My main thought reading through this whole thing was like, "okay, in a world where the rationalists weren't closely tied to the neoreactionaries, and the effective altruists weren't known by the public mostly for whitewashing the image of a guy who stole a bunch of people's money, and libertarians and right-wingers were supported by the mainstream consensus, I guess David Gerard would be pretty bad for saying those things about them. Buuuut..."

I think they were responding to the implication in self's original comment that LLMs were claiming to evaluate code in-model and that calling out to an external python evaluator is 'cheating.' But actually as far as I know it is pretty common for them to evaluate code using an external interpreter. So I think the response was warranted here.

That said, that fact honestly makes this vulnerability even funnier because it means they are basically just letting the user dump whatever code they want into eval() as long as it's laundered by the LLM first, which is like a high-school level mistake.

They need the rationalist musical cannons for the upcoming performance of the Rationalist 1812 Overture

If twitter did get put on the blockchain after Elon bought it, it really would be "X on blockchain"... ba dum tshh

"You’ll also soon be able to test multimodal Meta AI on our Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses."

Now this is interesting. I've been thinking for some time now that traditional computer/smartphone interfaces are on the way out for all but a few niche applications.

Instead, everyone will have their own AI assistant, which you'll interact with naturally the same way as you interact with other people. Need something visual? Just ask for the latest stock graph for MSFT for example.

God, I hope not. Maybe it's just me, but this sounds insanely annoying? It kind of reminds me of the objection I've seen to the metaverse, where it's actually a more inefficient way to do stuff, so it doesn't make sense to imagine it replacing the text-based internet.

Like, I'm not even a fan of smartphones these days, but surely in a world where you could only access information via yelling at your smart glasses, the invention people would be crying out for would be a way to use it silently with your hands, with a screen you could use to easily show it to other people...?

"This technology is coming whether we like it or not, so we're going to make sure that we get it right," Adams said in a statement.

??? Who is "we" here. Is the technology going to be developed by aliens who beam it down to earth? Is a rogue AI developing self-driving cars for the purposes of annoying humanity into submission? Are they springing forth from the head of Zeus?

Seriously, can we go back to the days when tech boosters at least pretended technology was being developed by people to improve other people's lives? Now it seems like they just go "sucks to suck, idiots! this is the future now, get with it, grandpa!" and skateboard away into the sunset leaving everyone else to clean up their mess...

He should've stuck with it

I love this unhinged Yudkowsky quote buried in here:

This is a filter affecting your evidence; it has not to my own knowledge filtered out a giant valid counterargument that invalidates this whole post. I would have kept silent in that case, for to speak then would have been dishonest.

Personally, I'm used to operating without the cognitive support of a civilization in controversial domains, and have some confidence in my own ability to independently invent everything important that would be on the other side of the filter and check it myself before speaking. So you know, from having read this, that I checked all the speakable and unspeakable arguments I had thought of, and concluded that this speakable argument would be good on net to publish[...]

Zack is actually correct that this is a pretty wild thing to say... "Rest assured that I considered all possible counterarguments against my position which I was able to generate with my mega super brain. No, I haven't actually looked at the arguments against my position, but I'm confident in my ability to think of everything that people who disagree with me would say."

It so happens that Yudkowsky is on the 'right side' politically in this particular case, but man, this is real sloppy for someone who claims to be on the side of capital-T truth.

The problem is... well, Zack correctly recognizes Yudkowsky is maybe not as world-changingly smart as he presents himself, and may be engaging in motivated reasoning rather than disinterested truth-seeking, but then his solution (a) doesn't involve questioning his belief in the rest of the robot apocalypse mythos, and (b) does involve running crying directly into the arms of Moldbug and a bunch of TERFs, which like, dude. Maybe consider critically interrogating those people's arguments too??

each of us has a strong ethical obligation to live so as to alleviate the suffering of those less fortunate than ourselves

Sounds like he did a bad job at living up to those principles then, huh?

Also is it just me or is this not actually a very good description of utilitarian beliefs lol

And who doesn’t want to be younger for longer?

Oh, of course it's about this. Is it ever not about this with Thiel?

why are the comments on this post such a disaster. who are these people

couple things:

1. in the article it turns out he isn't even actually generating the images, he just created 187 AI images and it rotates through them
2. one of the most insane things about our society right now has to be that someone can come out and say "the goal is to create the most addicting thing" and expect praise for it :/
3. a woman made a version with men, "FriendOrFoeAI", and the twitter replies (and her replies to them) are amazing

Would you still find it in bad taste if it asked "Do you find her attractive? Yes/No" to fine tune mating preferences rather than the crude "Smash or Pass"?