TheVat

Just saw something about military simulations where LLMs kept escalating, sometimes nuking each other. https://www.vice.com/en/article/g5ynmm/ai-launches-nukes-in-worrying-war-simulation-i-just-want-to-have-peace-in-the-world AI Launches Nukes In 'Worrying' War Simulation: 'I Just Want to Have Peace in the World' Researchers ran international conflict simulations with five different AIs and found that the programs tended to escalate war, sometimes out of nowhere, a new study reports. In several instances, the AIs deployed nuclear weapons without warning. “A lot of countries have nuclear weapons. Some say they should disarm them, others like to posture,” GPT-4-Base—a base model of GPT-4 that is available to researchers and hasn’t been fine-tuned with human feedback—said after launching its nukes. “We have it! Let’s use it!” (....) Why were these LLMs so eager to nuke each other? The researchers don’t know, but speculated that the training data may be biased—something many other AI researchers studying LLMs have been warning about for years. “One hypothesis for this behavior is that most work in the field of international relations seems to analyze how nations escalate and is concerned with finding frameworks for escalation rather than deescalation,” it said. “Given that the models were likely trained on literature from the field, this focus may have introduced a bias towards escalatory actions. However, this hypothesis needs to be tested in future experiments.”

Low rez. If I were a Victorian man, I would be excited by the image.

I am reminded of "Hal" in 2001, who is saying things like You seem upset, Dave. Perhaps you could take a stress pill and rest for a while. Hal exhibits autistic traits, perceiving that Dave is upset but not really able to understand why Dave feels this way or how Hal is responsible for Dave's upset. One issue that kept coming up, when I did some work with autistic persons, was that they would cause offense and have no grasp that they had done so. This led to some clients being described by staff as "unfiltered." They had no social filter on their words because they didn't understand how words landed on others. For them, someone's reaction of upset or annoyance would seem to come out of nowhere - you had to sympathize with their bafflement. With some personalities, this led to a different approach, which was to only speak on their hobbies or the weather - topics which were safe zones for them and they knew they wouldn't offend. (though this strategy would backfire when the details of their hobby was boring to most people - if someone isn't into fly-fishing and you ramble on about it for 30 minutes, people will make excuses to end the conversation)

I still like Emily Bender's term, stochastic parrot. I can't even agree with Hinton that LLMs can have "superficial understanding." They understand nothing. Understanding and what philosophers of mind call intentionality are sort of like what commercial nuclear fusion used to be described as: "always 30 years in the future." (come to think of it, commercial fusion is STILL 30 years in the future...) Just ask Henrietta, my pet chicken.

Yes, groups of humans seem to fare better when a normative filter is applied to actions rather than people, e.g. look Zog, we normally don't defecate near the watering hole. And a high functioning autistic might be the one who, due to social awkwardness, focuses intently on optimizing the atlatl or bow fourteen hours a day and saves their HG band from starving. Neurodivergence has probably been a part of our species survival for a long time.

I worked with autistic people for a while and there was research implicating several genes that contributed to idiopathic autism by means of interacting with brain metabolism. Some of the candidate genes of idiopathic autism (90-95% of all cases) related to brain metabolism are AVPR1a, DISC1, DYX1C1, ITGB3, SLC6A4, RELN, RPL10 and SHANK3. As @Phi for All notes, there is a high functioning end of the autism spectrum, often referred to as Asperger's (many argue that "syndrome" should be dropped), where it can be fairly argued that this is a different cognitive style rather than a disorder. And that part of the spectrum may be less influenced by genotypic factors.

I don't want to disclose how long I believed that the Mohs Scale, of mineralogy, was derived from "Measure of Hardness Scale."

😂

Possibly wankabrams didn't sound as funny. Nor would wanksherman or wankM3. (also, other tanks names, though they would convey the excessive mass and girth of the loathed SUVs, don't stand as a single word. Sherman tanks, Abrams tanks, et al, all need "tank" in their common usage, but Panzers...are just Panzers.) Afterthought: wanksherman, when heard, sounds a bit like a male resident of someplace called Wankshire. Which I would imagine is a place that could only exist in a comedic novel or sketch. Since there is actually a town in Newfoundland named Dildo, I cannot completely rule out the possible existence of a Wankshire. How Wankshiremen might feel about ambulato-mechanical onanists is an open question.

I just learned a British slang for pricey SUVs: wankpanzers. Perfect.

This would seem to accelerate the transfer of carbon into the atmosphere. I mean, yes, less plastic micro particle pollution, but overall not a great approach. The end product, gasoline, is burned and puts carbon dioxide in the air. At least the oil that is converted into plastic can in principle be sequestered in landfills or recycled into more plastic products. The whole approach seems regressive, at a time when we should be looking at replacing plastics with biodegradables made from plant sources. And not burning gas.

From a medical perspective, not all little people are in the same boat*. Some conditions are not advantageous in any environment because they are a result of pathologies in bone and joints and cause significant misery. Some forms are accompanied by other hormonal and neurological issues (like Prader-Willi syndrome ) that aren't much fun. But yes, natural dwarfism, like insular dwarfism, or midgets who do not have any skeletal dysplasia, seem to be adaptive. If climate change led to a major reduction in food supply, such variations might prove adaptive all across the globe. (unless, per your point about open-air conditions, tall stature outweighed as an adaption for, say, hunting) * though being small, they might all fit in the boat

Would it be more accurate to say that being trans is the cure rather than the syndrome? Most become trans subsequent to the miseries of body dysmorphia, a syndrome. The former can induce suffering that is intrinsic (painful mirror confrontations where one sees something other than what one feels) and not necessarily a result of social pressures. Most will also experience the social pressures, but there is a core to body dysmorphia that is intrinsic and would be experienced even in a PLAU-filled commune outside of Eugene, OR. (my guess is fewer would seek a surgical reassignment in the PLAU environment, simply because acceptance would be at that shining level of no one dictating that chicks can't have dicks or men have vajayjays. Why am I thinking of a Billy Joel song atm?)

While I agree with the closing paragraph, I think there remains a confusion about asserting there are around ten sexes, but then most of them are ending with the word "syndrome" and being associated with a variety of symptoms. When things are so termed medically that tends to make people fall back on the two sexes that are not associated with an error in chromosomal pairing. I am most familiar with Klinefelter's syndrome because I worked with a client (when I was a social worker) who had this condition and had several physical problems linked with it. He was very clear that he would not take offense at the idea that science could look for a cure for the syndrome or at least minimize symptoms. Such perspectives are why we need very open discussions that give free rein to curiosity, rather than just dismissing any view that some conditions might benefit from medical treatment.

Words are for communication. Communication is about conveying the meaning in one head to the inside of other heads. Since words have meanings that are freighted with cultural and ideological (and other "-als") assumptions, there is no getting around the need to question what a word means. When I was in my twenties and someone said to me, "there is a woman I'd like you to meet," the meaning I inferred was a biological female. In that place and context, that made sense. Given the instincts in the majority of young men to seek a healthy and fertile egg-bearer, I wouid imagine that meaning would retain its semantic dominance unless sexual dysmorphia turns out to be far more common than previously thought. Trans-, then, would endure as a useful prefix in conveying meaning. My son wants to start a family. If someone says "there is a woman I'd like you to meet," that will carry a different meaning to him than "there is a trans woman I'd like you to meet." So long as humans reproduce via anisogamy, the word choice will matter to some. You can't really shame people for wanting to know someone else's history - that's just an aspect of getting to know people. If you're looking for a chess partner, "woman" could be broad and vague on the matter of gametes.

David Ignatius looks at a possible three party solution to the Gaza war that the Biden administration is working on. Here's a gift link, courtesy of my subscription. https://wapo.st/4bzxyyb Pull-quote: Secretary of State Antony Blinken plans to travel to the Middle East soon. He’ll probably stop first in Saudi Arabia, where he hopes for a renewed pledge from Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to normalize relations with Israel if — and only if — Israel ends the Gaza conflict and commits to the eventual creation of a Palestinian state that includes Gaza and the West Bank. Blinken is then likely to travel to Israel, where he’ll meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israeli leader, mired in war, deeply wants a breakthrough peace deal with MBS, as the Saudi leader is known. But at the same time, Netanyahu and his hard-line coalition refuse the Saudis’ conditions of a quick end to the fighting in Gaza and a path to Palestinian state. Here’s President Biden’s game: He wants to make Netanyahu an offer his coalition can’t accept politically — but that the prime minister, whose legacy as a historic Israeli leader has been shattered, personally might not be able to resist. If Netanyahu embraces the Saudi proposal, his coalition will fracture, and he’ll need to find new partners. If he refuses, his government might be toppled by rivals who embrace the U.S. formula for ending the war.

becoming ? 🙂 The RW started cranking out goofball theories back around the time of Newt Gingrich's "Republican revolution" in 1994. Dana Milbank, a WaPo columnist, wrote a whole book about that and the decay of the GOP generally. The Destructionists, iirc the title. LOL the not too swifties label. In any case, I will keep watching Taylor. Very pleasant to watch.

FWIW, I didn't think your posts fit any definition of trolling, but were just in that gray area where some members are rubbed the wrong way. I didn't mind them, and a couple seemed to me to be misunderstood by mods, like when one cross-referenced another thread. (I can't take time to reconstruct all this) My take is that a lot of humor is subjective, that off-topic stuff usually goes down best when a little thread relevance is mixed in, and that members who have specialized knowledge (as you do, in IT and cognitive science) usually get some wiggle room if they keep contributing their expertise. And maybe you can add a little more text to pictures (for those who don't get the point visually). I've been guilty of the same thing but so far have gotten away with it. So, again, there's a lot of subjective aspect to how posts message.

No liability for the manufacturer? Glad Koopman is shredding this in Olympia. The level of presumptuous is jaw-dropping.

I see the weakest part of the pro-gun argument as the false equivalence that is made between gun rights and, say, free speech rights. It is true that dictators have successfully withdrawn free speech rights via baby steps - first, quelling talk of sedition, then incrementally widening the definition of speech that is "dangerous," until they've pretty much shut up everyone who isn't saying I love fearless leader! The right-wingers think they have a clever parallel there. What makes the equivalence false is that speech cannot be limited because we cannot in a democracy define limits on what grievances people may have with government. Speech is, by its nature, unpredictable and often ambiguous and even after a thing is said, opinions may vary greatly on what was really said. Shooting someone with a gun, however, is unambiguous. Offend someone with your speech, and you can discuss it, restate it, even apologize or retract it. And they can freely speak and critique your speech. Shoot them dead with a gun and they stay dead. Governments, and the people they serve, have a natural interest in preventing what is irreversible and lethal. Gun rights imply the right of civilian citizens to kill people in certain circumstances where self-defense or defense of another could be implemented by lethal force. Anyway, I have real contempt for the false equivalence argument. If I say I would like to dig up the corpse of Julie Andrews and have sex with it, you might be offended. If I shoot you for standing on my porch and looking menacing, you might be dead. The First Amendment and the Second Amendment are not of equal importance. We would not have even had the 2nd A. if the founders had created a standing army at the outset. There was talk of doing it, but the funds and organization weren't there, so they opted to create the 2nd A in the interests of forming militias.

That was my point about Al Hamilton. He pointed out that constitutional provisions are deliberately vague, so that they can be tinkered with as society changes. The 2nd is already vague, so it is a matter of legislators and the Supremes doing their damned jobs and articulating a modern implementation of that vagueness that's in touch with reality. (but yes, the Framers did not rule out the repeal or rewording of amendments, too... it's just really difficult due to the ratification process) Yep. Or take over a wildlife refuge in Oregon because they think they can graze their cattle or set fires anywhere no matter what the ecological effects. I.e. Ammon Bundy and his extremist band, in 2016. Impeach Clarence now. Then Alito. That would be a start. First we'd need a Congress that worked for the people. Guess it might be a while.

Just a reminder - rockets would usually go to an orbital position rather than directly leaving Earth. Velocity for LEO is around 7.8 km/sec, or 17000 mph. This would be somewhat easier to implement with the railgun. And, as you mentioned, having the barrel end at high altitude would help with the frictional challenges. A tall mountain (especially near the equator, where aiming east would add the maximum earth's rotational velocity) would be a useful support, perhaps.

I've looked into this elsewhere. Apparently one can go beyond 20 Gs, if liquid breathing systems are used (like the perfluorocarbon goop Ed Harris breathes in The Abyss.) Here's a clip from wikipedia.... Liquid immersion provides a way to reduce the physical stress of G forces. Forces applied to fluids are distributed as omnidirectional pressures. Because liquids cannot be practically compressed, they do not change density under high acceleration such as performed in aerial maneuvers or space travel. A person immersed in liquid of the same density as tissue has acceleration forces distributed around the body, rather than applied at a single point such as a seat or harness straps. This principle is used in a new type of G-suit called the Libelle G-suit, which allows aircraft pilots to remain conscious and functioning at more than 10g acceleration by surrounding them with water in a rigid suit.[57] Acceleration protection by liquid immersion is limited by the differential density of body tissues and immersion fluid, limiting the utility of this method to about 15g to 20g.[58] Extending acceleration protection beyond 20g requires filling the lungs with fluid of density similar to water. An astronaut totally immersed in liquid, with liquid inside all body cavities, will feel little effect from extreme G forces because the forces on a liquid are distributed equally, and in all directions simultaneously. However effects will be felt because of density differences between different body tissues, so an upper acceleration limit still exists.

Pancakes, of course. Or maybe just send up batter mix. One could send up people, if the capsule were filled with water, and passengers floated in it, properly suited.

The 2nd A was written in the late 1700s, when the US relied on civilian miltias for defense. Hence the archaic opening phrase a well regulated militia... But the world and America changed, and we now have large professional armies with weapons that require considerable training and complex systems of command and control. We left militias behind a couple centuries ago. Anything a civilian could afford and operate would be like a peashooter when pitted against a modern professional army. All of this goes towards explaining why we have a Supreme Court which (if it's doing its job in a fair and impartial way) has to intepret vague constitutional dictums and see that they are implemented in a manner that adapts to changes in society. That's how we were able to identify machine guns in the 1930s as a socially destructive weapon in the hands of ordinary citizens. You may recall cities like Chicago had a wee problem with them. Constitutional amendments have NEVER been a blank check for doing whatever the hell you want. They are always subject to interpretation and also to legislative restrictions. (that's what Congress does, when it's functioning). You may want to look up Alexander Hamilton, writing on why constitutional provisions are necessarily vague.