worth getting into a lengthy technical debate here, but I disagree. The problem is that gradient descent only works id you are on a part of the function where small changes actually make a difference. There is good reason to believe the human brain works differently.

    I doubt that this is the right venue to hash out the details of how the algorithms work: I can only say that I do know those details and I also know something about neuroscience (I tutored my wife, who is a biologist, on part of her neuroscience course -- I know RC circuits!), and I just do not agree that the nitty-gritty of the set points at which the neural nets operate is similar to the human brain.

    To oversimplify, you can change the synaptic behavior of the human brain pretty dramatically (have a few alcoholic drinks!) and it still more or less functions.

    Not so much for the neural nets.

    If you have a paper in English that addresses those specific points (not just that lays out the algorithms -- I already know that in detail), I'll look at it. Otherwise... well, I do know a fair amount about this.

    Probably more important: the human brain has enormously more neurons than the neural nets do.

    Also, those neurons in the brain are combined to make up higher-level structures in a way neuroscientists are just beginning to understand.

    Obviously, no one can yet build neural nets to emulate something the neuroscientists do not themselves understand.

    Based on what I do know about neuroscience, I think that any similarity between neural nets and the brain is, at best, very superficial.

    But, again, show me a paper in English that addresses these specific points, and I'll look at it.

    CJK also wrote:

    With mature implementations like TensorFlow and keras, these models are now easier to learn to use than ever. You don’t actually need to know higher maths like stochastic gradient descent. This is combined with more CS teaching taught on MOOC, and therefore more accessible.
     
    True enough.

    Neural nets can do some cool things.

    But Commander Data of Star Trek is probably not just around the corner.

    Replies: @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    The problem is that gradient descent only works id you are on a part of the function where small changes actually make a difference. There is good reason to believe the human brain works differently.

    Agree and thanks. AlphaGo for example uses MC tree search in addition to neural networks. My contention wasn’t that we are very close to sentient, self-aware AI like Data or Skynet. In the context of John Searle’s Chinese room thought experiment, AI is far from “understanding” Chinese, since it far from even being able to translate denser prose.

    – My immediate concern is that this generation of AI has been shown to equal or best IQ 130+ humans in the most advanced cognitive endeavors requiring both logical reasoning and intuition, i.e. go, competitive programming, protein structure prediction– that will make even more segments of society redundant to the economy, and proliferate deeper in the knowledge economy (finance, tech) that will introduce unknown systemic risk.

    – In quantitative finance there’s a classic problem of the Black-Scholes implied volatility being different across strikes and expiry, there are various approaches to modeling this phenomenon inspired by physics, such as stochastic volatility. These volatility models are fairly mature but require some cognitive ability to calibrate and maintain,

    But now advances have been made for an AI driven approach the problem,

    Deep Hedging
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.03042.pdf

    Deep Hedging: Continuous Reinforcement Learning for Hedging of General Portfolios across Multiple Risk Aversions
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.07467.pdf

    This so that significant component of risk management at systematically important investment banks and asset managers would be driven by neural networks.

    What could possibly go wrong? Given the mishaps related to financial modelling that already took place leading up to 2008.

    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms

    China Japan and Korea Bromance etc. wrote to me:


    My immediate concern is that this generation of AI has been shown to equal or best IQ 130+ humans in the most advanced cognitive endeavors requiring both logical reasoning and intuition, i.e. go, competitive programming, protein structure prediction– that will make even more segments of society redundant to the economy, and proliferate deeper in the knowledge economy (finance, tech) that will introduce unknown systemic risk.
     
    Well... I'm not too worried about making humans obsolescent. As you know, it is surprisingly difficult to program a good plumber! As you imply, the jobs that will tend to become obsolete are those which require moderately bright people following rules or utilizing basic intuition.

    They'll just have to choose between becoming plumbers or becoming actual high-level STEM people.

    As to Black-Scholes, etc., what on earth were they (i.e., LTCM) thinking? They didn't know the difference between an illuminating but grossly simplified academic model and the real world?

    Engineers who think that way build bridges that fall down!

    CJK asked sardonically:

    What could possibly go wrong? Given the mishaps related to financial modelling that already took place leading up to 2008.
     
    Indeed.

    The funny thing is that one of the major themes of scifi robot stories going back to Asimov has been that robots could be logical but not reasonable.

    In my experience, good STEM people understand the limits of their technology. It's the non-STEM people who are overly blind in trusting the tech.
  183. @anonymous
    @Twinkie


    Since whites and Asians are highly represented in this cognitive tier, this seems to suggest that cheating is more widespread among them than among the “unmotivated” lower profile groups.
     
    Please capitalize “Whites.”

    Replies: @Twinkie

    I refuse to capitalize color. So blacks, browns, whites, yellows. Meanwhile, African, Asian, European, Hispanic, Indian, etc.

  184. @Anonymous
    @Jim Don Bob

    What makes you think human intelligence isn't also just brute force pattern matching?

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Jim Don Bob

    What makes you think human intelligence isn’t also just brute force pattern matching?

    Doesn’t human intelligence rely a great deal on mental short cuts, aka intuition, precisely because our ability to process data rapidly is constrained?

  185. I asked a prominent AI to comment on the risk of Woke SkyNet. (The first sentence was my “prompt”, the rest is its own work.)

    https://pastebin.com/GDSHm6md

  186. @PhysicistDave
    @Altai

    Altai asked:


    I wonder if their infatuation with sci-fi is to do with this idea that the machines will come alive. Because that’s what sentience really is, emotional motivation and intelligence. Emotional motivation with low intelligence is something we’d recognise as a living thing but not a sentient one.
     
    Yeah.

    For centuries, people have been trying to explain intelligence and, most importantly, consciousness, using the latest technology of the day as a metaphor: consciousness is like a complicated clockwork, or a hydraulic system, or a telephone switching system, or a digital computer, or whatever.

    None has worked (talk to a good neuroscientist about all those metaphors!).

    Over the centuries, metaphors in science have proven to be of limited value: human beings like metaphors, Mother Nature not so much (to use a metaphor!).

    Altai also asked:

    I really wonder what impact sci-fi and it’s obsession with this style of story (Maybe like Steve’s musing about what film would look like if Germany had become more culturally dominant and his proverbial films about mountains) isn’t necessarily natural but the result of a particular trope that became popular because of it’s use as allegory clouding the perspective or judgement of guys who grew up with it that it’s inevitable.
     
    A lot of us grew up on Asimov's robot stories, Heinleins's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, etc.

    Some people did not understand that they were fiction. And for some, robots seemed so much nicer than actual flesh-and-blood human beings: I mean is any robot as annoying as Corvinus or HA???

    Altai also wrote:

    The threat from AI and machines like them is them accidentally doing something we don’t intend them to or becoming too complex for us to understand and having us become dependent on them not in them malevolently wiping humans out.
     
    True, but learning how to use technology intelligently is less fun than winging out on the Terminator movies!

    Replies: @Moses

    For centuries, people have been trying to explain intelligence and, most importantly, consciousness, using the latest technology of the day as a metaphor: consciousness is like a complicated clockwork, or a hydraulic system, or a telephone switching system, or a digital computer, or whatever.

    In “Minds, Brains & Science” philosopher John Searle crushes this “a human brain is just a computer” idea. He argues that what a computer does is not the same as what a brain does, the same way a simulation of water running downhill is not the same as water actually running downhill.

    Searle argues compellingly that even if a computer passed the Turing test it does not mean it’s sentient. He describes a thought experiment where you are sitting in a sealed room surrounded by Chinese rule books. People pass Chinese notes through slots in the wall. You look at the characters, consult the rule books and compose replies to send back through the slots. Rinse and repeat. Do you understand Chinese? No. You are just following rules. Searle says this is exactly what a computer is doing.

    Whatever a brain is doing is different.

    Does a football QB’s brain execute mathematical calculation (eg angle, power, speed) to arc the ball into the receiver’s hands in a hail mary play? No. But a robot would have to run calculations. Brains are doing something fundamentally different than computers.

    I found his points compelling.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Moses

    Moses wrote to me:


    Searle argues compellingly that even if a computer passed the Turing test it does not mean it’s sentient.
     
    Here is a variant on Searle's Chinese-room argument (a physicist turned neuroscientist named Harry Orbach and I developed this in a discussion four decades ago: it may well have occurred to lots of other people):

    Take a human brain, and, one by one, replace the neurons by electronic components that have the same input-output functions.

    When you have only replaced, say, a half-dozen neurons, presumably the brain will function as before.

    So, is there a point where it stops functioning?

    Suppose, once you have replaced all the neurons by electronics, that the brain still functions as before.

    Now, slow down the clock speed of the electronics very dramatically, say a millionfold.

    The brain will still function, just v-e-r-y __ s-l-o-w-l-y.

    Now comes the key point: one by one replace each electronic neuron by a human doing the Searle thing -- i.e., he looks at the small number of inputs to the electronics and looks up in a (small) code book what output he should send out.

    Keep doing this until all the electronic neurons have been replaced by humans.

    Then, one by one, replace the electronic links between them by simply passing slips of paper.

    You end up with a huge bureaucratic nightmare of paper-shuffling people that functions the same as a human brain (albeit very slowly).

    Or do you?

    I find the conclusion absurd.

    But it is hard to see which link in the argument fails.

    From which I conclude, along with Searle, that we really do not grasp the nature of consciousness.
  187. @China Japan and Korea Bromance of Three Kingdoms
    @PhysicistDave


    The problem is that gradient descent only works id you are on a part of the function where small changes actually make a difference. There is good reason to believe the human brain works differently.
     
    Agree and thanks. AlphaGo for example uses MC tree search in addition to neural networks. My contention wasn't that we are very close to sentient, self-aware AI like Data or Skynet. In the context of John Searle's Chinese room thought experiment, AI is far from "understanding" Chinese, since it far from even being able to translate denser prose.

    - My immediate concern is that this generation of AI has been shown to equal or best IQ 130+ humans in the most advanced cognitive endeavors requiring both logical reasoning and intuition, i.e. go, competitive programming, protein structure prediction-- that will make even more segments of society redundant to the economy, and proliferate deeper in the knowledge economy (finance, tech) that will introduce unknown systemic risk.

    - In quantitative finance there's a classic problem of the Black-Scholes implied volatility being different across strikes and expiry, there are various approaches to modeling this phenomenon inspired by physics, such as stochastic volatility. These volatility models are fairly mature but require some cognitive ability to calibrate and maintain,

    But now advances have been made for an AI driven approach the problem,

    Deep Hedging
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.03042.pdf

    Deep Hedging: Continuous Reinforcement Learning for Hedging of General Portfolios across Multiple Risk Aversions
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.07467.pdf

    This so that significant component of risk management at systematically important investment banks and asset managers would be driven by neural networks.

    What could possibly go wrong? Given the mishaps related to financial modelling that already took place leading up to 2008.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    China Japan and Korea Bromance etc. wrote to me:

    My immediate concern is that this generation of AI has been shown to equal or best IQ 130+ humans in the most advanced cognitive endeavors requiring both logical reasoning and intuition, i.e. go, competitive programming, protein structure prediction– that will make even more segments of society redundant to the economy, and proliferate deeper in the knowledge economy (finance, tech) that will introduce unknown systemic risk.

    Well… I’m not too worried about making humans obsolescent. As you know, it is surprisingly difficult to program a good plumber! As you imply, the jobs that will tend to become obsolete are those which require moderately bright people following rules or utilizing basic intuition.

    They’ll just have to choose between becoming plumbers or becoming actual high-level STEM people.

    As to Black-Scholes, etc., what on earth were they (i.e., LTCM) thinking? They didn’t know the difference between an illuminating but grossly simplified academic model and the real world?

    Engineers who think that way build bridges that fall down!

    CJK asked sardonically:

    What could possibly go wrong? Given the mishaps related to financial modelling that already took place leading up to 2008.

    Indeed.

    The funny thing is that one of the major themes of scifi robot stories going back to Asimov has been that robots could be logical but not reasonable.

    In my experience, good STEM people understand the limits of their technology. It’s the non-STEM people who are overly blind in trusting the tech.

  188. @Moses
    @PhysicistDave


    For centuries, people have been trying to explain intelligence and, most importantly, consciousness, using the latest technology of the day as a metaphor: consciousness is like a complicated clockwork, or a hydraulic system, or a telephone switching system, or a digital computer, or whatever.
     
    In “Minds, Brains & Science” philosopher John Searle crushes this “a human brain is just a computer” idea. He argues that what a computer does is not the same as what a brain does, the same way a simulation of water running downhill is not the same as water actually running downhill.

    Searle argues compellingly that even if a computer passed the Turing test it does not mean it’s sentient. He describes a thought experiment where you are sitting in a sealed room surrounded by Chinese rule books. People pass Chinese notes through slots in the wall. You look at the characters, consult the rule books and compose replies to send back through the slots. Rinse and repeat. Do you understand Chinese? No. You are just following rules. Searle says this is exactly what a computer is doing.

    Whatever a brain is doing is different.

    Does a football QB’s brain execute mathematical calculation (eg angle, power, speed) to arc the ball into the receiver’s hands in a hail mary play? No. But a robot would have to run calculations. Brains are doing something fundamentally different than computers.

    I found his points compelling.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Moses wrote to me:

    Searle argues compellingly that even if a computer passed the Turing test it does not mean it’s sentient.

    Here is a variant on Searle’s Chinese-room argument (a physicist turned neuroscientist named Harry Orbach and I developed this in a discussion four decades ago: it may well have occurred to lots of other people):

    Take a human brain, and, one by one, replace the neurons by electronic components that have the same input-output functions.

    When you have only replaced, say, a half-dozen neurons, presumably the brain will function as before.

    So, is there a point where it stops functioning?

    Suppose, once you have replaced all the neurons by electronics, that the brain still functions as before.

    Now, slow down the clock speed of the electronics very dramatically, say a millionfold.

    The brain will still function, just v-e-r-y __ s-l-o-w-l-y.

    Now comes the key point: one by one replace each electronic neuron by a human doing the Searle thing — i.e., he looks at the small number of inputs to the electronics and looks up in a (small) code book what output he should send out.

    Keep doing this until all the electronic neurons have been replaced by humans.

    Then, one by one, replace the electronic links between them by simply passing slips of paper.

    You end up with a huge bureaucratic nightmare of paper-shuffling people that functions the same as a human brain (albeit very slowly).

    Or do you?

    I find the conclusion absurd.

    But it is hard to see which link in the argument fails.

    From which I conclude, along with Searle, that we really do not grasp the nature of consciousness.

  189. @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
    @PhysicistDave


    But by the time you get to the degree of relatedness I share with some random White guy ... our genetic connection is so attenuated that the random White guy might as well be a Korean
     
    Not true.

    The real attachment people feel to their racial or ethnic group is cultural — it is learned.
     
    No. You must know babies show a preference for their own race.

    Inclusive-fitness theory ... explains why I should care more about my immediate family than random people.
     
    Other members of your tribe aren't random people. If a white person has a child with a black person, they are less genetically related to that offspring than a "random" person of their own race.

    There is also the issue of collective genetic interests you alluded to. Regardless of anyone's personal situation, they have an interest in the millions of people of their race.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Loyalty Over IQ Worship wrote to me:

    [Dave] But by the time you get to the degree of relatedness I share with some random White guy … our genetic connection is so attenuated that the random White guy might as well be a Korean

    [LOIW]: Not true.

    A rough calculation is not that hard: a random White guy is going to be more than ten links away from me. Shared genetic content — less than 1 in a thousand.

    I’m afraid that is the truth.

    To go into further technical detail, the Haldane argument is: will a gene tend to survive that causes me to give my life in order to save, say, the lives of six cousins?

    The mathematical answer is “No.”

    What about a gene that causes me to give my life to save the lives of a thousand random White guys in North Carolina? The answer is still “No.”

    I’m sorry, but that is the actual population genetics.

    LOIW also wrote to me:

    No. You must know babies show a preference for their own race.

    Almost certainly they are attracted to people who look like their caregivers.

    It is hard to see how Chinese babies have genes inclining them to be attracted to Chinese people from birth before being exposed to caregivers who are Chinese. Do you have evidence of that?

    Such a gene would have no evolutionary value, since in ancestral environments, Chinese babies were almost never exposed to non-Chinese.

    LOIW also wrote:

    Other members of your tribe aren’t random people. If a white person has a child with a black person, they are less genetically related to that offspring than a “random” person of their own race.

    Only slightly. Again, you misunderstand how the calculation in population genetics works. The issue is: will a gene spread itself if it makes you inclined to sacrifice your own interests for the interests of a few people to whom you are very distantly related.

    The answer, mathematically, is “No.” A gene that causes you to “cheat” and go for your own interest rather than the interest of say, a hundred people who are a dozen genetic links away from you will win out.

    That is just the result.

    I realize that you do not like that result because you would like people to be loyal to their race.

    Perhaps you have noticed that most Americans are not?

    And there is a mathematical explanation for that fact.

    LOIW also wrote:

    There is also the issue of collective genetic interests you alluded to.

    In modern evolutionary theory, that “collective genetic interest’ simply does not exist.

    The “selfish gene” and all that. Read the Williams’ or Dawkins’ books I referenced above.

    LOIW also wrote:

    Regardless of anyone’s personal situation, they have an interest in the millions of people of their race.

    As you know, lots and lots of people just don’t.

    And there is no genetic force causing them to.

    Of course, some people — such as you, it seems — do have such an interest for cultural (or perhaps personal psychological) reasons.

    But it is cultural, not genetic.

    Again, I am just reporting very longstanding results in population genetics. You don’t like those results?

    Well, some people really don’t like the theory of evolution, or the theory of the Big Bang, or whatever.

    “Eppur si muove.”

    • Disagree: Loyalty Over IQ Worship
  190. @Anonymous
    @Jim Don Bob

    What makes you think human intelligence isn't also just brute force pattern matching?

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Jim Don Bob

    We do not know how we think, which makes it hard to explain the process to a machine.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS