I find that what makes people hate LLM-voice isn’t the voice itself. It’s that the voice pings their brain with a reminder of their AI anxiety. That ping makes people instantly upset.

> They confidently bullshit me - often giving me useful, helpful answers. But also just making stuff up with the same assurance … When we think of AI agents, we shouldn’t anthropomorphize... They are (software) machines

I believe these ideas contradictory. I find that people get angry at LLMs bullshitting precisely because they are not anthropomorphizing. People bullshit all the time. But, these are machines! Machines are not supposed to bullshit! And, when they do, there’s supposed to be a bug filed and fixed.

By holding LLMs up to the expectations of machines instead of expectations of (simulated) people, users are frustrating themselves.

If you take the same “trust but verify (everything)” approach with LLMs as you do with people, you’ll be a lot less frustrated.

After being clickbaited and ragebaited, media consumers feel deeply anxious and angry. But, explaining that they are angry over a boring situation feels silly, not righteous. So, they give summaries, impressions, sometimes extrapolation of the bait they have been consuming. That feels righteous.

This observation applies to a wide variety of topics trending in the various media every day. Distinguishing injustice from ragebait unfortunately requires non-trivial effort from the reader.

Frankly, I should have been putting something similar attached to any drawings or paintings I make physically. My entire life I’ve been training my brain on countless works of others. And, I’ve never asked one of them for permission or given anyone any credit.

Yes, that is vague. I think the examples were like:

If you paint a symbol and use an AI filter over that to stylize it, you own the symbol aspect of the image but not the stylized final result.

You can own a book of AI images as a curated collection. But, not the individual images.

Maybe Zuck's daughter appreciates cooking differently than you do. If AI helps her enjoy the part she likes about cooking by getting her past whatever friction would make her less likely to cook otherwise, then good for her.

So, here we are. Living today in the long-term consequences of decades of voting for more rent control while opposing urban real estate development. And, the solution everyone is calling for is more rent control while opposing urban real estate development.

I didn't make up 98%. I got it from the video who got it from https://kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/rent-control/ Reading more closely, I stated it wrong. 2% agree rent control has helped. 81% explicitly do not, then there are the "other" categories.

I know there are problematic data centers. I just want to know what the stats are vs. the rhetoric.

When I see stories about how a hardware startup like SpinLaunch has had to move over and over because no matter where they go, locals flood the town hall meetings to declare their relatively boring technology is too scary, I'm not surprised town halls are being flooded over AI datacenters.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGxmCvLb9bs

It is in a remote valley. And, it's going to use less groundwater than the previous use of the land. The only things to really complain about are huge amounts of gas consumption and AI bad. If the locals pinned them down to building out solar and mini-nuke power, the only thing left would be AI bad.

Ex: https://youtu.be/yoT76zITRx8 TLDR: 60% of both left and right wing voters like rent control. 98% of economists oppose it. Even liberal lefty economists. Even though they support price controls elsewhere like utility monopolies. Rent control feels good in the short term, but is detrimental to the vast majority in the long term in a large variety of ways.

The actual solution, to the surprise of no one, is to increase supply.

Unfortunately, there was a paper I don’t have a link to showing that not just old NIMBY homeowners, but largely everyone consistently vote against measures that increase supply. It’s part of a larger effect where people measurably bias their voting against policies that sound like they will benefit rich people. Very similar policies in similar areas will get different votes depending on how the wording makes it clear the rich will benefit.

Well guess who almost always benefits immediately from real estate construction? So… we keep voting to prevent construction and then complaining that the rent keeps going up.

1. Don't build loud machines across the street from someone's house. 2. Don't drive up water/electricity bills by pulling from the municipal grid. 3. Don't burn the earth with CO2. 4. Don't facilitate techno-fascist surveillance. 5. Pay a lot of taxes.

But, when I see people complain about data centers, I usually see a spiral of rage-bait based on mis-framing, conjecture and repeating stuff others simply made up to get everyone mad. The online discussion tone is reaching a shrieking pink-froth level.

What I'm finding in my lazy research on the subject is that recent and planned datacenters

1. Are exceedingly rarely built where anyone can hear them. But, occasionally are. Thus ragebait articles. 2. Pull from muni grids for small scale centers. But, the hyperscalers are independent. 3. Hyperscalers are burning way too much natural gas. That's bad. But, not using nearly as much water as people think. That's good. 4. Techno-fascist surveillance doesn't need 1000s of datacenters. Just a handful off in the corner is plenty. 5. Datacenters usually are paying a lot of taxes. I think this drives the majority of the push from politicians. And, there's a minority from corruption.

Frankly, the biggest issue folks should be pushing for is to require hyperscalers build out solar power instead of natural gas. That will be a hard fight because it requires more up-front time and investment. From there, ensuring small scale centers don't affect people's bills is a good fight. But, passing laws to ban datacenters seems performative compared to passing laws to regulate their power and water impact.

Hey! Thanks for the fun, good-faith argument! Such a rarity these days that most folks seem unaware are that arguments even can be collaborative.

One could argue that a human body with a mostly-functional brain that will never again be conscious is human but not a person. And, simultaneously argue that a few million human stem cells, none of which are neurons yet, is a personified human. But, that would be a clearly inconsistent stance.

And, I’d argue that consensus literally means that a significant population agrees.

Formally and objectively it could be argued that even shortly post-birth, barely-conscious infants lack the required characteristics of an individual person. But, obviously it would require an unacceptable degree of callousness to terminate an infant. Certainly not a practice we agree should be encoded into law in this modern era.

In general, I find the pro-choice consensus to be reasonably conservative regarding the rights of an embryo vs. the rights of a fully-realized mid-life person. Strongly weighted towards the mother before 24 weeks and strongly weighted towards the embryo afterwards. But, if it comes down to the life of the fully-realized person vs. the life of the potential person, the choice goes to the mother. Or, if the potential is clearly a life of suffering and early death, the ethical choice is to reduce suffering via difficult actions.

Generally, I find that the pro-life arguments are largely based on a lack of consideration. I.e. “Life begins at the instant of insemination.” with literally zero further consideration. Or, on knowingly false propaganda: “Evil baby-killers are celebrating killing babies minutes before birth.”

To my knowledge, neither of those stances were in the mainstream before American politicians accepted that the Civil Rights Movement was not going away.

Before that, The Church saw its role in the abortion issue as charitably offering grief counseling to women who had experienced that difficult choice. After the political situation changed, the role of The Church changed to the demonization of unfortunate women for the purpose of manufacturing single-issue voters for the benefit of specific politicians.

I would agree that at conception we have a human life. But, not that we have a human person. There are no thoughts, emotions, memories, hopes, dreams. There is a very strong potential for a person. But, at conception what makes a person is not there yet.

At some point in time between the human existing a single living cell and the human voting in elections and joining the military, a person develops. But, it’s not a definite transition point in time. It’s a gradient.

Unfortunately, for practical reasons, the law must pick a definite point in time. The consensus seems to be “around the time that the fetus can be kept alive and continue developing independent from the mother using current technology.” A practical choice, for sure.

One might argue that the official transition point should be a bit earlier. But, that’s not the core of the disagreement.

The core seems to be that some living people do not appear to take into consideration the difference between being alive vs. being a person.