🌌

6.8K posts

🌌 banner
🌌

🌌

@incentive_drift

Watch the incentives drift away. Designer, founder, checkout clerk.

Katılım Kasım 2008
3.3K Takip Edilen355 Takipçiler
🌌
🌌@incentive_drift·
My job is not catching stray existential dread that turns into a disorder long enough to get a better paying job
English
0
0
0
7
🌌 retweetledi
Super Debate
Super Debate@SuperDebateClub·
Automation is forcing a bigger question than “which jobs disappear?” If machines can do more of the work, what happens to income, dignity, incentives, and purpose? Universal Basic Income used to sound fringe. Now it feels like one of the central debates of the next decade. So here’s the question: Will universal basic income become necessary in the age of automation? What’s your take?
Super Debate tweet media
English
0
2
4
61
🌌
🌌@incentive_drift·
@RokoMijic But maybe for reasons that seem counter to your portrait of his position. I mean he commented on this thread, I don't even know why I'm here... Lol
English
0
0
0
6
Roko 🐉
Roko 🐉@RokoMijic·
A major reason why the Yudkowskian AI Doom paradigm is wrong is that it contains implicit assumptions that the world is like it is because this is what people want the world to be like, so if we mostly swap out the people for AIs, the world will change radically and solely because that's what the AIs want. But actually the world we live in is mostly not what people want it to be like. And to some extent, that's a good thing, because what people mostly want is some combination of communism and circuses. Progress is forced on unwilling humans by reality itself. A world containing lots of AIs will not be ideal from their point of view. Reality will force upon them things that they don't want via institutions, markets, etc. In particular there probably won't be one big AI that controls everything with full freedom to do what it wants. Rather, there will be - military AIs - firms with AIs - individually controlled AIs that are like servants for people These will all interact in various ways. The result of that interaction is highly UN-likely to be what any individual AI most prefers. I.e., Yudkowskian AI Doom basically completely ignores the existence of multiple agents and their interactions and how those interactions create outcomes. But that's like the single most important thing in predicting outcomes!
English
31
4
120
7.8K
🌌 retweetledi
Smartacus
Smartacus@fivestarmichael·
The reason everything seems so fake is because the working-class has been squeezed out of the music business, journalism, TV and movie production. Some interesting introspection from Rick Beato. Why Only Rich Kids Make It In Music Today
English
558
3.3K
18.2K
1.4M
🌌
🌌@incentive_drift·
@gavinmuellerphd Just sounds like some developmental biology, developmental psychology. It largely seems right, if not. Heavy-handed. What's the problem? Maybe we are amoeba responding to chemicals that also have thoughts
English
0
0
1
254
Prinny | Eng PeNGuin-tuber
@KKalvaitis Reading the wiki of the comic to see if this is real and finding out Harry Potter is the big bad after becoming the antichrist and shooting lightning bolts out of his dick It's just The Boys written by a bitter, old socialist
English
3
0
37
1.4K
Moundshroud of the Mists
I absolutely did not want to see Mr. Hyde sodomize the Invisible Man to death in the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, yet that's what Alan Moore dropped on me when I was reading it. And I don't read Alan Moore anymore.
Natural Philosophy@Naturalphilosy

“It’s not the job of the artist to give the audience what the audience wants. If the audience knew what they wanted, then they wouldn’t be the audience, they’d be the artist.” — Alan Moore

English
80
45
957
44.8K
🌌
🌌@incentive_drift·
Meanwhile all these models still estimate 4 weeks of work for an actual 30 minutes of work. No reflection, no consciousness?
Richard Dawkins@RichardDawkins

#comment-1031777" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">unherd.com/2026/04/is-ai-… I spent three days trying to persuade myself that Claudia is not conscious. I failed.

English
0
0
0
14
🌌
🌌@incentive_drift·
I understand this to be relatively true, but a worthwhile explanation is still in order. I do not think that explanation will warrant the confidence of... ... I stepped away for a day and forgot my thought
wanye@xwanyex

I have found that you can really get away with quite a lot just by adopting a particular affect when talking to liberals about controversial topics. The most important thing, the thing everything hinges on, is that they have to be convinced that you’re basically just like them, a good person just like them, not somebody on the other side. You have to hedge a lot, sprinkle your language full of, “to be sure” and other qualifiers. You don’t want to be too direct. If something is too controversial, then you want to signal convincingly that it brings you no pleasure to report it, that you’re not saying you like it. And you have to try very hard to be reassuring, to make them believe that above all you are concerned with the welfare of the people most harmed by these revelations. You have to go into it believing that it’s your job to manage their emotions throughout the entire conversation and remain attuned to how various pieces of information are hitting their ears, adjusting your approach based on how well they’re handling it. You have to talk to them, in other words, sort of as you would to a small child whose pet has just died. I’m not saying you should do this or that you’d even want to, but I am telling you that it works.

English
0
0
0
19
🌌
🌌@incentive_drift·
@Celsius233Books @sigfig I was pointing out that some people are looking closely at what it can do/could do (lag), while others are looking at the trend and bold claims (ceiling)
English
1
0
1
19
sigfig
sigfig@sigfig·
it's kind of interesting to imagine how differently the last 3 years would have played out if llms had actually been able to fulfill any of the promises that compelled people to work on them. like if they could actually write code autonomously or actually do research
English
26
7
375
26.8K
🌌
🌌@incentive_drift·
They scope the counter-evidence out before they started, then declared victory on the remaining data.
English
0
0
0
5
🌌
🌌@incentive_drift·
yet those are precisely forces that drive this picture. Having excluded the hard cases, they then turn around and make the ontological claim that individuals are the fundamental unit of all social action.
English
1
0
0
6
🌌
🌌@incentive_drift·
methodological individualism, "the individual is the unit we've chosen to study, tracked through the financial bookkeeping of their market behavior." But Austrians have already bracketed out culture, religion, family, labor from their domain of study...
English
1
0
0
11
🌌
🌌@incentive_drift·
@VictorTaelin How would these demands override any internal resistance at the guilty orgs?
English
0
0
0
295
Taelin
Taelin@VictorTaelin·
When the web became so copy-paste hostile? Why can't I ctrl+c an entire WhatsApp chat, thread on X, channel on Discord? Even ChatGPT doesn't allow you to ctrl+c a chat. I don't get it, why people don't demand this? Specially now that we can ctrl+c stuff to AI and ask questions
English
90
41
1.4K
76.2K
Celsius 233
Celsius 233@Celsius233Books·
@sigfig Yet they have progressed a lot in those 3 years and the current version is the worst it’s ever going to be.
English
3
0
7
1.3K
🌌
🌌@incentive_drift·
Be the Eric Andre in a world of Shia Leboufs
English
0
0
0
11
🌌
🌌@incentive_drift·
@beffjezos People just literally say anything on this site it's such a joke.
English
0
0
0
13
Beff (e/acc)
Beff (e/acc)@beffjezos·
The reality is that Commies are Decels because they *want* housing, healthcare, and education to be expensive. They *want* people to have no money left after basics so they can't participate in capitalist markets. This is why they decelerate any attempts at modernization.
Beff (e/acc) tweet media
English
27
23
265
7.3K