API tools faq
paste
Advertisement
JaysonSunshine

Gengis Khan and Suffrage Restrictions

JaysonSunshine
May 7th, 2018
420
0
Never
Add comment
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 36.90 KB | None | 0 0
raw download clone embed print report
  1. KiwiIRC
  2. DALnet40#atheism0#christiandebate473#civil_debate146#debates0
  3. North and South Korea pledge to end the war, denuclearization | Bill Cosby Found Guilty of 3 Counts of Rape | Golden State Killer Arrested in Sacramento - Joseph James DeAngelo, 72
  4. 1:43:03 PM+LowInformationVoterI think we either need to dramatically control media, dramatically increase the standards of education, or significantly reduce voting powers
  5. 1:43:21 PM@GenghisKhani think the middle option is the one that is the best
  6. 1:43:23 PM@ProfFarnsworthThe second.
  7. 1:43:34 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: Yes, we need to think about how to better include the perspectives of non-Americans in our electing of leaders
  8. 1:43:47 PM@GenghisKhani don't disagree that there are a lot of morons voting, but taking away people's right to vote is not a very good solution
  9. 1:43:52 PM→ NeXTSUN has joined
  10. 1:43:56 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: Complex problems are multifactorial, and when we're serious about helping we pull on all the levers
  11. 1:43:57 PMⓘ Mabus set mode +v NeXTSUN
  12. 1:44:17 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: I think we need to incorporate more principles from software development in our political science
  13. 1:44:30 PM+LowInformationVoterWe have to have a hard constraint on our system never electing people like Trump
  14. 1:44:31 PM@GenghisKhani rather a million trumps get elected than disenfranchising people because of their beliefs
  15. 1:44:38 PM+LowInformationVoterAny system which results in that outcome is fundamentally broken
  16. 1:44:45 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: I think that is incredibly foolish
  17. 1:44:53 PM+LowInformationVoterWhy do we believe in universal voting?
  18. 1:45:00 PM@ProfFarnsworthConsequentialism vs. deontology: fight!
  19. 1:45:04 PM+LowInformationVoterBecause of some philosophical principles articulated in the past by some smart people
  20. 1:45:05 PM@GenghisKhani believe in a government of the people
  21. 1:45:18 PM+LowInformationVoterWell, we have new smart people with new data and we need to be open to modifying the brilliant ideas of the past
  22. 1:45:31 PM+LowInformationVoterUniversal voting was a breakthrough idea, at one point
  23. 1:45:36 PM@GenghisKhangovernments gain legitimacy by having htat; you're talking about creating an authoritarian regime because an outcome you didn't like happened
  24. 1:45:40 PM+Guest85402There is no new data that says we need to disenfranchise people
  25. 1:45:42 PM+Guest85402:)
  26. 1:45:42 PM+LowInformationVoterPerhaps there are breakthrough improvements on universal voting
  27. 1:45:49 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: That is not what I am doing
  28. 1:45:55 PM→ SaLahKhaleej has joined
  29. 1:45:55 PMⓘ ChanServ set mode +b *!*khaleej@109.175.127.0/24
  30. 1:45:56 PM← SaLahKhaleej was kicked by ChanServ (User has been banned from the channel)
  31. 1:45:56 PM+LowInformationVoterYou are using old paradigms to understand my new system
  32. 1:45:58 PM@GenghisKhanbut hte consequence of putting that into place can be even worse, because now you have taken the right of the people away. you just presume that will be used to give you outcomes you want
  33. 1:46:06 PM@GenghisKhanbut that itself is incredibly naive to believe will happen
  34. 1:46:07 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: Harm will occur in my system
  35. 1:46:14 PM+LowInformationVoterHarm occurs in the current system
  36. 1:46:21 PM+LowInformationVoterWe're normalized to the harm in the current system
  37. 1:46:29 PM@GenghisKhanhistorically it is minorities that get disenfranchises with such systems
  38. 1:46:33 PM+LowInformationVoterAgreed
  39. 1:46:33 PM@GenghisKhanand not the trump type supporters
  40. 1:46:50 PM+LowInformationVoterRestricting voting rights runs a risk of the process being captured by factionalists
  41. 1:47:00 PM+LowInformationVoterWho will only restrict the voting rights to those that are against their faction
  42. 1:47:13 PM+LowInformationVoterI am advocating on a systems-based approach that is beneficial for the republic
  43. 1:47:42 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: I am open to the idea that my proposal won't work
  44. 1:47:48 PM+LowInformationVoterYou should be open to the idea that it could work
  45. 1:47:52 PM@GenghisKhani dunno how it can even be called a republic if you're disenfranchising large swaths of people
  46. 1:48:00 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: Because of minimization of harm
  47. 1:48:02 PM@GenghisKhantrump voters are morons, but they also made upa bout half the electorate
  48. 1:48:03 PM@ProfFarnsworthUh ... Rome was a Republic.
  49. 1:48:18 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: Remember, I am advocating differences at the paradigm level
  50. 1:48:25 PM@GenghisKhanProfFarnsworth: and all roman citizens could vote
  51. 1:48:26 PM+LowInformationVoterI am not seeking a principles oriented solution -- exclusively
  52. 1:48:36 PM+LowInformationVoterI think a principles oriented solution is wrong at the paradigm level
  53. 1:48:37 PM+Guest85402you'd need to show it might actually minimize harm can you do that
  54. 1:48:39 PM@GenghisKhanofc who could be a citizen... varies
  55. 1:48:50 PM+LowInformationVoterI want to have some soft principles, but mostly epistemic constraints
  56. 1:48:58 PM+LowInformationVoterSo, money in politics I think makes a ton of sense as a principle
  57. 1:49:04 PM+LowInformationVoterIn practice, it destroys the republic
  58. 1:49:07 PM+LowInformationVoterSo, the principle is wrong, then
  59. 1:49:14 PM+LowInformationVoterPrinciples are low-information heuristics
  60. 1:49:18 PM+LowInformationVoterThey're antiquated
  61. 1:49:27 PM+LowInformationVoterOur human philosopher geniuses used them because they didn't have computers
  62. 1:49:40 PM+LowInformationVoterWe have computers that can actually look at ridiculous amounts of data and maintain dynamic constraints
  63. 1:49:46 PM@ProfFarnsworthMabus, you mean like how the USA started? :o
  64. 1:50:04 PM@GenghisKhanMabus: right that gets into the distinction of who is actually a citizen
  65. 1:50:14 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: You cannot have a perfect republic
  66. 1:50:20 PM+LowInformationVoterThat should be your starting point
  67. 1:50:22 PM+LowInformationVoterWhat can you have?
  68. 1:50:22 PM@GenghisKhani wouldn't call the roman republic a good model anyway
  69. 1:50:27 PM+LowInformationVoterYou can have a percentage of a republic
  70. 1:50:30 PM→ Sobel has joined
  71. 1:50:36 PMⓘ Mabus set mode +v Sobel
  72. 1:50:44 PM+LowInformationVoterI recommend we use an algorithmic approach that scores the current system on a scale [0,1] of republicness
  73. 1:50:48 PM@GenghisKhanbut fundamentally, a republic is about being from the people. if you're cutting out half of the people from even being able to have a say, i think we can call it something else
  74. 1:50:52 PM+LowInformationVoterThe goal is to maximize that value
  75. 1:50:58 PM+LowInformationVoterIn general, you want broad voting to maximize that value
  76. 1:51:09 PM→ cyklOpz2 has joined
  77. 1:51:11 PM+LowInformationVoterHowever, if you have too broad of voting, without controlling for other variables, you might actually get less republicness
  78. 1:51:17 PMⓘ Mabus set mode +v cyklOpz2
  79. 1:51:18 PMⓘ Debates set mode +l 68
  80. 1:51:25 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: We have to be open to moving past our philosopher ancestors
  81. 1:51:28 PM@GenghisKhanLowInformationVoter: In the long term perhaps
  82. 1:51:34 PM← LadyMarmalade has left (Leaving...)
  83. 1:51:35 PM+LowInformationVoterWe can see further than them, at least potentially
  84. 1:51:40 PM← cyklOpz2 has left (Got to keep moving ...)
  85. 1:51:55 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: The approach I am advocating for is used exclusively by science
  86. 1:51:55 PM@GenghisKhanelecting people who don't value the principles of it will then see to the whittling of those said principles, eventually leading us to something different
  87. 1:52:07 PM+LowInformationVoterThis kind of abstract approach you're discussing isn't used much as it isn't a robust approach
  88. 1:52:19 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: Universal, equal voting is one algorithm
  89. 1:52:26 PM+LowInformationVoterIt's used in some distributed computing systems
  90. 1:52:28 PM@GenghisKhanare you referring to controlled experiments with that?
  91. 1:52:33 PM+LowInformationVoterIt is useful. There are other approaches, too
  92. 1:52:50 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: Yes, we should try to run experiments as much as possible
  93. 1:53:01 PM+LowInformationVoterOf course, running experiments might reduce your republicness in the short-term
  94. 1:53:02 PM@GenghisKhani'm a secular humanist, so i see fundamental value in people. that's kind of my resistence here
  95. 1:53:09 PM+LowInformationVoterSo then you have a meta-problem of short-term v. long-term metaness
  96. 1:53:14 PM+LowInformationVoterWhich is a hyperparameter you'll have to learn
  97. 1:53:17 PM@GenghisKhanyou're treating it as if we're talking about particles in a box
  98. 1:53:38 PM@GenghisKhanoh we can just eject half the particles out and get a more favorable state!
  99. 1:53:43 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: I'm talking about systematic observation, explications of goals, and computers to keep track of the data
  100. 1:53:49 PM@GenghisKhanyeah, but in the scenario we're talking, those are people with lives and families
  101. 1:53:52 PM+LowInformationVoterPlease move past your 'particles in a box' formulation
  102. 1:53:56 PM+phenothe only value lania sees in humans is that he can talk at them
  103. 1:54:06 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: So, my system would be much more robust at considering the outcomes of individual famlies
  104. 1:54:10 PM@GenghisKhanhaving computers be our overlords is also something i definitely don't want
  105. 1:54:13 PM+LowInformationVoterAs it is *expressly* empirical
  106. 1:54:21 PM@GenghisKhani rather have humans control human society
  107. 1:54:29 PM@ProfFarnsworthWhat about cyborgs?
  108. 1:54:30 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: The computers are controlled by humans
  109. 1:54:35 PM@ProfFarnsworthGenghisKhan HATES CYBORGS.
  110. 1:54:45 PM@GenghisKhanat a certain point it becomes too much of a black box and people don't even know wtf is going on
  111. 1:54:48 PM+LowInformationVoterI feel you're having an excessively emotional response
  112. 1:54:57 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: There are systemic problems with using algorithms on people
  113. 1:55:03 PM+LowInformationVoterThis is an active area of business/machine learning
  114. 1:55:09 PM+LowInformationVoterThere are problems in not doing it, too
  115. 1:55:22 PM+LowInformationVoterUnder the current approach, we don't have a good expression for how much harm is occuring
  116. 1:55:31 PM+LowInformationVoterOn my system, we'd be better able to know how that is changing in real-time
  117. 1:55:42 PM@GenghisKhanall you would be doing is measuring what you believe to be harm
  118. 1:55:42 PM+LowInformationVoterAgain, my system is *expressly empirical*
  119. 1:55:47 PM@GenghisKhando you think your belief on that is universal?
  120. 1:55:53 PM+LowInformationVoterYou're overpersonalizing
  121. 1:56:00 PM+LowInformationVoterI'm a process with some insight
  122. 1:56:02 PM@GenghisKhanyou can change the you's to one's if you wish
  123. 1:56:04 PM+LowInformationVoterOther people are processes with some insight
  124. 1:56:13 PM+LowInformationVoterThis issue is a complete red herring
  125. 1:56:18 PM+LowInformationVoterWe already have the meta-problem of 'What is harm?'
  126. 1:56:26 PM+LowInformationVoterThat's resolved through a combination of philosophy, science, and politics
  127. 1:56:34 PM+LowInformationVoterWe're already in that boat
  128. 1:56:42 PM+LowInformationVoterOf course I don't overvalue my own perspective
  129. 1:56:53 PM+LowInformationVoterThis entire argument I am crafting is about *being willing to override the wrong ideas of agents*
  130. 1:56:58 PM+LowInformationVoterEven if it is myself
  131. 1:57:26 PM+LowInformationVoterIf I am certain that the best way to address AIDS is through prayer, and I'm emotionally invested in that, and I am wrong, I *want* to be overriden
  132. 1:57:35 PM+LowInformationVoterBecause I don't care about how I feel -- I care about good solutions
  133. 1:57:58 PM+LowInformationVoterWe already do the things I am describing
  134. 1:58:00 PM+Noodlinggoomba: Weird story that
  135. 1:58:07 PM+LowInformationVoterI am just arguing that we extend those constrains on democracy
  136. 1:58:50 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: Politics is a complex system. There are areas of human thought that expressly study such systems
  137. 1:58:58 PM+LowInformationVoterWe are underutilizing that knowledge in our construct of political systems
  138. 1:59:02 PM@GenghisKhanright, except the fundamental principle of democracy is that the people can elect the people they want to represent them. you dislike who was elected (i do too), so you have determined a viable solution here is to just disenfranchise the people you disagree with
  139. 1:59:06 PM@GenghisKhanbut that isn't democracy. that's tyranny
  140. 1:59:15 PM+LowInformationVoterI am not for universal democracy
  141. 1:59:17 PM+LowInformationVoterI am for 'good outcomes'
  142. 1:59:29 PM+LowInformationVoterI think universal democracy is often a good system that leads to good outcomes
  143. 1:59:34 PM+LowInformationVoterLet me put it this way
  144. 1:59:35 PM@GenghisKhanlike "is AIDS cured by prayer" is not the same sort of question as "Who do I want representing me"
  145. 1:59:41 PM+LowInformationVoterIt has some shared qualities
  146. 1:59:45 PM+LowInformationVoterAnd some differences
  147. 1:59:54 PM+LowInformationVoterLet me try this argument
  148. 2:00:00 PM← Godric has quit (Quit: these violent delights have violent ends)
  149. 2:00:01 PM+LowInformationVoterSay there are two systems, universal democracy and system X
  150. 2:00:07 PM@GenghisKhan"good outcomes" as defined by you, ofc, and if anyone disagrees, tehy don't get to have a say
  151. 2:00:10 PM@GenghisKhanhmmmmm
  152. 2:00:16 PM+NoodlingGenghisKhan: I can't remember who said it (I think I've seen it attributed to Churchill), but "Democracy is the worst possible method of government, except for all the other possibilities". Undoubtedly brutally paraphrased
  153. 2:00:18 PMⓘ Debates set mode +l 65
  154. 2:00:18 PM@GenghisKhanyeah, i see no problems with that
  155. 2:00:26 PM+LowInformationVoterYou only care about one thing, for the moment: Z. You get scored on Z in [0,1]
  156. 2:00:44 PM+LowInformationVoterWhat if I told you that universal democracy has a Z-score of 0.5 and system X has a score of 0.6
  157. 2:00:45 PM@GenghisKhangoomba: the test suggested was to see how "propagandized" one is
  158. 2:00:49 PM+LowInformationVoterWhich system to you choose?
  159. 2:01:08 PM+LowInformationVoter(This will be a good test of abstract thinking)
  160. 2:01:19 PM@ProfFarnsworthIf you think the Earth is flat, you shouldn't vote. :)
  161. 2:01:32 PM+LowInformationVoterProfFarnsworth: Essentially
  162. 2:01:34 PM@GenghisKhanit can in principle be measured, yes. the problem is coming up with it
  163. 2:01:43 PM+LowInformationVoterThough, a more powerful system would be to have partial votes
  164. 2:01:52 PM+LowInformationVoterSo, they shouldn't vote on climate change issues if they think the world is flat
  165. 2:02:01 PM+LowInformationVoterBut maybe they should vote on zoning issues in their local region
  166. 2:02:08 PM@GenghisKhanLowInformationVoter: if you truly only cared about one thing, you would go for the one with the most optimal value. this is ofc the real world where such things don't exist
  167. 2:02:10 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: I agree that measuring these things can be very difficult
  168. 2:02:18 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: Correct
  169. 2:02:26 PM@GenghisKhanand further, once you get to social problems, it becomes subjective
  170. 2:02:28 PM+NoodlingProfFarnsworth: The more I see how people vote, the more I find myself wishing that there was some sort of awareness test before people were allowed to. Then I realise how such a system would easily be corrupted by those in power to make sure they stay in power, and at that point I realise how bad it would become.
  171. 2:02:29 PM+LowInformationVoterGiven my constraints, we should choose system X
  172. 2:02:38 PM+LowInformationVoterSo, this is why I don't care about universal democracy
  173. 2:02:47 PM@GenghisKhanthere isn't a truth fountain we can learn those things from
  174. 2:02:54 PM+LowInformationVoterI care about some hidden variables that universal democracy has shown itself to be adept at maximizing, compared to alternatives
  175. 2:03:03 PM+LowInformationVoterI think we might be able to do better than universal democracy
  176. 2:03:13 PM@GenghisKhanthat's why i rather let humans organize themselves into societies and part of that is being able to vote for people they want represneting them at the table where rules get made about our society
  177. 2:03:13 PM+LowInformationVoterAnd as philosophers who care about society, we have to be open to that possibility
  178. 2:03:32 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: Let me tell you why there should be constraints on who people can elect
  179. 2:03:40 PM+LowInformationVoterThe central element will be causality
  180. 2:03:53 PM@GenghisKhansometimes that will mean that a "less than optimal" society takes hold... but i value freedom more than that optimization
  181. 2:03:54 PM+LowInformationVoterAs a secular humanist you probably believe, as I do, that humans generally have a right to life
  182. 2:04:21 PM@GenghisKhanLowInformationVoter: who people can elect ie the representive, or who is allowed to vote for those people?
  183. 2:04:24 PM+LowInformationVoterSo, say that a person walks across the room and tells you that they are going to use a rock and smash in the cranium of a child of a political rival
  184. 2:04:27 PM@GenghisKhanthose are different things
  185. 2:04:34 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: Right now allowed to vote for
  186. 2:04:56 PM+LowInformationVoterSo, in the West, we support using force to stop that person from smashing in that cranium, because *of a model of causality*
  187. 2:05:26 PM+LowInformationVoterWe accept people holding rocks walking closer to a target for whom they've described in a speech act containing violence are going to do violence with a sufficiently high probability *in our model of causality*
  188. 2:05:35 PM+LowInformationVoterAnd so we might shoot that person *before* they smash in the head
  189. 2:05:51 PM@GenghisKhanthat's all dependent on a reasonable fear of imminent harm tho, as you described it, force may not actually be lawful
  190. 2:06:01 PM+LowInformationVoterI am fundamentally arguing about using science, computer software development methodology, and data science to use SOTA causality models
  191. 2:06:08 PM@GenghisKhanif i have a rock in my hand and a baby is on the table next to me, sure you can use reasonable force to stop me
  192. 2:06:20 PM+LowInformationVoterAgreed -- the exact parameters matter
  193. 2:06:28 PM+LowInformationVoterCloseness being one of the most important
  194. 2:06:45 PM+LowInformationVoterSo, we know that putting heavy metals in streams leads to permanent brain damage in children
  195. 2:06:52 PM+LowInformationVoterSo, we should use force to stop people from doing that
  196. 2:06:58 PM+LowInformationVoterEVEN IF THEY KNOW IT'S THEIR RIGHT TO DO SO
  197. 2:07:05 PM+LowInformationVoterBecause their model of causality is inferior to ours
  198. 2:07:38 PM@GenghisKhanI agree that we should regulate what can be emitted into the waterways
  199. 2:07:54 PM+LowInformationVoterAnd so people believe they have a right to vote for person X. But if a SOTA model of causlity shows that person will put heavy metals in streams because of a theory of government about relaxing regulations on businesses, *and once in government they will be legally allowed to do that*, then that person should be ineligible to run
  200. 2:08:17 PM+LowInformationVoterAnd we should override the demands of some humans to vote for that person
  201. 2:08:23 PM+LowInformationVoterBecause their model of causality is inferior
  202. 2:08:28 PM+LowInformationVoterWe value above all, knowledge
  203. 2:08:37 PM@GenghisKhanthat wouldn't fall into the imminent harm tho
  204. 2:08:56 PM+LowInformationVoterImminent harm is a legal construct that current exists given philosophical ideas about causality
  205. 2:08:59 PM+LowInformationVoterI am arguing we change that
  206. 2:09:15 PM+LowInformationVoterThe imminency is to ensure the expected value of that harm is above some threshold
  207. 2:09:28 PM+LowInformationVoterAs the imminency decreases, the expected value decreases rapidly as the world is complex
  208. 2:09:28 PM@GenghisKhanand while i agree we should regulate based on evidence, i don't see a way to formulate society such that it must always be de facto illegal to pollute and that can't ever be changed
  209. 2:09:54 PM+LowInformationVoterIf, however, we had a model of causality that showed the same expected value of violence 8 years removed, then we are morally justified in using force now
  210. 2:09:58 PM@GenghisKhani am all for pollution always being illegal, but that also opens the door for doing that for anything else
  211. 2:10:00 PM+LowInformationVoterIf there was no better alternative
  212. 2:10:33 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: I would like to have an algorithm incorporate all the data about the harm from a particular pollution act
  213. 2:10:43 PM+LowInformationVoterAnd if it passes some threshold value, then we should do it
  214. 2:11:00 PM+LowInformationVoterWhether we're using a purely utilitarian system for a constrained utilitarian/rights-based system is complex
  215. 2:11:03 PM@GenghisKhanbut that again is dependent on how you define harm
  216. 2:11:05 PM+LowInformationVoterAnd an unresolved meta-problem
  217. 2:11:18 PM+LowInformationVoterAgreed. We can define harm much, much, much better than we are currently doing
  218. 2:11:21 PM@GenghisKhanrepublicans argue that the EPA causes harm.... to businesses' bottom line
  219. 2:11:32 PM+LowInformationVoterEven though we won't be able to resolve 'harm' under my proposal
  220. 2:11:38 PM+LowInformationVoterAgain, we're already in the boat of 'What's harm?'
  221. 2:11:52 PM+LowInformationVoterExcept we're apply factionalist, and in some cases, 19th and 18th centuries ideas to asses harm
  222. 2:11:54 PM+LowInformationVoterThis is stupid
  223. 2:12:02 PM+LowInformationVoterWe should be using SOTA models of 'What is harm?'
  224. 2:12:03 PM@GenghisKhanwe are, but at least we have the option now to revert and change, you're suggesting something that can't be changed
  225. 2:12:19 PM+LowInformationVoterMy system is inherently dynamic
  226. 2:12:26 PM+LowInformationVoterIt's one of its essential propertis
  227. 2:12:33 PM+LowInformationVoterDynamic and empirical
  228. 2:12:34 PM@GenghisKhanright? the algorithm spits out it crossed the harm threshold, thus it is illegal and nothing can be done about it
  229. 2:12:42 PM+LowInformationVoterIn that moment, yes
  230. 2:12:53 PM@GenghisKhanperhaps it could fall below the harm threshold but how would that happen?
  231. 2:13:05 PM@GenghisKhanin the pollution example the only way to get around it is to not pollute
  232. 2:13:08 PM+LowInformationVoterPeoples preferences and beliefs could change
  233. 2:13:09 PM@GenghisKhaneither by treating the discharge
  234. 2:13:12 PM+LowInformationVoterAn aspect of the world could change
  235. 2:13:13 PM@GenghisKhanor not having the emission at all
  236. 2:13:23 PM+LowInformationVoter'Not pollute' is a low-information heuristic
  237. 2:13:25 PM+LowInformationVoterIt's an algorithm
  238. 2:13:29 PM+LowInformationVoterJust not a very good one
  239. 2:13:34 PM@GenghisKhanbut isn't the fundamental problem that you described that people's beliefs are shit?
  240. 2:13:37 PM+LowInformationVoterAll laws are algorithms
  241. 2:13:47 PM+NoodlingIf we're talking about perfect algorithms allowing us to filter out voters, why not just let the algorithm make all decisions and do away with voters altogether
  242. 2:13:48 PM+LowInformationVoterJust not very good ones compared to SOTA computational approaches
  243. 2:13:57 PM+Noodling(obviously being facetious...)
  244. 2:14:02 PM+LowInformationVoterNoodling: In time we should do that
  245. 2:14:02 PM@GenghisKhanlike in the US us electing DJT is pretty much expected based on the people that make it up
  246. 2:14:07 PM+LowInformationVoterBut that's not the current reality
  247. 2:14:14 PM@GenghisKhanit's definitely a case of the government we deserve... if not the one we need
  248. 2:14:27 PM@ProfFarnsworthMaybe you fucking deserve it.
  249. 2:14:30 PM+LowInformationVoterThe moral idea of 'deserving' things is an algorithm
  250. 2:14:40 PM+LowInformationVoterIt's a low-information heuristic that is inferior to SOTA approaches I'm describing
  251. 2:14:48 PM@GenghisKhanso if the harm threshold is based on people's perceptions then nothing changes
  252. 2:15:05 PM@GenghisKhanProfFarnsworth: i am speaking in aggregate for the US. Do you think the US as a whole doesn't deserve a shit show like DJT?
  253. 2:15:21 PM@GenghisKhanwe haven't exactly acted like a great nation to the world
  254. 2:15:24 PM@GenghisKhanbut maybe you disagree
  255. 2:15:46 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: I recommend you move past 'deserve'
  256. 2:15:56 PM+LowInformationVoterThis is an algorithm developed by evolution for a world long ago
  257. 2:15:58 PM+LowInformationVoterWe can do better
  258. 2:16:31 PM+LowInformationVoterEvolution expressly selected a species with bigger cortext to make dynamic, intragenerational adaptations to a rapidly changing environment
  259. 2:16:54 PM+LowInformationVoterIn 2018, that looks like applying computational models to political systems
  260. 2:17:01 PM@GenghisKhani think you're anthropomorphizing evolution a bit too much there
  261. 2:17:24 PM+LowInformationVoterSyntatically, maybe, semantically, no
  262. 2:17:30 PM@GenghisKhani like how people are basically just particles in a box to you, but evolution itself is a person that is expressly picking and choosing which species to win out
  263. 2:17:41 PM@GenghisKhan"expressly selected" is not how evolution works
  264. 2:17:44 PM+NoodlingMy god this is boring...
  265. 2:17:51 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: You are deliberately misinterpreting me
  266. 2:18:09 PM@GenghisKhandid you not say "Evolution expressly selected a species..."
  267. 2:18:10 PM+LowInformationVoterI have already noted your 'particles in a box' perception is owned solely by you
  268. 2:18:19 PM+LowInformationVoterI did
  269. 2:18:22 PM+LowInformationVoterI also said "Syntatically, maybe, semantically, no"
  270. 2:18:23 PM@GenghisKhanok then
  271. 2:18:28 PM+LowInformationVoterAre you interested in how that modifies that previous post?
  272. 2:18:42 PM+LowInformationVoterI can't nuance every point all the time
  273. 2:18:44 PM@GenghisKhanI would love for you to dance some more
  274. 2:18:47 PM+LowInformationVoterI have to make choices on where I spend my words
  275. 2:18:58 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: That was a fallacy
  276. 2:19:05 PM+LowInformationVoterAnd also seems to assume bad intent on my part
  277. 2:19:07 PM→ sardaukar has joined
  278. 2:19:17 PMⓘ Mabus set mode +v sardaukar
  279. 2:19:21 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: You should love to accurately understand your chat partner
  280. 2:19:30 PM+LowInformationVoterHolding people accountable for views they don't have is always undesirable
  281. 2:19:32 PM@GenghisKhani dunno, you're talking about evolution expressly selecting shit like a creationist arguing a straw man, and you don't seem willing to acknowledge that
  282. 2:19:44 PM+LowInformationVoterIf you're unsure what their true view is -- and if it's relevant for the present context -- seek clarification
  283. 2:19:50 PM+LowInformationVoterDo not run the 'But you said!' algorithm
  284. 2:20:01 PM@GenghisKhanlol
  285. 2:20:05 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: Would you like clarification of my view
  286. 2:20:12 PM+LowInformationVoterOr would you like to guess some more what it might be
  287. 2:20:24 PM+LowInformationVoterHere is what I believe has happened
  288. 2:20:24 PM@GenghisKhanyou even said it wasn't semantically incorrect
  289. 2:20:26 PM@GenghisKhanwhich... it is
  290. 2:20:44 PM+LowInformationVoterThe way I was using semantic was the meaning in my head -- the delivering process
  291. 2:20:47 PM@GenghisKhanit's just wrong, but please, clarify it into a not wrong statement
  292. 2:20:56 PM+LowInformationVoterBy syntax I meant 'the actual message delivered'
  293. 2:21:05 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: Again, there are degrees of wrongness
  294. 2:21:10 PM@GenghisKhanthe message i received was that evolution picked a species
  295. 2:21:21 PM+LowInformationVoterThe goal is not to speak perfectly, as that is at least an NP-Complete problem
  296. 2:21:23 PM@GenghisKhani hope that was not your intent, since that is an incorrect message
  297. 2:21:25 PM+LowInformationVoterIf not unsolvable
  298. 2:21:39 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: I believe you that the message you received is that I conceptualized evolution as a person
  299. 2:21:44 PM+phenoyup, that's how he said it
  300. 2:21:48 PM Ignoring pheno!*@*
  301. 2:22:16 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: Here's what I am going to do. I am going to clarify, because you have signaled this is important to you, but I'm first going to place that clarification in a context
  302. 2:22:37 PM+LowInformationVoterOur philosophy today has been about possible modifications to 'universal democracy'. This can be conceptualized as exploring part of the knowledge sub-graph.
  303. 2:22:50 PM+LowInformationVoterAs a small part of that exploration of that sub-graph, I have referenced the model of biological evolution
  304. 2:23:08 PM* Noodling yawns
  305. 2:23:08 PM+LowInformationVoterThe goal is not to speak perfectly correctly about evolution -- as that is impossible
  306. 2:23:34 PM+LowInformationVoterThe goal is to speak about evolution *sufficiently accurately* so that the larger goal of the exploration of the 'Is universal democracy best?' sub-graph is done competently
  307. 2:23:51 PM@GenghisKhanyou were in not even wrong territory buddy
  308. 2:23:55 PM+LowInformationVoterI believe that the level of detail you seek on this evolution clarification ultimately distracts us away from the primary context
  309. 2:24:20 PM+LowInformationVoterFurthermore, I think the emotional motivation for this desired clarification is from Axiom-Conflict
  310. 2:24:37 PM+LowInformationVoterThat is, our primary discussion is having me challenge deeply held axioms in your worldview -- for which I might be wrong, but for which you might be wrong
  311. 2:24:50 PM@GenghisKhanman where is my ram
  312. 2:24:55 PM+LowInformationVoterHumans tends to experience discomfort when they spend too much time contemplating or having their deep worldview axioms challenged
  313. 2:24:55 PM@GenghisKhanUPS is so freaking slow
  314. 2:25:05 PM@GenghisKhanand I bet i'll end up with a note on my door telling me to pick it up elsewhere
  315. 2:25:14 PM+NoodlingGenghisKhan: You ordered a male sheep?
  316. 2:25:27 PM+LowInformationVoterI want to point that out, as a Buddhist, awareness of our own mind is always the most important top-level context, and not 'Is universal democracy best?'
  317. 2:25:28 PM@GenghisKhanNoodling: nah, just some ddr4 2400 ECC server memory
  318. 2:25:37 PM@GenghisKhanpheno: never, this is basically a gish gallop lol
  319. 2:25:52 PM@GenghisKhanlet me write 1000 words and bore you away from the point
  320. 2:25:58 PM+NoodlingGenghisKhan: Time for an upgrade, was it?
  321. 2:26:05 PM+Guest85402o hi dudes what's up
  322. 2:26:23 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: I would have preferred for your focus level to be higher
  323. 2:26:34 PM@GenghisKhanNoodling: Sort of, I am building a ryzen box as a server and i'm going to throw some harddrives in it to act as my plex server
  324. 2:26:36 PM+Guest85402oh that sounds really lame pheno
  325. 2:26:38 PM+LowInformationVoterI can tell you that in the Buddhist practice, this level of detail -- for hours -- is commonplace
  326. 2:26:42 PM+NoodlingI'm contemplating upgrading my computer at some point, but I don't know what or even why!
  327. 2:26:53 PM@GenghisKhanNoodling: it'll allow me to offload it from my desktop and then i can have the box downstairs
  328. 2:26:57 PM+LowInformationVoterI am going to issue my clarification, by the way
  329. 2:27:23 PM+LowInformationVoterI resolved the context I wanted to share. You are no longer interested, but that is okay. I am building the habit of excellence with thinking, patience, and accountability for speech.
  330. 2:27:32 PM@GenghisKhanLowInformationVoter: I am able to focus for things that are intriguing. you gish galloping about how "Evolution expressly selected a species" isn't in not even wrong territory is not in any way intriguing sorry
  331. 2:27:32 PM+NoodlingGenghisKhan: Seems like a good call. I'm tempted to do similar at some point, but it's fairly low down my priority list, somewhere after "watch YouTube"
  332. 2:27:44 PM@GenghisKhanThe nice thing with ryzen is you can get ECC going for cheap
  333. 2:27:55 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: I already subsumed your objection into a more precisely articulated superstructure.
  334. 2:28:04 PM@GenghisKhanall of the AM4 asrock boards support it, and amd doesn't disable it in any of their cpus
  335. 2:28:13 PM+LowInformationVoterYour Gish Gallop construct is less expression than my superstructure.
  336. 2:28:16 PM@GenghisKhanso basically any of their non-gpu equipped chips will allow it
  337. 2:28:19 PM+LowInformationVoterLess expressive*
  338. 2:28:47 PM@GenghisKhani was able to build the server itself for about 300
  339. 2:28:59 PM+LowInformationVoterHere is what I said, that you object to: "Evolution expressly selected a species with bigger cortext to make dynamic, intragenerational adaptations to a rapidly changing environment"
  340. 2:28:59 PM@GenghisKhanbut i bought 3 new 5TB drives as well... so that added a bit more to the price ;)
  341. 2:29:09 PM@GenghisKhanI hope to migrate another 5TB drive over to it as well
  342. 2:29:22 PM+NoodlingGenghisKhan: That's cool - very cheap indeed.
  343. 2:29:29 PM+NoodlingI guess not buying a graphics card helps
  344. 2:29:35 PM← Banquo has quit (Ping timeout)
  345. 2:29:47 PM@GenghisKhanyeah lol, but it will need one for setup cuz it doesn't have integrated graphics
  346. 2:29:51 PM@GenghisKhanbut i have plenty of old cards
  347. 2:30:40 PM@GenghisKhankind of a waste of money, but at least now i'll be able to do a full backup of my stuff. i am also looking into running snapraid since i think it will fit my use perfectly
  348. 2:30:43 PM+LowInformationVoterMy clarification: Homo sapiens are the result of natural selection exploring the high-dimensional fitness space in which Homo sapiens -- and all life -- cooperates and competes with one another, while also navigating abiotic environments. Leading biologists have stated one of the plausible models for increased cranial capacity from 3mya to present in the ancestors of Homo sapiens was to allow for intragenerational adaptation to a rapidly changing climae in East Africa.
  349. 2:30:46 PM+NoodlingYeah, if I build a media rig, I guess I'll probably recycle my current graphics card
  350. 2:31:24 PM+NoodlingCrypto miners have really messed with the prices of decent cards...
  351. 2:31:29 PM@GenghisKhanyeah, it is insane
  352. 2:31:42 PM@GenghisKhani was looking at the 1060 i bought a year ago... i got it for about 200, now it's 400
  353. 2:32:03 PM+NoodlingApparently demand has dropped lately though
  354. 2:32:27 PM+LowInformationVoterAs an extension of that model for increase cranial capacity, allowing for intragenerational learning adaptation, instead of intergenerational genomic modifications/learning, we should systematically encode human knowledge in computating machines using SOTA machine learnings on large data sets to help guide our decisions, rather than being forever stuck in a view that the geniuses of the 18th century solved political philosophy.
  355. 2:33:14 PM@GenghisKhani hope long term it does at least. my gaming rig now should last a while, but inevitably i'll want to build something new in a few years
  356. 2:33:19 PM+IkoIkoF@RT!
  357. 2:33:20 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: It would be skillful for you to pair a positive social reward with my last behavior, as I complied with your request, and because your request has some congruency with good philosophy between humans.
  358. 2:33:32 PM+LowInformationVoterI don't believe you will do that, because you're not yet at that level of skill.
  359. 2:33:46 PM+LowInformationVoterBut I would like to point out that level so that you can be better aware of that possibility.
  360. 2:33:47 PM@GenghisKhanmy current gaming rig i built in 2015, it destroys 1080p games, some 4k it can manage
  361. 2:33:55 PM@GenghisKhani7-4790k on that ;)
  362. 2:34:30 PM@GenghisKhanLowInformationVoter: oh wow after a thousand words you finally rephrased it into something correct... congrats!
  363. 2:34:36 PM+NoodlingGenghisKhan: I built this one back in 2011. At the time it was probably upper mid-range, now I imagine it's pretty poor
  364. 2:34:45 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: I don't think that was skillful.
  365. 2:34:51 PM@GenghisKhanshucks
  366. 2:35:13 PM@GenghisKhanNoodling: really the biggest bottle neck is the graphics card if you have anything reasonbly modern for cpu
  367. 2:35:21 PM+LowInformationVoterGenghisKhan: I want to thank you for the conversation you shared with me.
  368. 2:35:30 PM@GenghisKhanunless you want to do transcoding and stuff
  369. 2:35:36 PM@GenghisKhanor any other cpu intensive tasks
  370. 2:35:37 PM+LowInformationVoterYou showed a substantial intelligence, and you helped me better articulate my viewpoints.
  371. 2:35:37 PM← brad70 has left
  372. 2:35:54 PM+LowInformationVoterI don't think you're in a good state to continue our conversation at this time, so I am going to take a break.
  373. 2:35:57 PM+LowInformationVoterUntil next time. :)
  374. 2:35:59 PM Ignoring GenghisKhan!*@*
  375. 2:36:01 PM+LowInformationVoterhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wvr8EIr0Tw
  376. 2:37:51 PM+NoodlingHad to actually check my GPU because it's been so long. AMD Radeon HD 6800. Pretty old now!
  377. 2:40:33 PM+NoodlingI certainly remember that. Basically buying 8GB because it wasn't even close to 8 times as expensive as 1GB
  378. 2:44:32 PM→ __Serdar__ has joined
  379. 2:44:38 PMⓘ Mabus set mode +v __Serdar__
  380. 2:44:38 PM+NoodlingI remember while I was at university total storage sizes went from about 50GB max to 1TB max. Was an amazing time, in retrospect.
  381. 2:48:02 PM@ProfFarnsworthhttps://apnews.com/d35efb522fa444f59fbb2baff55c095e?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_m...
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement
Public Pastes
Advertisement
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy.  OK, I Understand
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!