A. S.

389 posts

A. S. banner
A. S.

A. S.

@LoCtrl

...

شامل ہوئے Kasım 2016
448 فالونگ2.1K فالوورز
A. S.
A. S.@LoCtrl·
@malmesburyman Not a Dario fan — but how do you expect him to act?
English
0
0
0
158
A. S.
A. S.@LoCtrl·
@wesyang It seems that problem is reverse — leadership requires two-way connection — and dumb people not being able to model person A who is ten iq points above means they don’t connect to A which prevents A from becoming an effective leader.
English
0
0
0
30
Wesley Yang
Wesley Yang@wesyang·
I am very interested in whatever analyses have been done to help high IQ people model low IQ people. The reverse I would expect to be essentially impossible, but it does seem like smart people should be able to figure out dumb people.
Big Brain AI@realBigBrainAI

Marc Andreessen says raw intelligence might be the worst qualification for leadership — and it changes everything about how we should think about AI. "If the leader is more than one standard deviation of IQ away from the followers, it's a real problem." Andreessen points to the US military, one of the earliest and most rigorous adopters of IQ testing, as the source of this insight. They slot people into specialties and leadership roles based on IQ scores. And over the years, they kept seeing the same pattern. A leader who is significantly less intelligent than their people struggles to model how those people think. That part is intuitive. But the reverse turns out to be equally true. "It's actually very hard for very smart people to model the internal thought processes of even moderately smart people." A leader who is two standard deviations above the norm of the organisation they're running also loses theory of mind, that ability to hold an accurate model of what's happening inside someone else's head. The gap is too wide in both directions. Andreessen then takes this to its logical conclusion: "If you had a person or a machine that had a thousand IQ or something like it, its understanding of reality would be so alien to the people or the things that it was managing that it wouldn't even be able to connect in any sort of realistic way." An AI that vastly outthinks every human in the room isn't positioned to lead those humans. It's positioned to be completely incomprehensible to them. Leadership has never really been an intelligence problem. It's a connection problem. And no amount of raw intelligence closes that gap — past a certain point, it only widens it. The world will not be run by the smartest thing in the room for a long time. Maybe ever.

English
34
8
151
38.9K
A. S.
A. S.@LoCtrl·
@echetus That entire section of online dipshits who revel in deepitudes like his avatar would suggest is such an intellectual cesspool
A. S. tweet media
English
0
0
8
223
Stakeholder Consultant
Maybe the Russian high command is exhibiting the same disregard for the lives of common soldiers they’ve shown since the dawn of time. Or maybe… the Ukrainians are doing “The Most Dangerous Game” with POWs
Stakeholder Consultant tweet media
Melian Refugee@escapefrommelos

two things that “radicalized” me about this useless stupid war: 1) these videos are often posted with masturbatory glee 2) the victims are always uniformed but very often unarmed and without helmets… almost like they’re PoWs who have been released and hunted on video for sport

English
17
5
227
10.8K
A. S.
A. S.@LoCtrl·
I would agree with certain philosophers (?) that Straussians are cultish pseudo-intellectuals if it weren’t the case that there are powerful ideas open discourse around which is deliberately suppressed.
English
0
0
1
122
A. S.
A. S.@LoCtrl·
Why do base jumping when you can do drunk driving instead?
English
1
0
1
114
A. S.
A. S.@LoCtrl·
@webdevMason Is California correct or not? I think yes, because (1) cougars formerly had a massive range, (2) fragmentation of populations is how extinction “creeps up” to non-migratory species that are sparsely spread out.
English
1
0
0
35
A. S.
A. S.@LoCtrl·
@webdevMason Santa Monica population is in a way irrelevant. It is not protected as a unit *because* it is a unit. It is protected because it is of a larger whole (genetic pool) which California deems to be more important than federal authority does. We can argue about that separately.
English
2
0
0
53
A. S.
A. S.@LoCtrl·
@webdevMason Actually yes considering that cougar range formerly covered almost entire continental US.
English
1
0
0
75
Mason
Mason@webdevMason·
@LoCtrl In green are the animals that qualify for protection under CESA. Do cougars meet that definition?
Mason tweet media
English
1
0
0
247
A. S.
A. S.@LoCtrl·
@webdevMason If a species is listed under CESA in California then it is by definition not a Least Concern species in California, which makes the premise of your question invalid. See, i can play language games too!
English
1
0
0
32
Mason
Mason@webdevMason·
@LoCtrl Sure do, and no Least Concern species "goes extinct" when a miniscule population dies off. So again, why are any cougars protected by the California Endangered Species Act, which explicitly only protects species and subspecies?
English
1
0
1
39
A. S.
A. S.@LoCtrl·
@webdevMason Literally the animals currently living in Santa Monica mountains. A population. Not a subspecies. Not a species. Do you know what a population is in genetic terms?
English
1
0
0
44
Mason
Mason@webdevMason·
@LoCtrl What is a Santa Monica cougar? If it's just a cougar that is currently in Santa Monica, extinction is definitely not a concern, right?
English
1
0
1
41
A. S.
A. S.@LoCtrl·
@webdevMason Do you understand the genetic rationale a conservationist might have for preventing Santa Monica cougars from going extinct that is apart from the “omg a subspecies” rhetoric?
English
1
0
0
43
Mason
Mason@webdevMason·
@LoCtrl Do you understand that the California Endangered Species Act doesn't protect animals that aren't threatened or endangered, regaedless of the unrelated merits for doing that?
English
1
0
1
34
A. S.
A. S.@LoCtrl·
@webdevMason They want Monica mountain lions to share their genes with others. Genetically if that were to happen, it would *prevent* - not enable - Santa Monica cats from becoming a distinct subspecies.
English
1
0
0
33
A. S.
A. S.@LoCtrl·
@webdevMason No absolutely not. In fact the actual reason for protection (and also for the bridge) is preventing genetic isolation while maintaining diverse genetic pool.
English
2
0
0
48
A. S.
A. S.@LoCtrl·
@webdevMason In fact if you want to know the actual reason these population are protected (biological/generic rationale) — i can tell you — just ask.
English
1
0
0
39
A. S.
A. S.@LoCtrl·
@webdevMason That is irrelevant. The distinct populations specified by CESA are protected *not* (and i emphasize *not* again) due to a makeshift invention of a subspecies as you repeatedly incorrectly claim.
English
1
0
0
38
A. S.
A. S.@LoCtrl·
@webdevMason You seem to assume that existence of California law implies that that law considers California mountain lions unique. It foes not.
English
1
0
0
48
A. S.
A. S.@LoCtrl·
@webdevMason Oh yes i do now. They are protected under it as a species — not as a unique Santa Monica subspecies that you imagine.
English
1
0
0
47