Psychoanalysis really does seem to push the most obnoxious boundary in academic language. On one hand, it is legitimately valuable to create a specific framework to enable experts to talk about technical elements of the field. It reminds me of the old IT rant about users who think "turn on the computer" means "turn the screen on, no need to touch the actual computer part". But at the extreme it creates opacity for its own sake and makes it hard for people who haven't devoted their careers to the field to understand what's being done. Particularly in a medical or psychiatric field where the patient is by definition in a lower-information group than the person treating them, this amounts to making it hard for the patient to understand (and therefore consent) to what is being done to them. I am by no means immune to the simple pleasure of knowing something that other people don't, especially when the outside world reaffirms the value of that knowledge, and there is definitely a place for the specificity that this kind of jargon enables, but psychoanalysis seems to consistently stretch it too far.
- Posts
- 3
- Comments
- 1593
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 3
- Comments
- 1593
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
To distract us from the ongoing cycle of violence and discourse about violence that neither cracks down or addresses it's causes, may I offer the fruit of today's YouTube rabbit hole:
This feels somehow tied to the whole "agentic" thing I've ranged about previously. Like, individual acts of violence are strictly destructive because the people doing it aren't sufficiently "agentic" to change things, even though American history is full of cases where (usually racist) vigilante violence had a huge impact on people's decision-making. But when the government does it it's different because people in government got there by proving their agency and ability to actually impact the world. Like, it feels almost like he's offended that the NPCs might try and do something as drastic as killing someone without GM permission.
Meanwhile in reality, people legitimately do feel like they don't have a lot of options to protect themselves from the real harms this industry is doing, to say nothing of the people who buy his line about the oncoming class-K end-of-life scenario. Anger is an appropriate response to the circumstances we find ourselves in, and in a nation that has been quietly cultivating a culture of heroic violence for decades we shouldn't be surprised to see people trying to inflict that fear and rage upon the outside world.
Maybe it's just because I'm rolling back through Age of Mythology, but I died laughing at "it's like the centaur, Helen"
It's a willful refusal to actually consider the consequences of their beliefs, which is deeply ironic for a bunch that pride themselves on their hardcore consequentialism. Like, even if you just mean "if anyone builds it, everyone dies" as a simple cause and effect, that should imply some kind of action unless you don't think everyone dying would be bad actually.
I've never understood how these things are simultaneously gaining their abilities based on statistical analysis of all kinds of random writings online including social media, fanfic, reddit, etc. but also are simultaneously supposed to end up as experts rather than a much faster and more agreeable dumbass. Like, the training data may include all the great works of literature, all the scrapable scientific studies and textbooks they could steal, and so on. But it also included every moron who ever shared conspiracy theories on Twitter, every confident-sounding business idiot on LinkedIn, and every stupid word that Scott or Yud ever wrote. Surely the bullshit has to exceed the expertise by raw volume, and if they took the time and energy to curate it out the way they would need to to correct that they wouldn't be left with a large enough sample to actually scale off of.
Basically, either I'm dramatically misunderstanding something or the best we can hope for is the Average Joe on Reddit, who may not be a complete dumbass but definitely isn't a team of PhDs.
You know, I had let time blindness eat the context that Saltman has been saying the same doomer critihype about basically every product they've developed going back years. Like, I knew it but I hadn't really processed it.
I just... I have no words for how dumb literally everyone - apparently including myself - is that he keeps getting away with this shit.
So I don't have time to read the full paper and I probably don't have the background to make an informed critique of the methodology once I do (not that that's gonna stop me). But I feel like the challenge here is in mapping the distinction between junior and senior coding roles. To what extent do the senior coders get treated like a distinct job as opposed to being junior-but-seasoned?
Based on a quick amateur read of the abstract it looks like they're assuming the first option, that junior and senior developers are separate roles that can be largely disentangled. But if the other option is true, then in the event of a general industry downturn (say, after over hiring during recent periods of unsustainable growth) then it might make sense to look at the cuts to junior roles as simply removing the less efficient and effective people from the development role, rather than specifically cutting the juniors because they're uniquely exposed to AI replacement.
I don't know which model is more accurate to how the industry treats these roles or whether it varies by organization or what, but that's what seems like the most likely alternate explanation for the observed shift towards a very senior-heavy workforce.
I will back up soyweiser here by saying that at least in modern Christianity you run into the latter a hell of a lot less often. I don't know that most of them have done a lot of theological introspection to try and reconcile the usual contradictions you get from trying to use bronze-age source material dealing in absolutes, but when push comes to shove I think most of them lean towards believing that the choice to be a decent person is real and matters.
Ah yes, the Soma problem. I can't think of another premise of the transhumanist not-faith that can be so viscerally upsetting when wrong.
The decision theory stuff itself ought to be called out more for playing pretty fast and loose with reality to begin with. "If you have a supercomputer that perfectly simulates blah blah blah" is such a fundamentally bad premise because once you presume such a thing exists you're committing to the same basic metaphysical problems that you would if you replaced the computer with God. In particular I think it commits you to hard determinism at which point there's no sense arguing about what the right action is because the answer was set in stone not just before you entered the room but when the initial state of the universe was set up. Like, there's a version of this where the question is meaningful in which case the premise is impossible, and a version where we accept the premise as given and render the question pointless. Why are you doing decision theory in a hypothetical world where nobody really makes decisions?
Or we could acknowledge that yudkowskian decision theory is just singularity apologetics and accept the impossible elements of the premise on faith.
So two thoughts:
Per Saltman's comments the improvised incendiary bounced off the side of the house rather than breaking and spreading the gas on the house proper. Apparently if you want the bottle to break the way you intend you gotta really just whang that thing because glass bottles are sturdier than you'd think.
One thing I find ironic about his referencing the New Yorker article on him was that part of my takeaway from that article was how mundane he is, individually. Like, he's a snake, but not in any way that isn't pretty standard once you start getting that level of wealth and power. He credibly pretended to be a proper AI cultist for the critihype, and then as the rubber started hitting the road he pivoted towards the direction that gave him and the company more money, even if it meant sacrificing the values that it turns out a lot of other people really cared about (however dumb I might think they are). That's shitty, but it's shitty in the most boring way that so many things are in the rot economy, and it's not like even if they had managed to kill Altman himself there wouldn't be another bunch of enterprising sociopaths ready to move into the same position. That profile is one of the strongest pieces of evidence why even if you are a hardcore AI doom cultist you shouldn't focus your ire on the man himself, because he's just not that special.
The fact that Bitcoin bros are so cooked that there's probably a moderately stable price floor at $69,420 because of people deciding on that number for the memes...
True. I will say that the shitty infosec teams are probably being hit less hard than the SMEs they offloaded their jobs onto, because from their perspective it doesn't actually matter whether it's f5 support engineer or a chatbot that tells them the answer; either way they've successfully offloaded the task of validating security onto another entity that can make up for their shortcomings with a combination of accuracy and authority. Nobody is going to get fired for not fixing a bug that the vendor SME told them wasn't actually an issue for them, effectively. And when the org has been pushing AI as hard as so many of them have its pretty easy to throw the chatbot under the same bus and expect the bus to stop instead.
Yeah, they lost me at the middle managers bit too. In my experience your manager is probably the one pushing the metrics to show their team's contributions to the knowledge base that is feeding into the AI model that's replacing them. They're already creatures of the bureaucracy and are more likely to try and fight each other over the few remaining roles that will exist after the majority of their teams are replaced with the confabulatron, rather than be concerned about their own replacements. After all, their job stops existing because their team got downsized, but their time in that job may be dependent on their enthusiastic participation in the process that leads there.
I don't disagree about the massive costs necessarily associated with thia industry. Even the smaller and lighter models she mentions only exist because of the massive fuckers. At the same time, I think those arguments are for the realm of public policy more than individual choice to use chatbots or not. We've talked at length here over the last year or so about how the economics of the bubble are driven largely by a broken B2B SaaS pipeline that separates purchasing decisions from actually having to use the products and by an investment capital sector desperately trying to recapture the glory days of the pre-2008 omnibubble and throwing obscene amounts of money at anything with the right narrative regardless of the numbers. I feel like that keeps happening regardless of how many individual users fall for the hype and make it part of their normal workflows.
I feel like the analogy to the drug trade is still pretty relevant given the violence and predation that the black market pretty much inevitably attracts and sustains. Like, maybe you know a guy who has his own grow op or whatever, but cocaine and heroin money is going through the cartels at some point in the chain and they're going to use some portion of it for bullets that end up in some journalist's kids or something. The downstream harms are massive even if the drug industry could theoretically avoid them in ways the AI industry can't, but any given individual user's contribution to them is incredibly minor and given the addictive and self-destructive nature of the product it's both more humane and more effective to treat them as a victim of a broken world that (falsely) offered this as a step up. While I don't think we should allow slop to invest every forum any more than addicts should be allowed to shoot up on every corner, I think that if shaming makes people less likely to acknowledge that they're going down a dead-end road and reach out to their communities and support networks for help addressing the root of what drove them to these maladaptive antisolutions in the first place then shaming is making things worse, not better.
Also as the father of a small child I can unfortunately say from recent personal experience that shaming, be it public or private, is far less effective as a means of motivating behavioral change than we want it to be, even for things as basic as not shitting on the goddamn lawn.
Found an interesting take on YouTube, of all places. Her argument can be summarized (with high compression losses) as "AI companies and technologies are bad for basically all the reasons that non-cultist critics say, but trying to shame and argue people out of using them entirely is less effective than treating them as a normal tool with limitations and teaching people how to limit the harm." She makes the analogy to drug policy.
I think she makes a very compelling argument, and I'm still digesting it a bit because I definitely had the knee-jerk rejection as an insider shill, but especially towards the end as she talks about how the AI industry targets low-literacy users as ideal customers (because the more you know about it the less you're likely to actually use them) I found myself agreeing more than not. I do wish she had addressed the dangers of cognitive offloading more, since being mindful of which tasks you're letting the computer do for you is pretty significant part of minimizing those harms, especially for students and some professionals who face a strong incentive to just coast by on slop if they can get away with it.
I can't validate any of the internal stuff, but the attitude of layering manual solutions and mitigation scripts on top of bad design choices and praying you could keep building the next bit of the bridge as the last one collapsed underneath you would explain a lot of experiences I had supporting systems running on Azure. The level of weird "Azure just does that sometimes" cases and the lack of ability for their support to actually provide insight was incredibly frustrating. I think I probably ended up providing a couple of automatic recovery scripts for people to use inside their F5 guests because we never could find an actual explanation for the errors they were getting, and the node issues they describe could have explained the bursts of Azure cases that would come in some days.
XCancel link for those of us sick of being badgered to sign up/in
On a more productive note, this feels likely to be tied in with the usual issues of AI sycophancy re: false positive rate. If you ask the model to tell you about security vulnerabilities, it's never going to tell you there aren't any, any more than existing scanners will. When I worked for F5 it was not uncommon to have to go down a list of vulnerabilities that someone's scanner turned out and figure out whether they were actually something that needed mitigation that could be applied on our box, something that needed to be configured somewhere else in the network (usually on their actual servers) or (most commonly) a false positive, e.g. "your software version would be vulnerable here, which is why it flagged, but you don't have the relevant module activated and if an attacker is able to modify your system to enable it you're already compromised to a far greater degree than this would allow." That was with existing tools that weren't trying to match a pattern and complete a prompt.* Given that we've seen the shitshow that is Claude Code I think it's pretty clear they're getting high on their own supply and this announcement ought be catnip for black hats.
Now that's not fair. It's based on a third-derivative of Advanced Homework: The Game.