Fun to see gwern in there presumably telling a fib. I wonder what really happened when Metz “ghosted” him? I particularly enjoyed, this time, watching whatever uppers he’s on these days kick in (or wear off?) about halfway through writing the footnote he added to that comment.
YouKnowWhoTheFuckIAM
joined 1 year ago
Unbelievable kill shot, how the fuck did Davis leave it on this? Some secret agenda to hand Metz a fuckin’ victory wreath? Does he think this makes Metz look bad?
CM: What his argument to me was is that it violated the ethics of his profession. But that's his issue, not mine, right? He chose to be a super-popular blogger and to have this influence as a psychiatrist. His name—when I sat down to figure out his name, it took me less than five minutes. It's just obvious what his name is. The New York Times ceases to serve its purpose if we're leaving out stuff that's obvious. That's just how we have to operate. Our aim—and again, the irony is that your aim is similar—is to tell people the truth, and have them understand it. If we start holding stuff back, then that quickly falls apart.
I get that out front Davis’s whole thing is total transparency, but if that’s really all that’s going on here, how did it not end on something utterly banal? How is this orbital homerun the end of the conversation?
Wait. Why the fuck is that weirdo talking to Cade Metz? What the hell is going on here!?!
You have to remember that this guy was 12 at the time
Wait, let me get this straight. His solution to achieve human escape velocity, which means “outpac[ing] AI’s influence and maintain human autonomy” (his words, not mine) is to increase AI’s influence and remove human autonomy?
Well how do YOU plan on shilling for the tech industry by scaring people up about LLMs?
Rage bait? My child, I am an anthropologist
THEY HAVE A THREAD ON HIP HOP!?> LINDA HOLD MY GODDAMN CLALS
The way tha “cuck” has been elevated to a genuine category in their armchair social science is such a warm breeze of insanity whenever I come across it
I like to picture it as somebody with a polymathic understanding of how to commit a variety of financial crimes crossing jurisdictional boundaries
You know I wanted to come up with a joke but I don’t think that term is even grammatically correct nonsense, even to do the joke I wanted you’d have to figure out how someone can be a polymath of jurisdictions and then riff on how that’s nonsense
Oh I get it, they mean accounting fraud
Well look what happened to the last one of these who tried to paint watercolours
Hey I think some of these are pretty good ideas
https://archive.org/details/2917616.0001.001.umich.edu/page/3/mode/1up