Reading about the hubris of young Yud is a bit sad, a proper Tragedy. Then I have to remind myself that he remains a manipulator, and that he should be old enough to stop believe—and promote—in magical thinking.

The 100% mathematical PROVABLY_CORRECT proof of existence of the supernatural is at least funny.

It fails to prove dualism, which it then calls the supernatural for no adequately explained reason:

There is nothing new under the sun. Nothing a 3-lb-brain hominid does is impressive. Everyone dies and leaves behind nothing. If no God exists, all is infinitely meaningless. Fortunately, we can prove with mathematical certainty that the supernatural exists:

Would a 5-lb-brain hominid bring new things under the sun ? How about a 15-ton-brain corvid ? How about an acausal robot god wrought from all the ditherings found across the net ? If it is still so why are you so concerned with phrenology ?

1. You cannot be deceived that you are conscious.

So far so good, not too contentious, you need consciousness to be deceived, though I will note that it doesn’t prove consciousness, only use definitions tautologically.

2. Consciousness, in itself, contains only that which you aware of.

No ? Not necessarily, that’s overly egocentric. What about the Id ? What about collective consciousness ?

3. Consciousness is composed of perceptions and a perceiver.

A bit contentious, and not a very rigorous definition.

4. Perceptions are not composed of material things. Red is not a spectrum of light, nor a retinal activation, nor an optical nerve signal, nor a biochemical process in your brain: it is only the experience the perceiver calls “red”.

Qualia != Perceptions, but this is not the worst sin in this “proof”.

5. The perceiver is not composed of material things. Neither quarks, nor atoms, nor molecules, nor cells, nor organs of the brain, nor the brain > itself experiences red. Associated processes happen, but only the perceiver experience red. To say that a material object “perceives” anything is a category error.

Does a perceiver without a body even exist ? I’m not really a monist myself, but this is clearly a leap.

6. Therefore, your consciousness undeniably exists, but it is not material.

Again does it exist untethered from the material ?

7. That which exists, yet is not material, is supernatural.

Hum no ? At best preternatural, and even then if you think the natural world follows Dualism, then the spiritual is still natural. I mean yes this arguing about definitions, but by god is this silly.

8. The supernatural exists.

QED.

And those shadows are just as sentient as we are, even if they don’t depict the world, they convey a perception of a hypothetical world in which they are accurate!

Trying to grapple with the meaning consciousness through input/output is so close to being philosophical zombies type interesting, and yet so far and vacuous in what he actually says, that could apply to dice picking which color the sky is today. Also pretty hilarious that we would choose being WRONG, as a baseline (because LLM’s are so bad) for outrospection, instead using the more natural cooperative nature of language. (Which machines fail at, which is maybe also why)

It’s “fun” to see them fail to grasp that a journalist (or outsider) doesn’t need to have read all their blogposts, and that “who talks to who” is basic journalism.

If only you read those glorious posts you would be enlightened, and if you somehow still disagree then you are either a liar, an NPC, or have not read them carefully enough, which I can prove by using shibboleths on our communities accepted doctrine.

It always boggles the mind when people fail to grasps others as being real.

A key difference is that animals exists here and now, and I think most humans would viscerally understand animal shouts of pain as requests for help/food/space etc…

The quote is less about the unborn, and more about the real and ignored needs of disenfranchised people.

Help your fellow humans first and foremost, (which I would argue is well served by treating animals well, for sanitary, eco-system, or even selfish mental well-being by not having our souls marred by brutality)

Actual beings with needs: humans, animals > the unborn >>>>>> unrealistic hypothetical humans.

It rings very true,

The [un]simulated, with the extra icky purpose of presenting of veneer of ethics to back any an all arguments under the sun, to pour money into the latest fad that tickles a billionaire’s fancy.

You can’t quite (yet) do that with pro-life advocacy.

E/Acc where Might makes Right, is the not at all repulsive and most ontologically sound source for ethics! Not at all burting at the seems with perverted eugenics, it’s not morally dubious if none of your enemies survive to criticise you!

What’s the reward function for simulating me, I live a pretty dull life, what possible ROI this goes against all laws of economics 101! (The only true way to carve reality at the joints.)

LLM’s aren’t nearly random enough to ever produce the entire works of Shakespeare, no matter how much infinite time you give them (though I’m sure they are capable of abominable stitchings of regurgitated quotes/snippets).

It’s always baffling when people (who’ve given it adequate thought) take library of babel type of things seriously, while ignoring the overwhelming amount of nonsense, that would be hard to separate unless all you looking for is an exact echo of your query.

I was really puzzled by it until I realized it’s supposed to be the “stop” button. ▶️⏸️⏹️

Now I am cringing at someone who would deliberately choose being so obtuse and cryptic.

Yud “It’s just a joke bro”: The lack of punctuation makes it an obvious joke! Let me spend the rest of this thread defending the divine truth of this joke to the bitter end.

The saddest thing is that transparency is sort of good advice, but his twisted soul sees others as tools rather than people, I guess in his case transparency lets people know to stay clear.

Presumably this ought to quicken to death of Twitter, so it’s not necessarily ALL bad news. In the meantime there is always copy paste, it’s not perfect receipts, but it’s sufficient for most sneering purposes.

EDIT: It is a bit nuts considering the number of Official Agencies world wide that issue press releases on twitter, and not really anywhere else convenient to access by the general public (Although that is also them displaying questionnable practices.)

To name only but a few.

No empire was ever born before 600 BCE (no no, the egyptians don’t count), and no clear works of fiction, intended mostly to be dessiminated thorugh text ever existed before the 11th Century (You can dismiss anything prior as mere works of philosophy, poetry or mythology)

Vigorous mask-dropping very early on in the post:

The term “eugenics” has absorbed so much baggage over the last century that it somehow refers both to swiping right on Tinder when you see an attractive person and to the holocaust.

Not all dating is done with reproduction in mind. What are members of the opposite, or indeed same gender: baby synthesis apparatus? Unless you go out of your way in selecting blue eyed, blond haired people, restricting the definition of beautiful to these people, and restricting the teleology of tinder to the begetting progeny, how is it even remotely eugenics?

EDIT: Uncharacteristically for LW the post, was very short short, “very early” is actually about midway in a proposal of little substance, also choosing attractive partners doesn’t guarantee ensure children anyway (unless using very specific definitions of beauty).

One of the more disturbing things that happened at work when using MS Word, was the automatic addition of alt-text images. I didn’t ask for that, I didn’t click any “Please send my images to the cloud, possibly leaking sensitve material, so inference can be run there, to add potentially unhelpful descriptions”

Is document editing really a task that benefits from AI?

An example of unhelpfulness:

I’m torn between at almost praising meek half-assed attempt at accessibility, and shrieking to the heavens about this unweclome shoe-horned addition.

Something something Poe’s law, something something. Honestly some of the shit i’ve read should have been satire, but noooooo.

Almost always sneerious Yud.

Ah, but each additional sentence strikes home the point of absurd over-abundance!

Quite poetically, the sin of verbosity is commited to create the illusion of considered thought and intelligence, in the case of hpmor literally by stacking books.

Amusingly him describing his attempt as “striking words out” rather than “rewording” or “distilling”, i think illustrates his lack of editing ability.

Possible countermeasure: Insist on “crediting” the LLM as the commit author, to regain sanity when doing git blame.

I agree that worse doc is a bad enough future, though I remain optimistic that including LLM in compile step is never going to be mainstream enough (or anything approaching stable enough, beyond some dumb useless smoke and mirrors) for me to have to deal with THAT.