Dror Ben-Naim

@Warbz @KosSamaras Racist is the guy who thinks we need special unelected gov bodies for a racial minority. U r the racist Also btw shaming a whole country that it is racist backlashes. No one is racist here. People live in a normative 21st society.

We have some data coming on this theory. It was not misinformation. It was the lack of information. Or to be more precise, an inability by Yes23 to communicate to a part of Australia that are being economically destroyed atm. Great campaign for Smith Street Collingwood. Terrible campaign for Smith Street Melton.

@chamath @EricSchubert12 i agree, but and it's because of the nonlinearity of complex adaptive systems but just to be clear - it's an opinion, and a hope, not derived out of a calculation or a model. which is fine.

@EricSchubert12 I think many of the analyses I’ve seen that get to this rough conclusion have major errors wrt battery assumptions. As someone who is working in this area, I have a different POV.

Wow. Nailed it. 🤡 There’s so much emotional hand wringing and alarmism over climate change when the most prudent way to view it is through the lens of national security. Show me a war involving the West over the past 50 years and I’ll show you a fight, directly or indirectly, over natural resources, namely oil. The most important thing we are doing right now for our national security is getting to energy independence through solar and wind. And the biggest dividend it will pay will be in terms of peace. We will have abundant, near-cost less, renewable, carbon free energy within the decade. And stop getting entangled in wars near and abroad because of it. The climate will be saved as well but it will be as a byproduct to the economically and socially sensible thing to do. In fact, more laws have positively impacted the fight against climate change by explicitly not mentioning climate change! BIL, CHIPS Act, IRA == Infrastructure Bill, Microchips, Inflation Reduction Act. This may upset some folks who want to martyrize climate change but they should get over it and move on.

@ur_a_twit @jordanbpeterson @PeterHotez @joerogan U said it. Not I.

@DrorBenNaim @jordanbpeterson @PeterHotez @joerogan Are you saying that I'm too stupid to to make an informed decision about what's best for me and my family?

Let’s remember what this is about, not a small number of Americans lost their lives from antivaccine disinformation during the pandemic. 200,000 Americans perished, 40,000 from my State of Texas I have nothing personal vs Joe, Elon, RFK Jr. Just hoping to halt more destruction

@educationpalmer @RickyTanner16 boiling the ocean is going to be easier jason...

@RickyTanner16 How can you possibly believe otherwise? 100,000+ of the world’s top scientists have been studying this virus and vaccine candidates. More research than on *any* other subject in the past 50 years Are you afraid of needles? Or have you been skeptical of science your whole life?

1/2 It’s kind of crazy to me that X% of our country is still debating whether (1) SARS-CoV19 was a real deadly virus; and (2) Whether the miraculous mRNA vaccines were effective at saving lives. Both are true, and supported by thousands of published research papers

Is debate the best format here? is this a political question of policy? or a data-driven analysis of statistical significance with conflicting data, ambiguous results and ever evolving scientific knowledge? We already know Trump can win any debate - so what does it tell us about truth? the entire point of the scientific revolution was to move away from he said she said "debates" into a boring ,slow, thoughtful, reviewable, methodical, empirical, data-driven, peer-reviewed truth seeking process, which, despite its many faults, is better than the alternative - demagogues and populists. but sweet. 1.5m to fuel some debates. i'm in

I am not part of the gang of three, but I strongly believe that an open long-form debate on vaccines with you and @RobertKennedyJr moderated by @joerogan would enable the public to better understand these issues. You have previously complained about the lack of air time devoted to this discussion. You have been offered $250k toward your favorite charity for a few hours of your time. How can you say no? Refusing to debate your antagonist in a public forum discredits your previously stated and published views while handing an uncontested victory in the debate to @RobertKennedyJr . If you are truly interested in saving lives, you need to further the public’s understanding of the truth about vaccines. This is a debate that you cannot walk away from. It will be watched by millions. I write from the perspective of three jabs and my fully vaccinated children.

"letting the public decide" is such a nice idea. The problem (that Greek democrats noticed 2000 years ago btw) is that the "public" - whatever that means really - isn't too savvy when it comes to ambiguous, complex, technical issues, often with conflicting data. That's why we kinda we invented the discipline of scientific inquiry - slow, thoughtful, methodical, empirical, data-driven, peer-reviewed truth seeking process, which, despite its many faults, is better than the alternative - demagogues and populists. Some topics don't lend themselves to is political debates on prime time tv. or a "conversation" with joe. just saying. but sure, let's give it a shot

It could be a conversation. @joerogan doesn't actually do formal debates. Tell people why you believe what you believe. See what RFK has to say. You know, talk... and let the public decide. People will respect you for your courage even if you "lose." And there's no losing if you just tell the truth clearly.

@balajis @AriDavidPaul you mean open debate with credible sources, peer review content, empirical evidence, long boring data analysis right? i'm just worried that type of open debate is not so good for attention economy

My views are probably closer to @AriDavidPaul's on this issue, *but* I do believe that truth should win in an open debate. twitter.com/AriDavidPaul/s…

It's now a trend. If you’re willing to spend a relatively small amount of money, you can open up discussion on an important topic.

@LouisAnslow @PessimistsArc 😂

The only way to get press right now is by predicting mass death.

@JoannaAccordi Should I curb my enthusiasm?

@DrorBenNaim It is a draft. Plenty of work ahead...

@ylecun so some guy made a prediction and some other guy published it. #surprise

Old joke.

@packyM Apple is able to articulate a vision in a way no other company can. It’s not only the products, it’s also the incredible finesse of the videos and use cases. Compare that to that awkward metaverse video by meta.

The reactions to the Vision Pro are an incredible encapsulation of what bugs me so much about snarky techno-pessimism. There's no conviction. AR/VR was a canonical overhyped technology, one that proved that some overhyped technologies just never make it. There were millions of hot takes about how AR/VR would never work, how the metaverse was stupid, etc... And then Apple makes one presentation and people are like, "Oh, yeah, well when you do AR/VR that way that looks really cool I would love to use that. AR/VR is the future!" The Vision Pro situation captures the general problem nicely. People are able to touch and feel the current, shitty stepping stone version of any product. They’re able to easily point out its flaws and opine on how something like that could never work. But, like, of course. It’s a shitty stepping stone version. It’s much harder to imagine what the best people in the world will build when given the time, resources, iterations, and lessons to do it better than anyone has ever done it. If you could, you’d be one of the best people in the world, and you’d be building it. It happens over and over again -- AI, biotech, electric cars, space, solar, I'm sure it's going to happen in crypto. The Gartner Hype Cycle remains undefeated. Next time, take a beat and think, “What would I think about X if Apple put its might behind making one?” before dunking.

Personally, I found Bengio's article less lucid and straightforward than I'd hoped, but still, it's a commendable step forward. Manipulating people to achieve desired outcomes may seem trivial when one has access to their information channels. Humans engage in this practice regularly, so it's reasonable to assume that Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) could do it as well. Assuming we implement biometric KYC on social media - ensuring every voice originates from a human - the next logical progression is probably robots. So, can ASI design and build robots, or even organisms, to carry out its tasks? Could it even manipulate humans to control them? Who truly knows? It's ASI - it's presumed capable of feats beyond human comprehension.

@DrorBenNaim @AndrewYNg Bengio goes to great lengths to explain how a rogue AI can arise, but doesn’t explain how it would be able to act in the world. The only route he gives is for it to use social networks to influence people. So why are we not talking about regulating social networks?

I'd like to have a real conversation about whether AI is a risk for human extinction. Honestly, I don't get how AI poses this risk. What are your thoughts? And, who do you think has a thoughtful perspective on how AI poses this risk that I should talk to?

@jsngr youtu.be/x7qPAY9JqE4?t=… (420!!!, tell @elonmusk ?)

We're going to use the best pointing device in the world. We're going to use a pointing device that we're all born with - born with two of them. We're going to use our eyes.

Who wants a controller? You have to get ’em, put ’em away, you lose ’em. Yuck! Nobody wants a controller. So let’s not use a controller.

@jsngr youtu.be/x7qPAY9JqE4?t=…

@ciphergoth @ESYudkowsky @mattyglesias also here twitter.com/DrorBenNaim/st…

@DrorBenNaim @ESYudkowsky @mattyglesias I'm sorry, I can't follow this at all. I think maybe there's a layer of sarcasm obscuring your argument; can you make it directly, without sarcasm?

Andreesen seeks to refute AI risk worries, has zilch but bald assertion and Bulverism.

mmm yes. i was being sarcastic Marc Andreessen made a bunch of points in his long piece regarding why AI is not killer robots but just software that will save the world etc. At some stage of he said that "AI Doomism" became a cult, and mentioned that California has long history with cults. u mentioned Bulverism, which i think applies here. I am not Californian nor American and much like the rest of the world -i don't really care about the idiosyncratic culture-war related arguments but rather about specific technical and logical arguments on this important issue. Does it add value or weight to the argument as to whether or not CA has history with cults? no, probably not. how did i go? better?

@ciphergoth @ESYudkowsky @mattyglesias That’s right: ai is ok and safe because California has long tradition of cults. Solid logic and Awesome news for everyone who isn’t Californian or American

@mattyglesias Bulverism is a term C S Lewis invented for answering an argument without engaging with it, by speculating about your motives for advancing it. It is the primary form of argument against AI extinction concerns. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

@eshear @drethelin Take the Bart though. Don’t drive in. Or that cool real ride share for toll lanes. Miracle.

@drethelin Berkeley is very nice

Touring SOMA, seeing tiny startups building rocket planes and superdense fuel cells and general artificial intelligences. Say what you want about it, if you want to live in the future there’s only one city on earth.

@Plinz because it's perfectly fake

I am prepared to be a big fan of Apple's Vision Pro, but I find the aesthetics of the promo video revolting. Everything about it: voices, actors, implied values, pacing makes me squirm. I am trying to understand the target demographic and why I'm allergic apple.com/apple-vision-p…

@ESYudkowsky @eugediana @AndrewYNg 100%

I'm happy to start out by providing a lot of technical reasons to expect that we can't align AI built on anything remotely like current techniques, and reasonable arguments for why unaligned superintelligence would be expected to kill us. I don't accept an infinite and asymmetrical burden of proof; if I can start out by providing that, I consider that it's then the other party's job to respond. If the other party defaults on that and I go on providing more and more careful and detailed arguments past that point, it's because I'm trying to provide even better analysis of a catastrophically important issue, not because I still bear an infinite and asymmetrical burden of proof. At the point where you've made a pretty reasonable argument that everyone's gonna die, I do think it's the other guy's job to explain why those arguments are wrong and we're not gonna die, not for them to go on saying that the warners bear an infinite burden of proof.