BytingReality

@StonerArtistGF @schticknic @rushicrypto You can live on the street and eat rats like nature intended, if society is such a burden.

@BytingReality @schticknic @rushicrypto Because society keeps volunteering us to pay for things like food and shelter. And keeps raising the prices of those things.

If capitalism truly rewarded skill or intelligence, the richest people would be neurosurgeons, engineers, and scientists. If it rewarded talent, it would be artists, writers, and creators. If it rewarded hard work, it would be cleaners, laborers, and service workers. But it’s none of them.

@StonerArtistGF @rushicrypto Food and housing don't require labor to create under socialism? Pretty sure that isn't true.

@BytingReality @rushicrypto Which would be fine if we weren't all stuck in a system that increasingly expensive. "Work for less than you are worth or die in the streets" isn't a very strong bargaining position on the part of the worker

@schticknic @StonerArtistGF @rushicrypto Why do you keep volunteering to be exploited?

@BytingReality @StonerArtistGF @rushicrypto The dumbest thing I've read today. Congrats.

@StonerArtistGF @rushicrypto So you're saying that if a company won't pay what you're worth, you don't have to take the job? Interesting. Sounds like you're in complete control of whether you get paid what you're worth.

@BytingReality @rushicrypto Do I? Do I go to a company & say I want this much an hour & they say okay? Because that hasn't been my experience. In my experience, a company tells you how much they are willing to give & you can take it or leave it. And if you leave it, the next company is offering the same $

@StonerArtistGF @rushicrypto No one is exploiting you since you set the price of your labor.

@rushicrypto Ooh I saw a thing about this the other day...lemme see if I can find it...

@Sergey_lll @Dan_Jeffries1 The AI isn't performing cognition though. Nothing it does isn't just an extension of human thinking.

@Dan_Jeffries1 Every historical example created new layers that required human cognition because humans were the only available solution. Sooner or later AI will be capable of performing cognitive tasks and learning new ones at a human level and when that happens, these examples no longer hold

AI will create more jobs than any other technology in history. The doomers' fundamental error isn't just the lump of labor fallacy. It's deeper than that. They assume a finite problem space. This is the fundamental error of AI and job doomers. They look at the economy and see a fixed amount of work to be done, a pie that can only be sliced thinner as machines take bigger bites. They see humans a competitive resource for a finite amount of work and a finite amount of problems to solve that must be eliminated. This is fundamentally, totally and completely wrong. The pie isn't fixed. It never was. And the reason it isn't fixed is baked into the very nature of technology itself. Technology is nothing but abstraction stacking. And abstraction stacking is infinite. Therefore the work is infinite. The hammer didn't reduce the amount of work. It moved the work up the stack. And the new work was more complex, more varied, and more interesting than the old work. Complexity breeds more complexity and more variety. Once you have houses instead of mud huts, you have a cascade of new problems that didn't exist before. Plumbing. Wiring. Insulation. Roofing materials that don't rot. Drainage systems so the foundation doesn't flood. Fire codes so your neighbor's bad wiring doesn't burn down the whole block. Each of those problems becomes a job. A plumber. An electrician. An insulator. A roofer. A civil engineer. A building inspector. None of those jobs existed when we lived in mud huts. They exist because we solved the mud hut problem. Think of all of human technological development as a stack of abstraction layers, each one built on top of the ones below it. At the bottom: raw survival. Finding food. Building shelter. Making fire. These are the base-layer problems. Each major technology wave solved a base-layer problem and in doing so created an entirely new layer of problems above it: Agriculture solved "how do we reliably eat?" — and created problems of land ownership, irrigation, crop rotation, storage, trade, taxation, and governance. Writing solved "how do we remember things across generations?" — and created problems of literacy, education, record-keeping, law, bureaucracy, and literature. The printing press solved "how do we spread knowledge at scale?" — and created problems of intellectual property, censorship, journalism, publishing, public opinion, and democratic discourse. The steam engine solved "how do we generate mechanical power without muscles?" — and created problems of factory design, worker safety, urban planning, railroad engineering, coal mining, labor relations, and environmental pollution. Electricity solved "how do we deliver energy anywhere?" — and created problems of grid design, power generation, appliance manufacturing, electrical safety codes, utility regulation, and an entire consumer electronics industry. The Internet solved "how do we connect all human knowledge?" — and created problems of cybersecurity, digital privacy, online commerce, content moderation, network infrastructure, cloud computing, social media dynamics, and an entire digital economy that employs tens of millions. Notice the pattern? Each solution didn't just solve a problem. It created an entirely new problem space that was larger, more complex, and more varied than the one it replaced. The stack grows. It never shrinks. It's turtles all the way down and all the way up.

@ScarcityMan @MarkChangizi Again, that's just not true. There's no possibility of death until you choose blue. Me refusing to put a gun to my head in solidarity with a suicide cult didn't force you to join the suicide cult.

@BytingReality @MarkChangizi Of course it does. Choosing red means that you vote to kill anyone who doesn't think like you (chooses blue). You just dislike the honest labeling...

— The Suicide Button — No need for a Red button at all. Just have a single (Blue) button labeled, “Press me to commit suicide by midnight.” And then in fine print it says, “Guaranteed to work unless more than 50% of humans end up pressing their button.” Are you suggesting it’s now selfish to not press the button? Because that’s exactly the Red button answer in the equivalent Res/Blue button case.

@ScarcityMan @MarkChangizi But the other button doesn't kill anyone. I don't think you guys understand the scenario. Explains a lot.

It's not any more honest a framing than inverting the wording to a "murder button" which kills unless everyone presses it. It's a matter of where you think responsibility lies in the choice. Red buttoners don't take responsibility for anything other than their choice and blue buttoners do. I know which planet I'd rather live on.

@ScarcityMan @MarkChangizi The premise is the same. The only way to die is to press blue. No one makes you press blue. Not pressing blue is as easy for you as me. The other choice is irrelevant - either more than half the people press the suicide button or they die. You just dislike the honest labeling.

@MarkChangizi Cool, so if you change the entire premise of the question and remove half of the choice, then I guess you're right about something no one else who's arguing agreed to? And in your mind, this constitutes something intelligent? You are black-pilling me so hard.

@_richardr_ @MrDustyBowl @jankulveit That's just not true. The only consequence is the possibility of death. The only way to suffer that consequence is by pressing blue. Me choosing red didn't force you to choose blue. I'm not imposing anything on you, if you can escape the consequence by simply changing your vote.

@MrDustyBowl @jankulveit Each button affects two groups: self and others. Red: You survive, but you impose death on any blue-choosers (if <50% blue). Blue: No imposed death on others - only conditional risk to self. Red actively imposes consequences on dissenters.

Funny little illustration of levels of understanding of game theory and rationality, or: why basic game theory is evil 1. Non-sociopaths going by intuition: blue sounds pro-social, blue 2. People who reason explicitly and use some naive game theory or naive rationality: red! 3. People who actually understand game theory: blue (if you want an explicit reason, because of trembling hand, Schelling points, theory of mind) A simple explanation of "why 3." is ...imagine you are forced to play the game tens of thousand of times, at random points of your life from birth to death. What strategy you want to play? "1." being in agreement with "3." often makes sense if you think about the origins of "1.". Unfortunately there are few pieces of knowledge which in expectation makes you more dumb and more evil if you don't progress beyond the basic level; some of the more prominent I know about are basics of game theory, especially prisoners dilemma; basic econ; Elephant in the brain

@StelioKontos67 @joeybeastmarket Remember, no one has to die unless they are in a suicide cult like yourself

@BytingReality @joeybeastmarket >lead poisoned gen Xer >pro AI > would sacrifice untold billions so that they and only they could live (there's no guarantee that anyone besides you will choose red) Lead really destroyed a whole generation huh

The literal only result of picking blue is that you increase your own chance of death from 0% to not 0%. There are only 2 reasons to pick blue: you are stupid or you are suicidal. There is only one reason to try to convince others to pick blue: you want them to die. If you don’t understand this I actually think you are not a human being

@StelioKontos67 @joeybeastmarket Your life isn't on the line. You're just virtue signaling. You'd actually vote to live when the time came.

@BytingReality @joeybeastmarket It's not virtue signaling if you're actually putting your life on the line. At that point it's just virtue

@StelioKontos67 @joeybeastmarket I understand that if you were given a gun and the choice to leave it on the table or put it to your head, knowing that unless a majority puts it to their head, it will fire and kill you, that you're leaving the gun on the table. It's easy to lie when there are no consequences.

@BytingReality @joeybeastmarket I wouldn't expect a Gen Xer to understand. Wouldn't expect them to understand anything really, but this especially

@StelioKontos67 @joeybeastmarket I'll be sure to put "died doing what he loved: virtue signaling" on your tombstone.

@BytingReality @joeybeastmarket Because there are many who pressed blue and we are obligated, as civilized humans, to save them to ensure the most people survive. Reds is for selfish scoundrels

@StelioKontos67 @joeybeastmarket Yes, I consumed so much lead that I have an aversion to taking in more in the form of a voluntary bullet to the brain.

@BytingReality @joeybeastmarket Of course you'd choose red

@StelioKontos67 @joeybeastmarket Yes, nobody needs to die, but for some reason dummies and people virtue signaling are choosing to press the blue button, so they might.

@BytingReality @joeybeastmarket

@MN_Vikings_Pete @CheimsRoma @vers_laLune Wait, what do you think the question is?

@BytingReality @CheimsRoma @vers_laLune Cool, then we're talking about a different question in different circumstances, so sure, the response will likely be different from panicked, imperfect humans.

at the risk of opening myself up to this bullshit question again, I need to emphasize, that only the red option guarantees everyone lives, but your moral posturing is forcing you to kill yourself

@StelioKontos67 @joeybeastmarket Never seen someone in a literal suicide cult trying to take the moral high ground before. Nice work.

@joeybeastmarket If you pick red you're a coward and a sociopath who is more than fine with sacrificing potentially 49% of the entire human race so that YOU can live. And no, everyone will not just pick red

@MN_Vikings_Pete @CheimsRoma @vers_laLune I think it's the lack of the threat of death that is the reason things might be different.

@CheimsRoma @vers_laLune What is that reason? Are people better readers and thinkers "in real life" than on Twitter?

@MN_Vikings_Pete @vers_laLune "No reason to think people won't vote to save their own lives when it's an actual gun to the head rather than a no-consequence Twitter poll." Sure.

@vers_laLune People in the poll are voting blue around 50% of the time. No reason to think that wouldn't repeat in the real world. "Everyone lives by choosing red" isn't a strategy, it's a wish. I'm going to take the "save everyone or die trying" option, you can take the coward's way.