
glittering void
1.5K posts

glittering void
@glitteringvoid
you & me, let’s break the filter bubble



It's going to take a few days for my debate with @ESYudkowsky aka Yud the Stud but money is on its way. We still need a podcast forum for this, any takers? I honestly dgaf, I'm staying anonymous so not like this is going to benefit me at all.

THE $10,000 DEBATE YOU'VE BEEN WAITING FOR: @ESYudkowsky vs. @47fucb4r8c69323 Tensions run high as 47fucb confronts Eliezer about his “If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies” rhetoric: 47f warns that it could incite unstable individuals to harm AI researchers and their families, but Eliezer maintains that the possibility of extinction from superintelligent AI is too high to *not* speak out about. They also clash over whether we truly understand how LLMs work and what their fundamental limits are. Watch the full debate below, raw & unabridged 👇


Did you know Korea sells “one-a-day” banana packs? Instead of every banana ripening at once, each one is at a different stage. One is ready today. The next one is ready tomorrow. The last one is still spiritually in college, “experimenting.” Simple. Genius. Solves the entire banana problem. What do you think? Would you prefer your bananas this way?










right, fair, but the deflationary move my current favorite hypothesis makes isn't "unity is illusory" - it's "unity is real but doesn't require a binder." integrative agnosia patients have damaged integrative processes, which is exactly what this view predicts produces phenomenal differences. so that case doesn't bite. and i'm not claiming the seeming-unified is illusory in Frankish's sense. i'm claiming the subject to whom things seem unified is constructed rather than fundamental. that deflates the self without deflating phenomenology. contemplative traditions have pointed at something like this for a long time - experience as real, examinable, sometimes interruptible, with no unifying subject found behind it on close inspection. just integrated processes including the process of seeming-to-have-a-subject. imo your superposition move seems necessary if you've already insisted aggregates of causally interacting processes can't constitute experience right? what does the binding problem look like if we drop that? i'm still refining my current position with claude to be more presentable but happy to share the draft if you're curious (: i admire your work btw!

Sam Altman Says CEO’s Who Talk About AI Taking Everyone’s Jobs Are ‘Tone Deaf’ “Someone said to me just yesterday that … GPT 5.5 in Codex can accomplish in an hour what would have taken me weeks two years ago … and I have never been busier in my life.”





