If you’re not upset by the 4B women, what are you doing, then?

Do you mean to tell me you’re in here arguing about something you don’t even believe in?

It’s not a trick, man. Trump makes me angry. Dissidents to good-natured protest make me angry. Anti-intellectualism actually makes me really angry—I’m not shy about that.

First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Klu Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

Take a moment, a deep breath, some fresh clean air, and think about why you’re putting so much energy into saying… I dunno, all of the things that you’re saying.

If this 4B thing were about liberating women from a literal slavery, if they falsly identified you as one of those nasty republicans, if they really did mean absolutely no men whatsoever: is it worth all of this anger you’re feeling? Is your quabble with them over your own love life more important than their fight for freedom? Do you not agree that they should be free?

Ah, but here we have to get pedantic a little bit: producing an AGI through current known methods is intractable.

I didn’t quite understand this at first. I think I was going to say something about the paper leaving the method ambiguous, thus implicating all methods yet unknown, etc, whatever. But yeah, this divide between solvable and “unsolvable” shifts if we ever break NP-hard and have to define some new NP-super-hard category. This does feel like the piece I was missing. Or a piece, anyway.

e.g. humans don’t fit the definition either.

I did think about this, and the only reason I reject it is that “human-like or -level” matches our complexity by definition, and we already have a behavior set for a fairly large n. This doesn’t have to mean that we aren’t still below some curve, of course, but I do struggle to imagine how our own complexity wouldn’t still be too large to solve, AGI or not.

Anyway, the main reason I’m replying again at all is just to make sure I thanked you for getting back to me, haha. This was definitely helpful.

And what does that mean, you fill a document with feminist phrases and ctrl+v over every word ‘woman’ the word ‘man’? That is… wow, that is incredibly academic. I’m actually hit-stunned by how smart that is.

rationally and logically studied the ideology call the practitioners female supremacists,

Wow. That was remarkably mask off. You watch a lot of Ben Shapiro, buddy?

Ah, yeah. That’s a good point, actually.

Hey! Just asking you because I’m not sure where else to direct this energy at the moment.

I spent a while trying to understand the argument this paper was making, and for the most part I think I’ve got it. But there’s a kind of obvious, knee-jerk rebuttal to throw at it, seen elsewhere under this post, even:

If producing an AGI is intractable, why does the human meat-brain exist?

Evolution “may be thought of” as a process that samples a distribution of situation-behaviors, though that distribution is entirely abstract. And the decision process for whether the “AI” it produces matches this distribution of successful behaviors is yada yada darwinism. The answer we care about, because this is the inspiration I imagine AI engineers took from evolution in the first place, is whether evolution can (not inevitably, just can) produce an AGI (us) in reasonable time (it did).

The question is, where does this line of thinking fail?

Going by the proof, it should either be:

• That evolution is an intractable method. 60 million years is a long time, but it still feels quite short for this answer.
• Something about it doesn’t fit within this computational paradigm. That is, I’m stretching the definition.
• The language “no better than chance” for option 2 is actually more significant than I’m thinking. Evolution is all chance. But is our existence really just extreme luck? I know that it is, but this answer is really unsatisfying.

I’m not sure how to formalize any of this, though.

The thought that we could “encode all of biological evolution into a program of at most size K” did made me laugh.

but there’s no reason to think we can’t achieve it

They provide a reason.

Just because you create a model and prove something in it, doesn’t mean it has any relationship to the real world.

What are we science deniers now?

So, if just stop oil were peeing on people like… you are, I guess, you would be happy with that?

I know it feels really good to be angry and indignant, but I mean it, what have you done? Have you organized anything? Have you inspired people to take action?

You don’t have to agree with Just Stop. But the topic of conversation has come up. We’re talking about it. What will you do to save humanity from the sheer cliff it’s about to drive over?

I’m afraid “doing nothing” isn’t going to cut it here, man.

That’s great, man. Maybe they’ll write that on your underwater tombstone.

What did it raise awareness for? Nothing’s happened.

Human history and culture are leverage. The fact that people care about them is why they’re valuable.

Take a sledgehammer to an oil exec’s front door

Yeah, go for it. I support you.

it must be action that causes something useful to the cause,

Public attention can spur recruitment waves for the targets you really care about. If any campaign is to be effective, you need people to know who you are.

I’m taking it seriously. Are you not taking it seriously?

are taking publicity away

And this is being published where?
Here’s my challenge to you: every time you see Just Stop Oil pop up, post these articles. Get people excited about actually doing something.

They give the opportunity for climate change deniers to lump all climate change activists together with these idiots

Deniers are too far gone. You spray paint stone henge, they complain about the lichen. You splash color on a ferrari dealership, they complain about the small business owners. You bomb an oil rig, they say that violence never solves anything. They’re already not on our side.

Climate activists have chained themselves to trees, to construction equipment, to the property of the companies they protest. THAT is serious action.

You know we need more people doing stuff like this, right?

Not “climate activists.”
You.

Have you been inspired to chain yourself to oil infrastructure? To accomplish something real?

And did you make the news?

Oil companies are manipulating these people into being against climate change?

You’re welcome to work on that plan.

Not enough people are AWARE that it’s a THING.

I mean, considering how little has happened?
Don’t we need radicals at this point?

Isn’t it said that violence is the language of the unheard?

instead of education, politics, green energy investment, decentralization of financial power, etc etc etc.

When did An Inconvenient Truth come out again? Like, can I get a temperature check on the polite and respectful progress we’ve made since then?