This is why at the end of the day I think I prefer right wingers to lefties. I had a disagreement with this guy, he posts a meme that makes me actually laugh. A leftie would be gunning for my head. Rightists always seem like they’re just fucking around, would be good to be with.
I am so much smarter than most people on this platform, it is not even funny. I feel like arguing with children on most instances. There are a few people that challenge me, and an even rarer few who do top me. I shall withhold names, but you know who you are.
If you do not say yes to this, you might be evil.
A floor in society, even in circumstances where it is not directly conducive to growth through a positive externality (not possible), can be seen as stealing a slight bit from the future to feed the present. It can be morally useful to keep you honest in what you strive twards.
Behold the conservative of the 21st century. We do not save dying children because ... uhmm ... commie bull!
Replying to @memeticsisyphus
I don’t want to “share the benefits” of America with the residents of every shithole in the third world, screw that commie bull.
Hunter has a real point in his article though, and it is one I am sympathetic to regarding automation. I believe, aesthetically, pre-morally, pre-rationally, intelligence and the reproduction of apex intelligence is a good. And charity might work against that.
All of this distills down to a fundamental question — what matters to you more — the fairness of the present of civilisation, or the existence of a fairer future civilisation?
The former leads to communist-leaning ideologies and the latter leads to capitalist ones.
But,
we are at a crossroads where the expected value towards marginal extra capital thrown at productive businesses in AI are going to produce substantially more good for the world than the benefit to redistribution. Seeing as to that fact, I am thoroughly pro-acceleration.
Indeed the people that are most well versed with a subject are the least prone to knowledgism. A bit like Dunning-Kruger, but for exclusionary measures. Smartness or wisdom correlates actually with higher openness to different streams of thought; not a circlejerk of your own.
This is why I emphasised on the point I did a few days prior. Being well read on a subject does not automatically disqualify one from idiocy in that subject, and this generalises overall. Knowledge is at best weakening of that hypothesis somewhat when seen randomly.
I walk a tightrope choosing between leaning commie and Nazi any given day. It depends on whether I meet an Indian woman or man; when I meet an Indian trans person, I am a centrist.
India has a clear edge morally against Pakistan. Fundamentally because it is more liberal, peaceful, etc.; but for the conflict because it has mostly been reactive. Suboptimal circumstances in Kashmir. I won’t do the both-sides crap because nation-states have to be pragmatic.
Replying to @adarshisit
Who is right in the conflict
I know nothing about it but i'll be a lifelong partisan for the side you choose
The way to fuck with an LLM’s reasoning in any moral question is to introduce Nazism. I was just quibbling with Claude on the Indo-Pakistan conflict and it was like, “bla bla I do not have values, it really depends on how you weigh them” “What about Nazis” “Wrong” “How?”:
If you wake up every day and log in to X dot com with a single-minded dedication towards hating Jews, Black people, Indians, Muslims, women, libs, etc., it is genuinely sad. What possibly can make a person carry so much hate? It is negatively polarising against the human race.









