I was doing reading on AI related topics when I encountered your tweets. Don't often see IOI people writing so much text esp on socio-economical issues, so I read a bit more than I needed to :P
FWIW, every couple months I get lured for some random reason to do almost the exact same thing you did on the IOI medallist list. The ability of the Chinese teams to reliably clean sweep the gold medals is pretty impressive. I usually have a slightly different interpretation of those results though (my hypothesis is more on the genetics side [hush hush]). (disclosure: IOI 2003 bronze)
> It’s often said that “China has the poorest Chinese people” and I think not liking markets enough has a lot to do with it.
I don't think this is an observation worth making at all. Certainly it isn't indicative of anything; the poorest members of any group will be located wherever they started out, because they can't afford to move.
Which ethnic group doesn't have its poorest members living wherever they were born?
Re complexity - I hadn't thought of the similarities between degrowthers and trad right before. I recommend elucidating that piece of it. In either case, my view is that much of the cause is a search for meaning in an increasingly nihilistic culture. The ability for individuals to "make a difference" is declining or at least stagnating as populations and bureaucracies grow; meanwhile young people are increasingly valorizing societal impact and are explicitly encouraged to do so by the major institutions in this country. Faced with futility (or complexity, in your view), they "opt out" of sorts and embrace a smaller world view.
Similar adage with the envy thing (maybe it’s an Italian American thing) I was taught by my uncles to never be friends with dudes who can’t get laid because they’ll always resent you for it.
It's funny, the incel thing stands out as an issue where the people/political tribe that generally discourage envy have massive amounts of sympathy for these men who are mired in it.
The fear that AIs will take over the World is low quality, first order thinking. The difference between Human Intelligence and Artificial Intelligence is that Humans, unique among all intelligent life on Earth, has innate wants and desires, not just needs. Our evolution and development, increased intelligence, knowledge and understanding and innovation has been driven by our quest to fulfil our insatiable and infinite wants and desires. This is why we have an economy. No economy is needed to meet our needs: water, food, shelter, reproduction - agrarian societies do that; industrial societies fulfil wishes and desires (not for much longer alas, if St Greta of Aspergers gets her ugly way.).The animals of the forest and the birds and bees and the sycamore trees all meet their needs without economies. Fulfilling our wishes and desires was the incentive that drove the Industrial Revolution. It is a Human thing. What would the incentive, the motive, the purpose be for an inhuman AI to develop like Humans? Why would AIs need an economy?
Socialists are great lovers of science unless it interferes with their beliefs. Egalitarianism is the Socialist credo - a society of individuals with equal outcomes, which leads to the ‘blank slate’ nostrum of environmental influences not inherited factors - nurture not nature. It avoids the confounding factors of unequal input that genetics throws up, which can only result in unequal output. This is essential if they are to claim poverty, race/sex discrimination is at the root of equality, not inherent characteristics, thus justification for the euphemism, affirmative action, and redistribution of wealth... required to deliver ‘social justice’ which is the oxymoronic concept of equality through inequality. Of course Socialism always does produce equal outcomes - all reduced to abject poverty, except the few thugs in charge.
You have two snuck premises which I find repulsive:
- Hard work is bad
- Children know better than their parents
And one which I care less about:
- Violin is unimportant
The data is overwhelmingly clear that despite affirmative action Asian children are clearly doing better. You bring sequiturs and snuck premises because you refuse to spell out your repulsive fear-based morality.
I was doing reading on AI related topics when I encountered your tweets. Don't often see IOI people writing so much text esp on socio-economical issues, so I read a bit more than I needed to :P
FWIW, every couple months I get lured for some random reason to do almost the exact same thing you did on the IOI medallist list. The ability of the Chinese teams to reliably clean sweep the gold medals is pretty impressive. I usually have a slightly different interpretation of those results though (my hypothesis is more on the genetics side [hush hush]). (disclosure: IOI 2003 bronze)
If AI's destroy us, they will do so using our own hands.
> It’s often said that “China has the poorest Chinese people” and I think not liking markets enough has a lot to do with it.
I don't think this is an observation worth making at all. Certainly it isn't indicative of anything; the poorest members of any group will be located wherever they started out, because they can't afford to move.
Which ethnic group doesn't have its poorest members living wherever they were born?
Re complexity - I hadn't thought of the similarities between degrowthers and trad right before. I recommend elucidating that piece of it. In either case, my view is that much of the cause is a search for meaning in an increasingly nihilistic culture. The ability for individuals to "make a difference" is declining or at least stagnating as populations and bureaucracies grow; meanwhile young people are increasingly valorizing societal impact and are explicitly encouraged to do so by the major institutions in this country. Faced with futility (or complexity, in your view), they "opt out" of sorts and embrace a smaller world view.
Similar adage with the envy thing (maybe it’s an Italian American thing) I was taught by my uncles to never be friends with dudes who can’t get laid because they’ll always resent you for it.
It's funny, the incel thing stands out as an issue where the people/political tribe that generally discourage envy have massive amounts of sympathy for these men who are mired in it.
Yes, incels are the social justice of the right
Spencer Compton the new Mr. Irrelevant
The fear that AIs will take over the World is low quality, first order thinking. The difference between Human Intelligence and Artificial Intelligence is that Humans, unique among all intelligent life on Earth, has innate wants and desires, not just needs. Our evolution and development, increased intelligence, knowledge and understanding and innovation has been driven by our quest to fulfil our insatiable and infinite wants and desires. This is why we have an economy. No economy is needed to meet our needs: water, food, shelter, reproduction - agrarian societies do that; industrial societies fulfil wishes and desires (not for much longer alas, if St Greta of Aspergers gets her ugly way.).The animals of the forest and the birds and bees and the sycamore trees all meet their needs without economies. Fulfilling our wishes and desires was the incentive that drove the Industrial Revolution. It is a Human thing. What would the incentive, the motive, the purpose be for an inhuman AI to develop like Humans? Why would AIs need an economy?
Socialists are great lovers of science unless it interferes with their beliefs. Egalitarianism is the Socialist credo - a society of individuals with equal outcomes, which leads to the ‘blank slate’ nostrum of environmental influences not inherited factors - nurture not nature. It avoids the confounding factors of unequal input that genetics throws up, which can only result in unequal output. This is essential if they are to claim poverty, race/sex discrimination is at the root of equality, not inherent characteristics, thus justification for the euphemism, affirmative action, and redistribution of wealth... required to deliver ‘social justice’ which is the oxymoronic concept of equality through inequality. Of course Socialism always does produce equal outcomes - all reduced to abject poverty, except the few thugs in charge.
This is a complete non-sequitor. Comparing children is great. Making them do things that don't help them isn't.
You have two snuck premises which I find repulsive:
- Hard work is bad
- Children know better than their parents
And one which I care less about:
- Violin is unimportant
The data is overwhelmingly clear that despite affirmative action Asian children are clearly doing better. You bring sequiturs and snuck premises because you refuse to spell out your repulsive fear-based morality.