Dylan Richardson

I mean, yes, they want that too. *"Good thing(s)"

My point is simply that meaningfulness isn't a uniquely precious state-provisioned good. Neither is equality for that matter. Insofar as policy levers allow, these can be traded off another without any loss in justice.

I think it is simply false that it's "more likely" to be a hindrance past some point.
Of no greater benefit, perhaps. But not that.

"Do you want {generic good thing}?"

I'd be convinced if most people actually preferred substantial pay cuts for more meaningful work. Emphasis on the *meaningfulness*, not less stressful/strenuous work.

Presumably they just factory farm humans.

I get that this is rhetoric and not thought out.

But that is clearly not the case in terms of private or public money, or in terms of popular opinion.

Ideally as AI tech improves, we'll be able to have posts filtered by LLMs instead of just by engagement.

I'm pretty certain it is already a simple matter for AI to identify posting like this with a simple prompt. I assume it's just a matter of lowering token cost.

Ahhh I wish I did that, even once, let alone all the time!

Great to see the US renewed funding for the Global Fund! www.devex.com/news/global...

👀 Since 2018, 15 major foundations have donated "$260 million ... to nonprofits across California that have actively opposed pro-housing legislation"

Merely through speech or text? Or also image/video generation?

Presumably you don't include physical-world acts within this category, like blackmail or drugs?

You were missing the all important "also" so I interpreted this differently.

But ok fair enough👍

Yes but.

The phrase "intrinsic value" does not apply to ecological services. Insect control is great perhaps, but that's an instrumental anthropocentric good. Similar to preserving fish species for the sake of fishing stock.

For "intrinsic value" I direct you toward @sentientism.bsky.social

The number of companies that can land a rocket appears to have doubled

Took them long enough!

I suppose online art is "public" in a sense, but only because there is too massive of an overproduction of art for prices to be affixed.

This sounds kinda harsh, but old pizza in dumpsters is also a public *good*, at least according to the homeless.

I mean it in that sense too, but much is sold and bought (presumably due to excludability). Museums are a prime example of a public good. But 99% of the artistic economy happens outside - book/albums cover art, antiques and trinkets, fashion, tattoos.

This, except not #1. They'd like them to be public goods (perhaps with good reason, not ideological reflex?). But most art is a private good.

Most of these are astonishingly, in fact, realities. Which makes it unfortunate that you are adding the first one, which is definitely not a real event.

I assume this somehow came up in what they thought of as casual conversation? Presumably not an interrogation, surely?

Tomorrow will be like this too, I promise.

I'd take this farther; One Piece is pretty clearly anarchist. It's to anarchism what Atlas Shrugged is to libertarianism.

Nah, this is a good vision. It's compelling. It's not horny. It's not an uncanny person, but it's not an anime character either, nor is it completely emotionless. It's appropriately like a genie.

I'd just like you to acknowledge that creating good outcomes is at least *among* the demands of morality.

And add that to the empirical fact that different interventions foreseeably (eg by counting) create vastly different outcomes.

I think I've figured this out. I'm a consequentialist. You are, or tend toward virtue ethics of some sort. You see morality as "being good" I see it as "doing good".

That's fine. I can acknowledge that virtue and character are at least important.

What do you mean by "doing good for the sake of it"? Seems like this might be the main point of contention.

A certain EA I'm personally very well acquainted with would counter that if you are not calculating the efficacy of your altruism before acting on it, you are prioritizing feeling good about yourself over doing good.

It may when there have never been any attempts to improve those shrimp lives before. But not always!

I'm primarily referring to the stuff they write about "post-humanity". It's outright speciesism. They actually *do* value future humans.

But for some unspecified reason, they reject non-humans. They don't reject the sentience of digital minds, it's just opposition to the category. Anti-sentientism.

I don't find Torres very intellectually honest, but I did skim the article.

All of the cases they mention are cases of expansionist moral circles that they prefer curtailing.

And I don't really see "autonomy and consent" as contested in any way? As an EA I'm very much in favor of sentientism

No doubt he's pretty clueless, but "based on information" isn't all that bad. More or less synonymous with data.