I don't share your confidence, there.
I have so successfully scared the hell out of myself, going into the alignment problem and control problem with AI, and all I have to say right now is "why are we trying to develop AGI, again?"
Yeah. I think there's a lot of curiosity to learn more.
Yep. Math is math. But our brains and behavior are analog. Social incentives are a critical part of the story.
Yes. I do think that. I also think that understanding often comes from one singular school of thought, though -- the Austrian School, which I argue forms an incomplete view on the subject.
I agree that lighthearted memes for pure comedy valuable are harmless and fun.
My talk at Nostrica about the history of twitter and social media protocols from tcp/ip through nostr was well received.
Here’s the video extracted out of the live feed so folks can watch the talk.
https://video.bunnycdn.com/play/107596/a126b554-551f-42dc-a992-0b515883e479
It was an amazing talk!
Do they make people think and go deeper, though? I guess that's what I am doubting.
Yes. The Stanford work is very important here, I think.
I am always curious to hear well-articulated arguments from those who disagree with me. I think surrounding yourself with unchecked agreement, is a form of unconsciousness.
I'm not sure the underlying dynamics are unrelated!
I did not notice, unfortunately. The general increase in toxicity from a bunch of people, became pretty distracting.
Less anger and abuse would be nice, too.
My point is not about internet memes in the abstract. It's about the behavior that feeds in and around their usage, and how I think negative aspects of human nature are being amplified.
Even if I accept the epistemic point you're making here, I remain confused as to how it's relevant to the point I'm making, here.
I am capable of acknowledging ghat people I strongly disagree with can be intelligent and knowledgeable, yes. I am not a defender of Peterson's politics. In fact, I'm highly critical of them.
If I'm following your point correctly, you seem to be trying to make the point that all forms of communication are normatively neutral. If I'm correct in interpreting your argument here, then I'd suggest I'm on Marshall McLuhan's side on this, and strongly disagree.
This is really weird line of argument you're going down. I don't think anyone ever talks in pure facts. Ever. I think literally everything we say is an opinion.
So what you're really trying to do here is argue with me on the basis of some incredulity, which is really just as hominem.