It's definitely satire, but it's a little scary how few changes would be required to make it read like a sincere proposal. Good illustration of how easy it is to come up with a string of plausible arguments on principle for something that we all currently agree is ridiculous (but might not agree anymore after a few more years of drift).
Well, an important factor anyway, among others. For organizers in any particular locale, it's a question of efficiency. From the article:
He noted that for about every 20 conversations during the canvassing experiments, one person became more supportive of the cause. Topping said the conversations often take about 15 minutes.
Kalla said: “Given that only one in three people tend to answer the door and have a conversation, this means that in order to generate one new supporter, you must attempt to canvass 60 people.”
Came across this article about "deep canvassing" on transgender rights -- instead of bombarding with arguments and literature, it involves longer conversations with people, listening without judgment, sharing experiences and nudging towards the goal. Sounds great, but expensive -- ROI may not be adequate.
Did we discuss Jason Brennan's taxonomy from Against Democracy here before?
Accordingly, he proceeds from a fairly dismal depiction of the state of the democratic citizenry. Brennan proposes a taxonomy of democratic character types: hobbits, hooligans, and Vulcans. Hobbits are uninterested in politics and so lack political information, frequently are devoid of stable political opinions, and tend to not vote. Hooligans, by contrast, consume political information and have strong and stable political views. However, they reason and gather political information in biased ways; they tend to be politically active, but they also tend to regard their political opposition as evil, ignorant, deluded, or worse. Vulcans are properly-behaved political epistemologists; they have well-grounded views, know the relevant social science and philosophy, and are able to disagree respectfully with others. However, as the requisite knowledge and dispositions are difficult to acquire, Vulcans are scarce.
I have to confess, my comment wasn’t really in defense of you or Maribou, it was in defense of a halfway reasonable level of discourse here. So no thanks necessary. :)
Wow, what a dick move. Did you ask Jay’s partner for permission to use that bit of personal info in your juvenile attempt to score points against him in an internet argument? I’m guessing not.
I wonder if part of the problem isn't so much that we're lacking those people but that the media doesn't go to them because they don't drive the ratings. In which case there's probably no good solution -- there will always be someone ready to play the media game. And it's what the media does only because it's what the viewers want, so ultimately i guess it's our fault.
At least we can be secure in our sense of our own wisdom as we watch the world go to sh!t.
Right -- I think the two main challenges for scientists are (1) being attentive to the boundaries of what "science" itself can show without sneaking in your own opinions, and (2) being smart about how to communicate effectively to the public as a whole and avoiding the traps laid by a media industry that prefers clarity and certainty over nuance and probabilities.
Hotez is in a third category, a scientist who has decided to make himself a public figure by doing a lot of media appearances. Some folks are pointing out that he announced his principled stand on MSNBC. I totally agree that a debate would be worthless, but Hotez has already chosen to inhabit that liminal space between scientist and media partisan, so it's not surprising that some see him as just not wanting to face an audience that doesn't already agree with him.
I haven't played Cribbage in about three decades, but this and the previous discussion inspired me to look for a phone app to remind myself how to play. There are a bunch, but i found one that had the benefit of being free with no IAP, and it also gives a little analysis at the end of each game on your non-optimal discards and pegging plays. No personified opponents or rendition of a cribbage board though, just the game essentials.
I'm no expert, but at a high level the problem of fake citations seems solvable for someone who wanted to make a law-centric LLM, using some combination of RLHF and supplemental corpus -- the LLM has to be trained that citations are not subject to pattern match but have to be pulled from dataset of actual cases.
Don't fight it, keep it in your arsenal for the future.
"OMG look at this horrible thing Trump just posted on TruthSocial!!"
"Well, I wouldn't have posted that, but it's his site and he's free to post whatever he wants. Are you suggesting he not be allowed to post on his own site??"
I think what you're maybe missing is games as not an end in and of themselves but a bit of grease for socializing.
I have two regular game groups -- one is is made up of software developers (where I'm the oldest participant) and mostly involves playing medium-to-hard-complexity strategy games and the other is several couples around retirement age (where I'm the youngest participant) and mostly involves playing card games and dominoes. The first group would quickly become bored playing dominoes except maybe as a quick palate cleanser, and the evening is spent concentrating on what moves to make and kibbitzing or not-so-slyly trying to convince another player that that something you want him to do is also in his own best interest. The latter group includes several people who are not gamers and who hardly care whether they win or lose, and the conversation at the table rarely has anything to do with the cards in our hands or on the table. For this group, even something as simple as Ticket To Ride is more than some of them want to deal with. But a rummy variant like Phase 10 or 5 Crowns is perfect -- a lot of luck, a bit of thought just when it's your turn, a nice supplement to the conversation when topics temporarily run dry. These games are intergenerational, easy to step into or out of, perfect for a diversity of ages, interests, and strategic abilities.
But you have to account for the uptick in violent incidents due to your opponent getting gin after one draw when you had just been dealt a hand with half a dozen face cards and no melds.
I had this same experience about ten years ago, when my daughter sent me a video of a talk of his. I didn't dive in enough to see if something had changed, if that video was the exception, or if the reputation was just unjustified.
Not sure i understand -- why would the concept of "will" be important for intelligence? For human minds it's the arbitrator between reason and emotion, but I don't see why an AGI would have to be human-like to qualify as "intelligent" -- it just has to be able to understand and reason and communicate as well as or better than humans do.
I mean, that's certainly important, but I don't think it's the general objection -- my impression is that it's more about the person being seen as pedantic or nerdy or "mansplaining" (well, X-splaining I guess), or sometimes just because they're pushing against the original comment's point in a way that was not appreciated.
On the internet, it's a good bet that a reply starting that way will be unwelcome to the person who made the original comment, regardless of its accuracy, though it can often be helpful to others.
Related -- the Community Notes feature on Twitter is pretty cool. I don't know if it's measurably effective at stopping bad info from spreading, but it's satisfying that you don't have to count on the original poster deleting with explanation.
Yeah that's fair -- there are voices on the Left to call out in this regard but it's not Black Democrats as a group, that seemed misdirected to me too. And nuance doesn't seem to be his Twitter style.
He definitely makes bolder statements than I would be comfortable with, but at the same time i don't agree that these things have been discredited -- mainly because I just don't think our ability to separate and measure causes and effects is sensitive enough to do that. My POV is more that there are inevitable trade-offs between crime reduction and other goals such as personal liberty and racial non-discrimination -- profiling (racial or otherwise) and spot checks absent probable cause likely do reduce crime some non-negligible amount, the question is more whether the downsides outweigh the upsides. But even to begin a discussion along these lines is to invite charges of racism -- perhaps besides professional interest, Hanania is just trying to nudge the Overton Window a bit.
He says a number of things that get into the DMZ around racism, without going over the border. I think he's also said that tweeting controversial takes has been part of his rise to relative prominence as a professional opinion-haver.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Tipping Expands To The Sidewalk”
It's definitely satire, but it's a little scary how few changes would be required to make it read like a sincere proposal. Good illustration of how easy it is to come up with a string of plausible arguments on principle for something that we all currently agree is ridiculous (but might not agree anymore after a few more years of drift).
On “Open Mic for the week of 6/26/2023”
There's a reason why this is a meme.
"
"It’s the way gay rights were advanced"
Well, an important factor anyway, among others. For organizers in any particular locale, it's a question of efficiency. From the article:
"
Came across this article about "deep canvassing" on transgender rights -- instead of bombarding with arguments and literature, it involves longer conversations with people, listening without judgment, sharing experiences and nudging towards the goal. Sounds great, but expensive -- ROI may not be adequate.
"
Did we discuss Jason Brennan's taxonomy from Against Democracy here before?
On “Hunter Biden: Justice or Witch Hunt?”
I have to confess, my comment wasn’t really in defense of you or Maribou, it was in defense of a halfway reasonable level of discourse here. So no thanks necessary. :)
"
Wow, what a dick move. Did you ask Jay’s partner for permission to use that bit of personal info in your juvenile attempt to score points against him in an internet argument? I’m guessing not.
On “Mini-Throughput: Debate Me, Bro Edition”
I wonder if part of the problem isn't so much that we're lacking those people but that the media doesn't go to them because they don't drive the ratings. In which case there's probably no good solution -- there will always be someone ready to play the media game. And it's what the media does only because it's what the viewers want, so ultimately i guess it's our fault.
At least we can be secure in our sense of our own wisdom as we watch the world go to sh!t.
"
Right -- I think the two main challenges for scientists are (1) being attentive to the boundaries of what "science" itself can show without sneaking in your own opinions, and (2) being smart about how to communicate effectively to the public as a whole and avoiding the traps laid by a media industry that prefers clarity and certainty over nuance and probabilities.
"
Hotez is in a third category, a scientist who has decided to make himself a public figure by doing a lot of media appearances. Some folks are pointing out that he announced his principled stand on MSNBC. I totally agree that a debate would be worthless, but Hotez has already chosen to inhabit that liminal space between scientist and media partisan, so it's not surprising that some see him as just not wanting to face an audience that doesn't already agree with him.
On “Saturday Morning Gaming: Ye Olde Cribbage Club”
I haven't played Cribbage in about three decades, but this and the previous discussion inspired me to look for a phone app to remind myself how to play. There are a bunch, but i found one that had the benefit of being free with no IAP, and it also gives a little analysis at the end of each game on your non-optimal discards and pegging plays. No personified opponents or rendition of a cribbage board though, just the game essentials.
On “Open Mic for the week of 6/12/2023”
Just judging by all the British cop/detective shows my wife and I watch, the answer is a resounding yes.
On “The ChatGPT Lawyer Case: Mata v. Avianca”
I'm no expert, but at a high level the problem of fake citations seems solvable for someone who wanted to make a law-centric LLM, using some combination of RLHF and supplemental corpus -- the LLM has to be trained that citations are not subject to pattern match but have to be pulled from dataset of actual cases.
"
Pretty soon the judges will be AI too, and will react "ah yes, Estate of Durden v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines -- very on point."
On “Open Mic for the week of 6/12/2023”
Don't fight it, keep it in your arsenal for the future.
"OMG look at this horrible thing Trump just posted on TruthSocial!!"
"Well, I wouldn't have posted that, but it's his site and he's free to post whatever he wants. Are you suggesting he not be allowed to post on his own site??"
On “Bring Back Playing Cards”
I think what you're maybe missing is games as not an end in and of themselves but a bit of grease for socializing.
I have two regular game groups -- one is is made up of software developers (where I'm the oldest participant) and mostly involves playing medium-to-hard-complexity strategy games and the other is several couples around retirement age (where I'm the youngest participant) and mostly involves playing card games and dominoes. The first group would quickly become bored playing dominoes except maybe as a quick palate cleanser, and the evening is spent concentrating on what moves to make and kibbitzing or not-so-slyly trying to convince another player that that something you want him to do is also in his own best interest. The latter group includes several people who are not gamers and who hardly care whether they win or lose, and the conversation at the table rarely has anything to do with the cards in our hands or on the table. For this group, even something as simple as Ticket To Ride is more than some of them want to deal with. But a rummy variant like Phase 10 or 5 Crowns is perfect -- a lot of luck, a bit of thought just when it's your turn, a nice supplement to the conversation when topics temporarily run dry. These games are intergenerational, easy to step into or out of, perfect for a diversity of ages, interests, and strategic abilities.
"
But you have to account for the uptick in violent incidents due to your opponent getting gin after one draw when you had just been dealt a hand with half a dozen face cards and no melds.
On “Open Mic for the week of 6/5/2023”
I had this same experience about ten years ago, when my daughter sent me a video of a talk of his. I didn't dive in enough to see if something had changed, if that video was the exception, or if the reputation was just unjustified.
On “Open Mic for the week of 5/29/2023”
Not sure i understand -- why would the concept of "will" be important for intelligence? For human minds it's the arbitrator between reason and emotion, but I don't see why an AGI would have to be human-like to qualify as "intelligent" -- it just has to be able to understand and reason and communicate as well as or better than humans do.
"
It's absolutely a joke -- done by an artist who does some satirical stuff. He made a fake ad for Biden in 2020 that went viral.
"
I mean, that's certainly important, but I don't think it's the general objection -- my impression is that it's more about the person being seen as pedantic or nerdy or "mansplaining" (well, X-splaining I guess), or sometimes just because they're pushing against the original comment's point in a way that was not appreciated.
"
On the internet, it's a good bet that a reply starting that way will be unwelcome to the person who made the original comment, regardless of its accuracy, though it can often be helpful to others.
Related -- the Community Notes feature on Twitter is pretty cool. I don't know if it's measurably effective at stopping bad info from spreading, but it's satisfying that you don't have to count on the original poster deleting with explanation.
On “Open Mic for the week of 5/22/2023”
Yeah that's fair -- there are voices on the Left to call out in this regard but it's not Black Democrats as a group, that seemed misdirected to me too. And nuance doesn't seem to be his Twitter style.
"
He definitely makes bolder statements than I would be comfortable with, but at the same time i don't agree that these things have been discredited -- mainly because I just don't think our ability to separate and measure causes and effects is sensitive enough to do that. My POV is more that there are inevitable trade-offs between crime reduction and other goals such as personal liberty and racial non-discrimination -- profiling (racial or otherwise) and spot checks absent probable cause likely do reduce crime some non-negligible amount, the question is more whether the downsides outweigh the upsides. But even to begin a discussion along these lines is to invite charges of racism -- perhaps besides professional interest, Hanania is just trying to nudge the Overton Window a bit.
"
He says a number of things that get into the DMZ around racism, without going over the border. I think he's also said that tweeting controversial takes has been part of his rise to relative prominence as a professional opinion-haver.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.