A key difference is that animals exists here and now, and I think most humans would viscerally understand animal shouts of pain as requests for help/food/space etc…

The quote is less about the unborn, and more about the real and ignored needs of disenfranchised people.

Help your fellow humans first and foremost, (which I would argue is well served by treating animals well, for sanitary, eco-system, or even selfish mental well-being by not having our souls marred by brutality)

Actual beings with needs: humans, animals > the unborn >>>>>> unrealistic hypothetical humans.

Saying “prime reason” Is maybe overselling it a bit ^^.

I think the fact it’s Japan let’s them a bit too uncritically act amazed though, for the lady in red one: the location is reminiscent of Shibuya but doesn’t exist and doesn’t make sense, the text on billboards and signs is scribbely gibberish, and the woman face changes over the course of the video.

(Everyone should be unsettled by the godawful lack of perspective)

General weebishness is probably a bigger factor, though I wish I could gatekeep them out of that descriptor.

It underscores a bit of a universal delusion with Potemkin shitbots in general. People lauding the outputs, into languages (visual art, foreign language, programming, apparently inorganic chemistry, …) that they don’t speak, and since it passes the first glance test, they don’t even think to look twice.

I think this is actually part of the reason why the prime reason (subconsciously or otherwise) they choose Japan for their main SORA video, the overall exotic nature decreases the uncanny valley factor.

To name only but a few.

No empire was ever born before 600 BCE (no no, the egyptians don’t count), and no clear works of fiction, intended mostly to be dessiminated thorugh text ever existed before the 11th Century (You can dismiss anything prior as mere works of philosophy, poetry or mythology)

Vigorous mask-dropping very early on in the post:

The term “eugenics” has absorbed so much baggage over the last century that it somehow refers both to swiping right on Tinder when you see an attractive person and to the holocaust.

Not all dating is done with reproduction in mind. What are members of the opposite, or indeed same gender: baby synthesis apparatus? Unless you go out of your way in selecting blue eyed, blond haired people, restricting the definition of beautiful to these people, and restricting the teleology of tinder to the begetting progeny, how is it even remotely eugenics?

EDIT: Uncharacteristically for LW the post, was very short short, “very early” is actually about midway in a proposal of little substance, also choosing attractive partners doesn’t guarantee ensure children anyway (unless using very specific definitions of beauty).

One (simpler) explanation is that proving an absence of something is almost impossible, and that attempting too hard would make them look a heck of a lot guilty.

There is a good reason why the burden of evidence is “innocent until proven guilty”, and yes this extends to the (in your eyes) untrustworthy.

Prove to me you never stole candy from a store as a child (or if you did, replace that accusation with any item of higher value until you hit something you did not steal)

One of the more disturbing things that happened at work when using MS Word, was the automatic addition of alt-text images. I didn’t ask for that, I didn’t click any “Please send my images to the cloud, possibly leaking sensitve material, so inference can be run there, to add potentially unhelpful descriptions”

Is document editing really a task that benefits from AI?

An example of unhelpfulness:

I’m torn between at almost praising meek half-assed attempt at accessibility, and shrieking to the heavens about this unweclome shoe-horned addition.

Either way it’s a circus of incompetence.

Something something Poe’s law, something something. Honestly some of the shit i’ve read should have been satire, but noooooo.

Absolutely this, shuf would easily come up in a normal google search (even in googles deteriorated relevancy).

For fun, “two” lines of bash + jq can easily achieve the result even without shuf (yes I know this is pointlessly stupid)

cat /usr/share/dict/words | jq -R > words.json
cat /dev/urandom | od -A n -D | jq -r -n '
  import "words" as $w;
  ($w | length) as $l |
  label $out | foreach ( inputs * $l / 4294967295 | floor ) as $r (
    {i:0,a:[]} ;
    .i = (if .a[$r] then .i  else .i + 1 end) | .a[$r] = true ;
    if .i > 100 then break $out else $w[$r] end
  )
'

Incidentally this is code that ChatGPT would be utterly incapable of producing, even as toy example but niche use of jq.

Almost always sneerious Yud.

Ah, but each additional sentence strikes home the point of absurd over-abundance!

Quite poetically, the sin of verbosity is commited to create the illusion of considered thought and intelligence, in the case of hpmor literally by stacking books.

Amusingly him describing his attempt as “striking words out” rather than “rewording” or “distilling”, i think illustrates his lack of editing ability.

Fair enough, I will note he fails to specify the actual car to Remote Assistance operator ratio. Here’s to hoping that the burstiness readiness staff is not paid pennies when on “stand-by”.

It makes you wonder about the specifics:

• Did the 1.5 workers assigned for each car mostly handle issues with the same cars?
• Was it a big random pool?
• Or did each worker have their geographic area with known issues ?

Maybe they could have solved context issues and possible latency issues by seating the workers in the cars, and for extra quick intervention speed put them in the driver’s seat. Revolutionary. (Shamelessly stealing adam something’s joke format about trains)

Possible countermeasure: Insist on “crediting” the LLM as the commit author, to regain sanity when doing git blame.

I agree that worse doc is a bad enough future, though I remain optimistic that including LLM in compile step is never going to be mainstream enough (or anything approaching stable enough, beyond some dumb useless smoke and mirrors) for me to have to deal with THAT.

In such a (unlikely) future of build tooling corruption, actual plausible terminology:

• Intent Annotation Prompt (though sensibly, this should be for doc and validation analysis purposes, not compilation)
• Intent Pragma Prompt (though sensibly, the actual meaning of the code should not change, and it should purely be optimization hints)

Student: I wish I could find a copy of one of those AIs that will actually expose to you the human-psychology models they learned to predict exactly what humans would say next, instead of telling us only things about ourselves that they predict we’re comfortable hearing. I wish I could ask it what the hell people were thinking back then.

I think this part conveys the root insanity of Yud, failing to understand that language is a co-operative game between humans, that have to trust in common shared lived experiences, to believe the message was conveyed successfully.

But noooooooo, magic AI can extract all the possible meanings, and internal states of all possible speakers in all possible situations from textual descriptions alone: because: ✨bayes✨

The fact that such a (LLM based) system would almost certainly not be optimal for any conceivable loss function / training set pair seems to completely elude him.

The fact that “artificial intelligence” suggests any form of quality is already a paradox in itself ^^. Would you want to eat an artificial potato? The smokes and mirrors should be baked in.

I need eye and mind bleach, c’est très ironique tout ça quand même.