I was thinking about why so many in the radical left participate in “speedrunning”. The reason is the left’s lack of work ethic (‘go fast’ rather than ‘do it right’) and, in a Petersonian sense, to elevate alternative sexual archetypes in the marketplace (‘fastest mario’). Obviously, there are exceptions to this and some people more in the center or right also “speedrun”. However, they more than sufficient to prove the rule, rather than contrast it. Consider how woke GDQ has been, almost since the very beginning. Your eyes will start to open. Returning to the topic of the work ethic… A “speedrunner” may well spend hours a day at their craft, but this is ultimately a meaningless exercise, since they will ultimately accomplish exactly that which is done in less collective time by a casual player. This is thus a waste of effort on the behalf of the “speedrunner”. Put more simply, they are spending their work effort on something that someone else has already done (and done in a way deemed ‘correct’ by the creator of the artwork). Why do they do this? The answer is quite obvious if you think about it. The goal is the illusion of speed and the desire (SUBCONSCIOUS) to promote radical leftist, borderline Communist ideals of how easy work is. Everyone always says that “speedruns” look easy. That is part of the aesthetic. Think about the phrase “fully automated luxury Communism” in the context of “speedrunning” and I strongly suspect that things will start to ‘click’ in your mind. What happens to the individual in this? Individual accomplishment in “speedrunning” is simply waiting for another person to steal your techniques in order to defeat you. Where is something like “intellectual property” or “patent” in this necessarily communitarian process? Now, as to the sexual archetype model and ‘speedrunning’ generally… If you have any passing familiarity with Jordan Peterson’s broader oeuvre and of Jungian psychology, you likely already know where I am going with this. However, I will say more for the uninitiated. Keep this passage from Maps of Meaning (91) in mind: “The Archetypal Son… continually reconstructs defined territory, as a consequence of the ‘assimilation’ of the unknown [as a consequence of ‘incestuous’ (that is, ‘sexual’ – read creative) union with the Great Mother]” In other words, there is a connection between ‘sexuality’ and creativity that we see throughout time (as Peterson points out with Tiamat and other examples). In the sexual marketplace, which archetypes are simultaneously deemed the most creative and valued the highest? The answer is obviously entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and others. Given that we evolved and each thing we do must have an evolutionary purpose (OR CAUSE), what archetype is the ‘speedrunner’ engaged in, who is accomplishing nothing new? They are aiming to make a new sexual archetype, based upon ‘speed’ rather than ‘doing things right’ and refuse ownership of what few innovations they can provide to their own scene, denying creativity within their very own sexual archetype. This is necessarily leftist. The obvious protest to this would be the ‘glitchless 100% run’, which in many ways does aim to play the game ‘as intended’ but seems to simply add the element of ‘speed’ to the equation. This objection is ultimately meaningless when one considers how long a game is intended to be played, in net, by the creators, even when under ‘100%’ conditions. There is still time and effort wasted for no reason other than the ones I proposed above. By now, I am sure that I have bothered a number of you and rustled quite a few of your feathers. I am not saying that ‘speedrunning’ is bad, but rather that, thinking about the topic philosophically, there are dangerous elements within it. That is all.

Are they drawn to the cult because they are obsessed with status, or does the cult foster this obssession? Yes.

It’s almost endearing (or sad) that he believes (or very strongly wants to believe) his experience is “typical”, exploring the boundaries of what you are attracted to typically doesn’t involve this much evo-pysch psychobabble, or even this much fragile masculinity.

Some of it is driven by translation agencies, which will refer work to freelance translators.

I would say the biggest gap is that many customers aren’t even bothering to use translators at all, and the ones that do realize it needs fixing up don’t really understand the work involved, many people misunderstand translation as being a 1-1 process, and think that Machine translation got you most of the way there.

It’s also the are we willing to pay that much more, when the shitty translation is “good enough”.

One big issue is that translation as a low barrier of entry, and many people will accept stupid work at stupid rates, and to keep rates high you have to prove the added value.

(Proving the added value as also gotten harder, as some clients even more often than before will “correct” your work before publish it, as highlighted in the article)

It’s also a lot less pleasant of a task, it’s like wearing a straightjacket, and compared to CAT (eg: automatically using glossaries for technical terms) actually slows you down, if the translation is quite far from how you would naturally phrase things.

Source: Parents are Professional translators. (They’ve certainly seen work dry up, they don’t do MTPE it’s still not really worth their time, they still get $$$ for critically important stuff, and live interpreting [Live interpreting is definetely a skill that takes time to learn compared to translation.])

Because of course why have a data ~~center~~ when you can have an ecumenskatasphaira.

Pressing F for doubt, looks like a marketing scam to me.

PS: We also think that there existing a wiki page for the field that one is working in increases one’s credibility to outsiders - i.e. if you tell someone that you’re working in AI Control, and the only pages linked are from LessWrong and Arxiv, this might not be a good look.

Aha so OP is just hoping no one will bother reading the sources listed on the article…

I think a big difference between Thiel and Musk, is that Thiel views himself as an “intellectual” and derives prestige “intellectualism”. I don’t believe for a minute he’s genuinely christian, but his wankery about end-of-times eschatology of armageddon = big-left-government, is a a bit too confused to be purely cynical, I think sniffing his own farts feeds his ego.

Of course a man who would promote open doping olympics isn’t sober.

And the extension of this to characters, and I don’t actually remember at this point, if this exact way of phrasing it is original to me or not, is that you might think of a three dimensional character as one who contains at least two two-dimensional characters.

Ahhh! No! I can’t! Just… NO. Two stereotypes don’t make a full person! (screams into a pillow)

They’re just very dedicated to the bit… right?

Counter-theory: The now completely irrelevant search results and the idiotic summaries, are a one-two punch combo, that plunges the user in despair, and makes them close the browser out of disgust.

Subjectively speaking:

1. Pre-LLM summaries were for the most part actually short.
2. They were more directly lifted from human written sources, I vaguely remember lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits by newspapers over google infoboxes and copyright infringement in pre-2019 days, but i couldn’t find anything very conclusive with a quick search.
3. They didn’t have the sycophantic—hey look at me I’m a genius—overly-(and wrong)-detailed tone that the current batch has.

I mean if you want to be exceedingly generous (I sadly have my moments), this is actually remarkably close to the “intentional acts” and “shit happens” distinction, in a perverse Rationalist way. ^^

But code that doesn’t crash isn’t necessarily code that works. And even for code made by humans, we sometimes do find out the hard way, and it can sometimes impact an arbitrarily large number of people.

Did you read any of what I wrote? I didn’t say that human interactions can’t be transactional, I quite clearly—at least I think—said that LLMs are not even transactional.

EDIT:

To clarify I and maybe put it in terms which are closer to your interpretation.

With humans: Indeed you should not have unrealistic expectations of workers in the service industry, but you should still treat them with human decency and respect. They are not their to fit your needs, they have their own self which matters. They are more than meets the eye.

With AI: While you should also not have unrealistic expectations of chatbots (which i would recommend avoiding using altogether really), it’s where humans are more than meets the eye, chatbots are less. Inasmuch as you still choose to use them, by all means remain polite—for your own sake, rather than for the bot—There’s nothing below the surface,

I don’t personally believe that taking an overly transactional view of human interactions to be desirable or healthy, I think it’s more useful to frame it as respecting other people’s boundaries and recognizing when you might be a nuisance. (Or when to be a nuisance when there is enough at stake). Indeed, i think—not that this appears to the case for you—that being overly transactional could lead you to believe that affection can be bought, or that you can be owed affection.

And I especially don’t think it healthy to essentially be saying: “have the same expectations of chatbots and service workers”.

TLDR:

You should avoid catching feelings for service workers because they have their own world and wants, and it is being a nuisance to bring unsolicited advances, it’s not just about protecting yourself, it’s also about protecting them.

You should never catch feelings for a chatbot, because they don’t have their own world or wants, it is cutting yourself from humanity to project feelings onto it, it is mostly about protecting yourself, although I would also argue society (by staying healthy).

Don’t besmirch the oldest profession by making it akin to souless vacuum. It’s not even a transaction! The AI gains nothing and gives nothing. It’s alienation in it’s purest form—no wonder the rent-seekers love it—It’s the ugliest and least faithful mirror.

✨The Vibe✨ is indeed getting increasingly depressing at work.

It’s also killing my parents’ freelance translation business, there is still money in live interpreting, and prestige stuff or highly technical accuracy very obviously matters stuff, but a lot of stuff is drying up.

Jinsatsu Zetsubō (人殺・絶望, but his thralls call him Ginny) was not your ordinary vampire goth demon lord… He delighted in his garments of true terror and dread, what better source of inescapable despair than his beige ulster coat, barely held together by off-yellow gold pins, with a salmon pink napkin in the over pocket, an ensemble designed to inspire trudgery sucking all soul and joy from any passerby…

A glorious snippet:

The movement connected to attracted the attention of the founder culture of Silicon Valley and leading to many shared cultural shibboleths and obsessions, especially optimism about the ability of intelligent capitalists and technocrats to create widespread prosperity.

At first I was confused at what kind of moron would try using shibboleth positively, but it turns it’s just terribly misquoting a citation:

Rationalist culture — and its cultural shibboleths and obsessions — became inextricably intertwined with the founder culture of Silicon Valley as a whole, with its faith in intelligent creators who could figure out the tech, mental and physical alike, that could get us out of the mess of being human.

Also lol at insiting on “exonym” as descriptor for TESCREAL, removing Timnit Gebru and Émile P. Torres and the clear intention of criticism from the term, it doesn’t really even make sense to use the acronym unless you’re doing critical analasis of the movement(s). (Also removing mentions of the espcially strong overalap between EA and rationalists.)

It’s a bit of a hack job at making the page more biased, with a very thin verneer of still using the sources.