Think that's what an out of touch techie would say? May I remind you that just a few hundred years ago the best philosophers were debating whether the world would descend into anarchy if more people realized that the big monkey in the sky doesn't exist. Just because philosophers talk about something doesn't mean it exists in reality.

As for same output - there's a parameter called "temperature". It governs the random wandering in the output of an LLM. Reducing temp gives more deterministic output, but also reduces the capabilities. Is it possible that randomness is also precisely the mechanism behind human creativity?

In the same vein, airplanes can't fly because they don't flap their wings.

As for ignorance: have you tried to make an LLM produce the same output for the same input (as you state above)? Give it a shot, you'll be surprised.

These appeals usually go like this: we should stop providing more free money to the people who are strong enough to go and take it. Individually we are weaker, so let's stop this collectively. But someone needs to lead the collective. And just like that - you have created another strongman who will just take what he can. In other words: Communism.

Besides, as soon as you introduce this kind of checking, you'll just cement the oligarchy. The winning strategy would be for a billionaire not officially in government to work their magic through a puppet with a clean tax report.

A real GLP-1 slows down digestion so much that if you try to overeat you'll regret it. You'll still be uncomfortably full and ready to throw up on day 2 after that big meal.

Here's a random Internet troll's theory (mine): there's a kernel of truth to the whole "patriarchy" thing. It's just that most men aren't part of it.

Hold that pitchfork for just a moment! What I meant was: the entire economy is controlled by a very small number of people. Most of them are men, and they have very particular preferences. Assuming the majority of them are straight, it would make sense that they prefer women they see as pretty, and don't care much about men. If anything, a good looking man might be a competitor.

I don't think this idea is completely nuts. Think of the few times in history when a woman had real power. For example, Catherine the Great. Who was suddenly promoted to positions of influence? Sexy men, her "favorites" (yes, that's an actual term).

Joining these editors used to take years of training in order to write like they do. Now we have their wisdom available on the command line.

Apparently living on the net still doesn't guarantee that one has heard of the Streisand Effect.

In any case, my first association with LessWrong is Zizians, not Roko.

And now it's tweetable!

In the case of USA/Iran the US is essentially Israel's proxy. It's up to Israel to decide when the fighting stops. OK, fine, Iran could capitulate and essentially stop being a country. They'll get right on that.

In the case of Ukraine/Russia Ukraine is a US+EU proxy. It is up to the EU leadership to decide when the fighting stops. OK, fine, Russia could capitulate and stop being a country. They'll get right on that.