Greta T

@blightersort @asymmetricinfo Ai is wonderful at structure (something a lot of human writers are terrible at). My son wrote a screenplay for a class: his teacher missed structural problems like the turn ai easily picked up. Ai is terrible at creativity and original content. If it doesn’t see, can’t imitate.

assuming you mean it's better at imitating john oliver than it is at imitating most writers (rather than better at imitating john oliver than most writers are at imitating john oliver), that's definitely believable mostly bc oliver's schtick is so formulaic and stale you could prolly write an Eliza-like chatbot w/ fairly simple rules that could do a credible john oliver

Ironically, I find that AI is better at imitating John Oliver than most writers.

@blightersort Oooff. You’ve been spared. My kid does travel sports so I’ve gotten to see the horror of these boxes for soccer tournaments. You are required to stay there (kick backs to the tournaments). They are the spirit airlines of hotels…paper thin dry wall and floors.

ah, so maybe airport hotels are a distinctly better product than city hotels, could be. in the US i tend to stay in air bnbs outside of occasional travel needs so maybe i'm getting a biased perspective. (vs when i visit the capitals of europe it's usually for a couple days to show the kids before we decamp to a house in the countryside and so we stay in hotels.)

this is true but also in recent years i've been surprised when staying at relatively nice hotels in touristy Paris or Rome at the general shabbiness.

@blightersort Unlike the us, Europe didn’t build the boxes with the free built in breakfast.

@blightersort Legacy structures with a built inn revenue stream (airport crews). You still find the same among the major airport hubs like Heathrow and de Gaulle. But yes a shabbiness has set in for the high but not higher end in the cities…squeezed by boutiques and higher end.

@AlexanderB6024 @BriannaWu Space because membership in congress isn’t growing anymore. There’s been proposals to increase the size of the house to make it more representative and decrease the power of small states. There wouldn’t be enough office space for such an increase.

@AlexanderB6024 @BriannaWu The capitol is connected via underground tunnels (complete with mini subway) to three large office buildings. The White House has the old executive office building next door (the setting for the series “veep”) but has also outgrown it. The capitol hasn’t needed as much more

Hot take, but we shouldn’t just give Trump the ballroom. We should expand the White House as well. It was designed in a much simpler point of human history, and the truth is there is not enough space for the people needed to lead a government of a country our size.

@DBalazada Do nothing is not an option for them since they are staring down economic collapse. They will either attack (risking catastrophe but hoping to further get the left in us and Europe to pressure Trump to settlement) or cave.

BREAKING • Phone contact between Araghchi and American officials has continued in recent days • In the past 24 hours, firm messages have been conveyed from Washington: the United States will not change its position, is not rushing into a deal, and will not compromise on the nuclear issue Three scenarios now being examined in Tehran: • Maintaining the current situation and waiting for a U.S. move • Conceding and reaching an agreement • Deliberate escalation: targeting Gulf states or moves in the Strait of Hormuz Shift in IRGC approach: • Until now, they assessed Trump was under pressure to reach a deal and could be leveraged • His tweets and conduct were interpreted as signs of weakness • A reassessment is now underway: understanding that Trump is not rushing and does not intend to concede Bottom line: Iran is being forced to recalibrate in the face of a far more rigid U.S. position than expected.

@lymanstoneky In philosophical circles hypotheticals like the trolley problem test the arguments for different principles.The inputs matter greatly (which is why this problem is designed poorly…the inputs must be accounted for). Kids in or out is Nazis on the track v your best friend on track

This is a classic example of why these hypotheticals are not philosophically informative. Blue team takes a certain read on this: everyone voting means everyone including people physically incapable of voting, so even though they're incapable, somehow, the vote resolves; incapable voters are assumed to be basically random instead of default-to-red; voters get no explanation beyond the scenario text, so kids vote quasi-randomly; furthermore, button-pushing is assumed to be non-iterative, i.e. if we all push blue the Button Authority doesn't then say "cool! now round 2: you need at least 60%" and so on. Red team makes other assumptions, which are more realistic: any human incapable of pushing a button defaults to red, which creates a built-in red share equal to the disabled and infant share of the population if such people are included at all; more plausibly "everyone voting" actually just refers to "voting-age-population" to begin with and so the whole child contingency can be ignored; moreover, in any real scenario, red team is aware that the moral performance of Blue Teamers is unlikely to hold up. Faced with actual death instead of twitter virtue signaling, many will vote red who claim they would vote blue. Furthermore, red-teamers may rationally ask, "How did the murder button come into existence? Why am I complying with the murder button? How about I just refuse to push a button and prevent the vote from resolving and therefore save everyone indefinitely no matter what?" Since the red/blue shares completely flip if you just change the descriptive language but keep the payoff calculations the same, that tells us that the ruling intuitions for this case have nothing to do with the payoff calculations or measures of altruism, and everything to do with side considerations. This is actually a classic problem in hypotheticals. Hypotheticals are merely survey questions, and survey questions can be sensitive to primes. To the extent that primes influence survey questions, we consider the questions to be invalid constructs. In the red/blue button case, we know from e.g. the woodchipper prime that responses are highly sensitive to primes. Ergo, all we are measuring in the red/blue case is the priming effect, not the altruism effect. In other words: blues are people who think "Powerful beings who give me murder-buttons are probably honest and beneficent" and reds are people who think "Powerful beings who give me murder-buttons are probably dishonest and malicious." The decision is not being made based on the payoff matrix.

@SeanTrende @dilanesper Is there much he can do about it? Congress he doesn’t have a majority to do anything. Biden had same structural issue in economy (might have been reelected if mentally sound). 2nd term back half presidency. Best he might do is Venezuela-Cuba-Iran trifecta.

@dilanesper If you look at the MAGA folk like people’s pundit there is some of that (though self serving) for everyone else I think it’s more like “well look around you does this really need an explainer?”

This is a really good point and a big difference between left and right. If a Dem President had Trump's current approval ratings, we'd be discussing what's wrong (or at least whether the polls are wrong) a lot.

@jon_vs_moloch @brony_veikkoni That’s an assumption without any basis in reality. Both sides are doing it.

@DocsFCompanion @brony_veikkoni Then expect 50/50 among people that didn’t understand, reason from there.

When you originally read the question, did you consider children? It doesn’t actually matter whether the children have to vote: as worded, some people will think they do, and will try to save them; and so should be saved, themselves, if possible. I bet on people like myself.

@brony_veikkoni @jon_vs_moloch Clarified the former but like a poor architect still left holes

@brony_veikkoni @jon_vs_moloch Architect intended it that way. Which forces you to go back to the intent of the architect: is he trying to measure risk reward calculation (in which case the inclusion or non inclusion of children is vital) or what rational actors might do (in which case you exclude). He

@jon_vs_moloch @brony_veikkoni Yeah someone attempted to fill in the hole. If you change the inputs the answer will change. I note the question designer has still left holes including: what about those that are physically unable to vote, those that refuse, the voting rules and time for cooperation.

@DocsFCompanion @brony_veikkoni

@brony_veikkoni @jon_vs_moloch The hypothetical one

@DocsFCompanion @jon_vs_moloch What question?

@brony_veikkoni @jon_vs_moloch Well I’ll point out that the question doesn’t even specify that the rules are printed in any language or that you know the rules going in. That’s all being inferred.

Also... "Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button." includes people who don't know English at all.

@brony_veikkoni @jon_vs_moloch You just did it again! “Private vote requires that everyone vote by themselves of behalf of themselves”. You just filled that in for yourself! Others have been doing the opposite: the question assumes competency, you can actually press a button and speak English!

No, I'm not making assumptions. The hypothetical is "Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button." Private vote requires that everyone vote by themselves on behalf of themselves because no other person can directly witness another person's vote.

@Rob_ThaBuilder We see this is smaller form with schooling. Politicians both d and r like to brag about racial equality and integrating schools. But even Obama put his kids in fancy private school. Hollywood actors do the same and can’t even kick the habit of their private jets.

To get a sense of what ppl would ACTUALLY do in this scenario, rework the question a little; in this scenario, now imagine rhe same outcomes, except you decide which button your children would press. Changes things a bit, doesnt it? Why would anyone select an option where their child has a chance of being killed when they could select the option where their child has a 0% chance? So they could brag about how "moral" they are? The selection of blue on their child's behalf would actually be strong evidence of their lack of morality. Or at least, their lack of values, in that they would put their child at risk of death so they could feel good about their perceived goodness.

@BadEggGames @MattLutzPhi Well again that’s making the assumption that the legally incompetent and physically unable aren’t thrown into blue. Also you’ll get more people willing to risk at 1% than at 99%

@DocsFCompanion @MattLutzPhi The core situation is that you take on risk, for an unknown blue. If you take on that risk, you're willing to die. In a competent high trust society, i trust the other voters to not dive in the woodchippers for the luls, and I leave them to their devices should they fail

Blue. If you're taking the time to do the game theory, you lack virtue.