he appears to have started like this - i hear he was like this at uni too

so remember his tip jar story? no, it turns out

nah it’s good, you should read it

author here - there is of course a good chance Disney will want to squash them like a bug.

you lucky

Baldur Bjarnason (who hates AI slop) has posited precisely this:

My current theory is that the main difference between open source and closed source when it comes to the adoption of “AI” tools is that open source projects generally have to ship working code, whereas closed source only needs to ship code that runs.

I asked Github Copilot and it added import wreak to .NET, so we’ll get back to you.

ahem Little Big

Egan already told Hanson to fuck off in a previous story, Zendegi:

“My IQ is one hundred and sixty … You can always reach me through my blog, Overpowering Falsehood dot com, the number one site for rational thinking about the future —”

I think that LW post is the example I remember, Veedrac insisting that mathematics holds even in the face of a “sufficiently intelligent” AGI

tho i think there was also discussion on rat-tumblr

i’m not digging for cites, but i recall it was extremely hard to convince rationalists that even the ASI couldn’t just break cryptography, because they don’t understand maths either

also, she follows Crémieux

jfc a milkshake duck clown car

the post comments are also peak rationalist

Critical support to dynomight in these difficult times against Lumina Probiotic toothpaste salesperson

I finished and realised Yudkowsky was the good guy in my story here. Because the other guy is fuckin’ Sam.

this is notes, not a thesis, i have the links to hand

What the fuck is wrong with you?

the blog tagline is “Dysgenics, forecasting, machine learning, sociology, physiognomy, IQ, simulations”, so he tells us straight up what’s wrong with him

wot i got so far:

Current “artificial general intelligence” researchers have a repeated habit of using a definition of “intelligence” from psychologist and ardent race scientist Linda Gottfredson. The definition looks innocuous, but was from Gottfredson’s 1994 Wall Street Journal op-ed, “Mainstream Science on Intelligence,” a farrago of race science put forward as a defense of Charles Murray’s book The Bell Curve — signed off by 52 other race scientists, 20 of whom were from the Pioneer Fund.

Gottfredson’s piece was cited in Shane Legg’s Ph.D dissertation “Machine Super Intelligence,” in which he called it “an especially interesting definition as it was given as part of a group statement signed by 52 experts in the field” and that it therefore represented “a mainstream perspective” — an odd way to refer to Pioneer Fund race scientists. Somehow, this passed Legg’s dissertation committee.

The definition made it from Legg’s Ph.D into Microsoft and OpenAI’s “Sparks of AGI” paper, and from there to everyone else who copies citations to fill out their bibliography. When called out on this, Microsoft did finally remove the citation.

I have a half written text about working definitions of intelligence in the AI field and whoops, it’s all racism!

Wired: The Delirious, Violent, Impossible True Story of the Zizians (archive)

Evan Ratliff has apparently been tracking the Ziz cult since 2022 and when it blew up into mainstream news, he was ready

Superbabies is a backup plan; focus the energy of humanity’s collective genetic endowment into a single generation, and have THAT generation to solve problems like “figure out how to control digital superintelligence

The academic institutions in charge of exploring these ideas are deeply compromised by insane ideologies. And the big commercial entities are too timid to do anything truly novel; once they discovered they had a technology that could potentially make a few tens of billions treating single gene genetic disorders, no one wanted to take any risks; better to take the easy, guaranteed money and spend your life on a lucrative endeavor improving the lives of 0.5% of the population than go for a hail mary project that will result in journalists writing lots of articles calling you a eugenicist.

oh no, not a eugenicist!