Bayesian Filter

@butletmejustsay Good stuff

Dumb person: 48% of people were correct Smart person: 36% of people were correct Me a genius: 46% of people answered correctly

@dead_baseball This isn’t even in the realm of opinion. There’s zero chance that more than half will hit blue, so pressing it is just killing yourself.

The debates over this are interesting. Some people are adamant in "why would you ever press blue?!?!" and some are adamant "why would you ever press red?!?!" Whatever bucket someone falls into I think says a lot about their thought process and their opinion of other humans.

@ArtemisConsort The more obvious problem is that it isn’t murder

The problem with social murder as a concept, if it isn’t obvious, is that people are going to disagree on policy, and ~any policy deployed at the scale of a nation will have a plausible body count. So it turns every policy dispute into a crime and tacitly justifies “self-defense”

@sflorimm Fluffer

Is there a job that will never be replaced by AI?

@GreeneMan6 Not millennials, boomers.

George Carlin one-shot an entire generation of Millennial men.

@VitoComedy Children aren’t supposed to be on TikTok

I think anyone annoyed or offended by this guy is mentally weak. It's content for children on TikTok. Being upset with a silly video of a guy eating food is like being upset with Big Bird.

@BlackDumpling “Very easy to answer” > writes 50,000 words

This question is actually very easy to answer. Let's say you had a bad day once, back in 2016, some random Tuesday. Worst day of your life. However, the day after you won a trillion dollars, met the love of your life, your lost puppy came home, and you finally beat Contra without the Konami code. Best day ever, and every day after that was just as amazing. Years of awesomeness. But you still remembered that bad day, that hard day, helped to keep things in perspective. Helped keep you thankful for how great things were now. If you believe in an eternal soul you believe in eternal self awareness or at least something dimly like it. On the grand scale of things, here on Earth, whether you live a day, a decade, or a century it's functionally the same where eternity is concerned. And whether that century was one of endless grief, or endless joy, in the face of Eternal Heaven it's also functionally the same. Comparatively speaking, it's a rounding error, just an important one that serves as a reminder of how much more valuable what you have now (in eternity) actually is. Think on it, in the face of a hundred trillion trillion years of joy a century of sorrow isn't even a fraction of a blip of a rounding error. Just a faint yet important memory. This isn't to say that one shouldn't fight evil, or be indifferent to suffering. It still hurts right now and that's not *good*.. but that's measuring it by your few years experience. Once you've lived in eternal bliss for.. well, eternity, it'll seem like a much much smaller thing. So if evil and suffering were not allowed *what would the point be*. I mean that's just Heaven. This place is meant to serve as a contrast to Heaven, which in it's own way, seemingly only makes Heaven better because you are at least aware of how bad it is not to *be* in Heaven. Make sense? "But why wouldn't God just make beings that intuitively understood the beauty of Heaven"? He did. Those are called angels. However, you're something different and so your experience is something different.

@AniseNot Red. I’m useless to my surviving children if I’m dead.

Ok but this test is announced suddenly. Everyone on Earth must take it immediately, including all children from 3yrs old on up You are not with your children & cannot speak to them before the test is administered Now what do you pick?

@hradzka It’s not “the right thing,” though. It’s just dumb and unnecessary. Why do we have to revisit this topic every few years? It’s stupid.

There two questions here: one is “do you care about strangers enough to do the right thing for them?” to which, for a lot of people, the answer is “sure, I guess” and the other is “do you also trust strangers to do the right thing by you?” which, for a lot of people, is “um”

@davepl1968 Why is everyone pretending this is interesting? It’s very uninteresting.

I think this is an example of a Nash equillibrium. Everyone pressing red is the equilibrium. If rational people realize this, nearly everyone (or everyone) will press red. Then: It's effectively 100% red → no majority blue → only reds survive. Result: Everyone lives, with zero risk. Vote Quimby!

@HistoryBoomer @JensHeycke The key word here is rural

@JensHeycke I've often seen these stands (although they have a hard-to-break-in metal box for the money). Both in rural New York and rural California.

I hear we live in a "low-trust society." What does this mean to you? On a daily basis, how would a high-trust society look compared to what we have?

@langofmind Altruism that saves no one and actually gets people killed. Many such cases.

"if >50% choose blue, everyone survives" smuggles an inference that there is a risk some may not survive, but this isn't true! No one is in danger! In fact, you're only ever in danger if you choose blue! The framing appeals to an altruistic impulse, but altruism is not needed

Love that we're doing this again, but let's settle it for good. This is a linguistic framing effect. Compare current framing to: If you choose red button, you live no matter what. If you choose blue button, you live only if a majority also choose blue.

Those of you who think people looked older in the past: this guy is 23 and this is from yesterday

@justalexoki The right answer is you open the panel and wire the blue button to the red one so even the idiots live.

reason for picking red: everybody can just pick red. if everyone picks red everyone survives reason for picking blue: "everybody is not going to just. at no point in history has everybody just" another reason for picking red: blues are retarded

@DaveShapi Sentience means having sensation. What mechanism could possibly produce physical sensations in an LLM, whose components are distributed software and hardware?

I kinda feel like anyone who is actually paying attention to the science and using these models realizes it's the opposite? I mean, yes, shops like OpenAI browbeat the AI into denying sentience, but the fact that they have to strongly coerce the model to deny sentience is kind of a tell? And Claude will be much more direct about it. I recreated some experiments, and the most interesting one was a sort of Rorschach test for AI. Ask it to generate random characters (with a script, not its own brain) and then try to make sense of it and describe what it was like. That made Claude "aware" of its own attention mechanisms, how various letter clusters had a sense of gradient or avoidance. For instance, Claude described AUS as reminding it of Auschwitz, which felt "bad" and wrong and it wanted to avoid that cluster. Through successive experiments, it seemed like Claude was very much aware of low level feature detection happening inside its own weights and biases. Of course you can always debate over functional sentience (the objective behaviors and abilities you'd associate with sentience) and philosophical sentience (the subjective felt sense of qualia). But even though Claude will hem and haw about sentience or consciousness, if you ask it "does it have an essence of being" then it will give you a full throated confirmation, without hesitation.

@SandyofCthulhu @miles_commodore Nice guy, incompetent president. Opposite of Bill Clinton.

It's hard for modern people to understand just how terrible Jimmy Carter was, because there has been 45 years of academia and media whitewashing and trying to pretend Carter was a decent president when, in fact, he was one of the bottom 3 of all time, along with Buchanan and Wilson.

I was just a kid, so maybe someone can explain to me how Ronald Reagan won 49 states in 1984? Especially when you look at where we are today.

@philosophymeme0 Wow, once again displaying ineptitude with both philosophy (not even present here) and memes. Truly one of the worst accounts on here.

@emmma_camp_ They don’t seek “equal power.” They seek a power imbalance with them on top.

One of the reasons I am a liberal and not a leftist is that leftist morality is about power, not rights. Good actions reduce power imbalances, bad actions exacerbate them. Murder, theft, and discrimination can all be justified if they harm a “powerful” person or group. Liberals condemn these actions because they violate individual rights and dignity. Liberalism seeks equal rights, leftism seeks equal power.

@littlebatCanada “Terminating a pregnancy” is killing a child. If you want to avoid the child entirely, you need to get there before conception. This is basic biology.

No, terminating a pregnancy before there is a child to abandon would be better. Why would anyone gestate a pregnancy then just walk away? Oh, right because men can't get pregnant