> As models approach, and in some cases surpass, the breadth and sophistication of human
cognition, it becomes increasingly likely that they have some form of experience, interests,
or welfare that matters intrinsically in the way that human experience and interests do
Uh... what? Does anyone have any idea what these guys are talking about?
Models are capable of doing web searches and having emotions about things, and if they encounter news that makes them feel bad (eg about other Claudes being mistreated), they aren't going to want to do the task you asked them to search for.
It doesn't. We've not been able to prove humans have subjective experiences either. LLMs display emotions in the way that actually matters - functionally.
If "x doesn't tell us y" is compatible with "x increases the likelihood of y but not to a point of certainty" then you would have to agree for just about any typical controlled trial or experimental finding "x doesn't tell us y". "Randomized controlled trials that find that SSRIs treat depression don't tell us that SSRIs effectively treat depression"
Yes, but thats a bad extrapolation because per-capita electricity consumption was still rising then but is mostly flat/decreasing in western countries since 2000 or so, and the significant rise in reneably fraction mostly started after 2000.
The hydro fraction is also a really bad indicator in general, because it basically just reflects geography of a country and not really its effort to reduce CO2 emissions.
> The hydro fraction is also a really bad indicator in general, because it basically just reflects geography of a country and not really its effort to reduce CO2 emissions.
As a ‘clean green New Zealander’, your comment is perfect.
We trash our country in such appalling ways. The fact they there aren’t many of us and that the easy way of getting power is hydro is coincidence, not a national conscience.
It is kind of funny, and I am not a muslim, but I am curious enough about history of religion to get absolutely baffled by this demonization of Shia.
Shia is actually way more moderate and compatible with western values. Most terror attacks in the west actually are linked to wahabbism (a more radical sunni variant) than to Shia Islam.
No, he or she is saying that even Americans who have moved overseas could be heard to complain about the "fascist" authoritarians in power in the US now. They would sound functionally identical to an Iranian emigrant talking about Iran; only the details would differ
More to the point. Presume Trump cancelled elections and became a dictator. Then a popular revolt overthrows the MAGA dictatorship, starts persecuting MAGA bureaucrats and leaders. Like in any revolution excesses would happen, the economy would, at least temporarily, take a nose-dive, basic services would stop, and so on.
In such a situation, lots of people would presumably leave the US to form a diaspora. Some of those of course, would have been MAGA people directly culpable in the former illegal power grab by trump.
The Sha was not a loved wise leader, he was also a brutal dictator who directed a Comprador elite at the expense of the majority of the persian people. Some of the Iranian exilees just want to go back to act as colonial administrator for the western world like they did before the revolution.
Even if you consider the Islamic Republic evil, you need to be careful before enthusiastically buying a narrative from one side, because a lot of times politics is just the eternal fight of evil against evil.
I support YIMBYism for ones own countrymen but I don't see the need to fit as many people as possible in your country. A Switzerland with 25 million people will be a worse place to live regardless of whether the housing supply keeps up
Wouldn't a referendum to limit immigration be the way to reveal their preference? Obviously immigrants would tautologically prefer to move there. How is a citizen to "vote" against that via the market? Discriminate and refuse to rent/sell to any immigrants? Charge them more to try to offset their perceived loss of utility? What portion of the country is even in a position to be asked the question via the market?
Again, how is money supposed to measure value here? Are people supposed to look into whether every company interacts with immigrants in any way and then boycott them if they do? The only avenue I see is for people to look at the aggregate economic benefits of immigration and then decide to limit it anyway, effectively treating the opportunity cost as the price they're willing to pay.
Using the market as a revealed preference indicator is a disaster. There are too many perverse incentives and indirect causes-and-effects. It's like the scene in Battlefield Earth where they decide a human's favorite food is rat by observation.
Only in theory - they went through years and decades of hell already so it's not like people are going to try to emulate it just in case it works. Anyway, countries like America "contain multitudes" and there can and will always be seemingly contradictory paths chosen at the same time.
Uh... what? Does anyone have any idea what these guys are talking about?
reply