found on reddit. posted without further comment

I did not know about this (though I am not surprised): many of those threads mention a particular fruit-based website or forum dedicated to doxxing, harassing, or marring the reputation of people they don't like. While I won't speculate as to the involvement of that site with this situation, it's just another shitty thing that exists that I now know about.l

When it comes to robocontent, I ironically react like a robot from westworld. I look at it, but it doesn't look like anything to me. It has no meaning. It's just noise, a page of static.

I suspect robocontent fetishists look at all art as static. They don't understand that there is intention behind art. They are fundamentally incompatible with human experience. They are disconnected and insensitive to the creative world, and that's just sad.

Filing this away in my “Mao was right, let’s ‘abolish’ the landlords” folder

Despite the lack of evidence, this idea is gaining traction in scientific circles as well as in the entertainment industry.

lol

Folks, huge W today. I was hanging out with my parents today and my mother was scrolling her feed, commenting out loud about everything she saw when she came across some autoplag content. “This is fake!” she said, and I could not be prouder. Not just because she IDed the slop, but because it meant she at least has a better brain than my trumper family members that habitually repost trumper slop.

Cherry on top: she showed me a text chain where she was trolling a “my phone died, this is my new number” scammer.

BRB making a video for a cold fusion based kickstarter. I smell money

I have decided to fossick in this particular guano mine. Let’s see here… “10 Cruxes of Artificial Sentience.” Hmm, could this be 10 necessary criteria that must be satisfied for something “Artificial” to have “Sentience?” Let’s find out!

I have thought a decent amount about the hard problem of consciousness

Wow! And I’m sure we’re about to hear about how this one has solved it.

Ok let’s gloss over these ten cruxes… hmm. Ok so they aren’t criteria for determining sentience, just ten concerns this guy has come up with in the event that AI achieves sentience. Crux-ness indeterminate, but unlikely to be cruxes, based on my bias that EA people don't word good.

1. If a focus on artificial welfare detracts from alignment enough … [it would be] highly net negative… this [could open] up an avenue for slowing down AI

Ah yes, the urge to align AI vs. the urge to appease our AI overlords. We’ve all been there, buddy.

2. Artificial welfare could be the most important cause and may be something like animal welfare multiplied by longtermism

I’ve always thought that if you take the tensor product of PETA and the entire transcript of the sequences, you get EA.

most or… all future minds may be artificial… If they are not sentient this would be a catastrophe

Lol no. We wouldn’t need to care.

If they are sentient and … suffering … this would be a suffering catastrophe

lol

If they are sentient and prioritize their own happiness and wellbeing this could actually quite good

also lol

maybe TBC, there's 8 more "cruxes"

The problem with this type of criticism is that for the most part it’s usually pretty lazy. If you just want to make people laugh, there’s no need to be charitable or high-effort. The average r/sneerclub post consisted of finding something seemingly absurd or offensive said by a rationalist and then mocking it. The resulting threads are obviously biased and not epistemically rigorous. Like, Wytham abbey was technically a manor house, but “EA gets a castle” is objectively a funnier meme. There are sometimes good arguments in there (I think my old sneerclub posts weren’t terrible), but they’re not the point of the community, and you shouldn’t expect them to be common.

@titotal@awful.systems hey I spend whole minutes crafting sneers, how dare ya call me lazy!

rationalist musical cannon

Aw man, who let them tech up to musical cannons? Now I need theatrical cavalry

For those that don’t want to look it up and are ok with a potentially incomplete version:

Apparently it’s when someone (in PUA context, a woman) says, does, or demands something disingenuously to see how you react to it. My guess is that there are PUA doctrines about how to react and detect this sort of thing.

As is a PUA framed thing, it’s probably a way for someone to dismiss any boundary setting behaviour as gaslighting, which is ofc fucked.

It's gotta be a rule that nothing earns you more clout with internet weirdos than defending pedophiles/ephlehebbleleoflphiles