Re-reading the thread, I understand better what you were saying. This is different, though: the AI thing is kind of sudden, in a cultural sense, and it’s harder to imagine someone having married a person already knowing they would be into this extremely anti-human parenting style beforehand.

Like, you’re suggesting that a Republican guy probably has a Republican wife, and yeah that’s true, but I don’t think that it follows that an AI-absentee-father would probably be married to an AI-absentee-mother.

And that’s broadly why people are blowing up at you. Rhetorically speaking, it sounds a bit like you’re just being spiteful.

You need more evidence for that, mate.

I’m saying she would leave him because I would leave his ass. If she wouldn’t, then I feel sorry for her. Truly pitiful.

which is the same as assuming she would not object to it.

Whenever a law says “a reasonable person,” my strategy is to drag them into an infinite fractal of technicalities and possible exceptions because I don’t know what reasonable means.

Gentlemen, I present: the world’s first transhuman!

Mobile phones, as well. Thing is, though, I wouldn’t describe a mobile phone as “the next step in evolution”—it would seem downright silly to, even.

*Glass shatters*
“Hand Grip™ is unavailable right now; system updating…”

“Alignment” in the machine learning sphere is about what the agent is trained to do.

You might have one trained to solve a maze, but not realize that it didn’t “learn” to find the exit, it “learned” to move to the bottom right corner.

It’s the paperclip machine problem, basically. A human knows not to turn literally everything into paperclips, but a machine might “value” turning even themselves into paperclips above all else. And it’s actually really hard to teach it the human values without any misunderstanding.

This is about behavior, though, and does not require that we interpret the agent as “alive”.

Also, full disclosure, I fucking hate AI and would make it illegal for Google, Anthropic and Jim down the street to develop one today if I could. No quarter.

Oh, I’m aware. It’s just, uh… that evolution statement taken as a given is something I would expect to hear from someone who’s maybe a bit too in love with the cyberpunk genre.

Transhumanism is the next step in evolution

Wat

Yeah, but I don’t see anyone engaging with it on the basis of it being plausible. It’s a joke super power.

I can be more direct, if you like. I don’t think that you’re really cautioning anyone, I think that you just dislike the concept and want to see that sentiment reflected in other people. The same way that some people argue about whether a popular song is bad or not.

It doesn’t really matter, I suppose, I was just hoping you would see the social faux pas.

You feel adding an optional extra mode

If it doesn’t have a separate progression system, it’s not really optional—not in the way that you imply. It changes the incentive structures of the game as a whole, which means the whole game must be played differently.

As a basic excercise, let’s think about a game with a dark hallway that has scary monsters. Most players don’t want to walk down a dark hallway with scary monsters, so how do you get them to?

That would be because you said this:

I’m just cautioning people to not think quantum physics actually does support the idea,

You think that I think quantum immortality is doable?

That means it picks a branch at random, which contradictions Many Worlds’ premise that the universe is fully deterministic.

Or it picks the most convenient one. I don’t know what this word ‘random’ means. If what you mean is ‘arbitrary’, there are lots of reasons you might arbitrarily pick this or that.

To claim you continue living in another branch is equivalent to claiming your experience somehow jumps

For one, I don’t actually care. But for two, most depictions I’ve seen portray this as a passive effect. It is not you that moves, it is the universe that moves around you. The details of how this actually works, or doesn’t, is for nerds in comic book stores to discuss.

I’m just cautioning people to not think quantum physics actually does support the idea,

At the risk of sounding a bit argumentative—and I really don’t mean to—Who?

It doesn’t have to pick any specific one; any branch in which you’re alive will do.

Nobody’s really “jumping”, you just don’t die. The universe constructs itself such that you don’t die—there’s nothing more to it.

It is a funny superpower idea. Like turning invisible. Which also doesn’t make any sense if you think about it.

Your enemy is not ‘conversation simulators’, its capitalism.

It’s both, actually.

The comic is ugly and uncannily ai but is quite representative of AI sentiment.

This comic where an anti-AI guy throws a tantrum and shits his pants is a valid criticism of us?

Jesus fucking christ.

Writing was dumb because you’re writing about it not doing it.

In a game of memory, writing is cheating.