for

• quote - AI super intelligence is too dangerous, narrow AI can give us most of what we need - Roman Yampolskiy

quote - AI super intelligence is too dangerous, narrow AI can give us most of what we need - Roman Yampolskiy - (see below) - I don’t think it’s possible to indefinitely control superintelligence. - By definition, it’s smarter than you: - It learns faster, - it acts faster, - it will change faster. - You will have malevolent actors modifying it. - We have no precedent of lower capability agents indefinitely staying in charge of more capable agents. - Until some company or scientist says - ‘Here’s the proof! We can definitely have a safety mechanism that can scale to any level of intelligence,’ - I don’t think we should be developing those general superintelligences. - We can get most of the benefits we want from narrow AI, - systems designed for specific tasks: - develop a drug, - drive a car. - They don’t have to be smarter than the smartest of us combined.

// - Comment - Roman Yampolskiy is right. The fact that the industry is pushing ahead full speed with b developing AGI, effectively the same as the AI superintelligence Roman Yampolskiy is referring to - shows the most dangerous pathology of neo capitalism and Technofeudalism, profit over everything else - This feature is a major driver of progress traps

//

for - book - The Ascent of Humanity - Chapter VIII - Self and Cosmos - The Gaian Birth - The dangerous journey of birth - Charles Eisenstein

for - similar to - polycrisis and planetary phase shift - Charles Eisenstein's metaphor of birth process - dangerous passage through the womb door

for - progress trap - dangerous mythology

progress trap - dangerous mythology - We subscribe to a dangerous myth that: - progress will go on forever and - everything will get bigger and better and - we don't have to control our numbers - or our demand on nature - because we will always find a way to make it work

• We have to break out of that mindset

for - key insight - progress trap - A Short History of Progress - we are clever but NOT wise!

key insight - progress trap - A Short History of Progress - we are clever but NOT wise! - In other words - Intelligence is FAR DIFFERENT than wisdom

new memes - We have an abundance of intelligence and a dearth of wisdom - A little knowledge is dangerous, a lot of knowledge is even more dangerous

for - health - heart - In most people, LDL occurs with metabolic disease, and that's the dangerous situation

• for: meme - human stupidity is more dangerous than artificial intelligence

• meme: human stupidity is more dangerous than artificial intelligence

• author:Nikola Danaylov
• date: 2021

• for: progress trap, abstraction
  • comment
    • we do not recognize the power of abstraction
    • through it, we begin to construct Indra's Net of Jewels, one jewel (idea) at a time
    • but each jewel (idea) that we construct is just a little knowledge, and as Dan observes, a little knowledge, compared to the endless knowledge reflected in any jewel is dangerous.
    • this then, is our dangerous predicament - we base technology on incomplete jewels of Indra's net
    • as we know from mathematics, when the finite meets the infinite, it can never win

Quotable carbon inequality stats: - the top 1% responsible for 17% of total emissions, - the top 10% for 48%, - the bottom 50% for12% - stats carbon inequality - quote carbon inequality - 2019

// A key question is also this: - what are individuals using those carbon emissions for? - is it being used just for luxury consumption - or is it being used to develop and actionize scalable low carbon strategies? - if it is the later, it could be seen as a de-carbon investment

Noteworthy countries with the most high carbon net worth individuals (HCNW): - USA - 3.16 million individuals emitting an average 318 t CO2-e/year/person, - Luxemburg: 10,000 individuals emitting an average 287 t CO2-e/year/person, - Singapore: 50,000 individuals emitting 251 t CO2-e/year/person, - Saudi Arabia: 290,000 individuals emitting 247 t CO2-e/year/person, - Canada: 350,000 individuals emitting 204 t CO2-e/year/person

Biggest source of emissions of the elite: - yachts - private air transportation - multiple homes in different countries

// - luxury industries of: - private jets - luxury home real estate - yachts - are unsustainable - this irresponsible, unsustainable consumption is imperiling civilization itself

Varmus, H. (2021, August 31). Covid has revealed the need for genomic sequencing around the world. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/342fd3c3-5a22-49a0-9cef-135f2ccd8700

ReconfigBehSci. (2021, November 2). @jeremy_hume personally, I’d consider it a natural, considerate, and moral response to avoid contact with others when carrying an infection that can be dangerous to others. So what seems dystopian to me, is not doing so, and not creating the social/financial conditions that allow it. [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1455499076850655235

Macvim is the only vim supported out of the box? What about the many of us who want to just use standard CLI vim?

That information is not generally relevant. Only makes sense for someone who actually knew about or used the old interface.

The docs shouldn't assume you are an experienced user / a user of the previous version.

Would have been appropriate in a Changelog entry or announcement, but not in the general docs.

McKinley, Jesse, and Luis Ferré-Sadurní. ‘Warnings Issued as Virus Cases Rise in New York’. The New York Times, 28 September 2020, sec. New York. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/28/nyregion/ny-coronavirus-cases.html.

EDT, Bryan Kirk On 7/17/20 at 12:49 PM. ‘Parents Consider “COVID Mixers” to Infect Healthy Children and Build Herd Immunity’. Newsweek, 17 July 2020. https://www.newsweek.com/parents-mull-covid-mixers-infect-healthy-children-build-herd-1518661.

And who decides what information is valuable? Often it's individuals and institutions that are more interested in maintaining the status quo than, in Henry Giroux's words, challenging students to think dangerously.

Giroux offers his take on dangerous thinking's "core."

The company being sued for the cover up of the negative side effects of aspartame hires the lawyer that represented the FDA thus resulting in the case never making it to trial.

Aspartame was so poorly misrepresented in the scientific research provided for its approval that it became the first case in history in which a lawsuit was brought against the manufacturer for concealing of material facts and false statements.

In summary aspartame increases the fire of neurotransmitters, increases heart rate and and blood pressure, and imbalances gut bacteria.

Aspartame alters the chemical composition of the brain and excites neurotransmitters.

In summary aspartame results in the death of cells that carry nutrients and energy to the growing embryo.

Aspartame caused placenta cells to rupture and behave like they had been exposed to a pathogen or virus.

Aspartame inhibits the function of organs and tissues via clusters of proteins/“plaque”.

This study found that aspartame causes DNA damage and cell death.

If opioids are prescribed and overtaken, then your risk of becoming dependent on the drug goes up. Opioids are highly addictive.

This analogy stood out to me as a very effective means to explain what the author is trying to get at. The idea that regardless of how bad something is, if everyone has it and I don't, the question isn't if I should have it, it's why don't I. It's used fairly effectively here to get the point across, specifically with the idea of food, which is so necessary to us. We could even go further to draw the connection between food and technology as now completely essential to our lives that who cares if it's contaminated or dangerous, we still need it.