The first rule...

I didn't say that (I butted into the conversation).

Do you not see death as a choice? What would be a better option? Force others to support you just because? Is it still coercion if instead of death you get provided the bare minimum to keep you alive? At what standard of living is it no longer coercion?

Even in an anarchist society you will have to come to some type of arrangement with society to meet your basic needs (unless you live on your own in the wilderness or something). The visions of anarchist society I've heard of would not let these "lost causes" die, but in reality I see this as a kindness, not some obligation.

True, but really that is the basic choice given to us by nature.

There are more equitable societal arrangements, but none will remove the requirement that you contribute in exchange for participation.

How so? The universe must also be guilty of coercing us to work for our survival, then, too.

There are many problems with capitalist society, but any functional society will involve some type of exchange of labor for goods and services needed to survive. Be it a paycheck from a wealthy capitalist business owner, or a contract you enter into with your community in an anarchist society, you will be "coerced" into being a useful part of society one way or another.

The only way you would never be compelled to work would be by the charity of others, or whenever we've managed to fully automate everything so that no human labor is required.

Why hello there person I was not talking to.

Do you not think I made my own decision of my own free will after a preponderance of the evidence and the arguments available to me? Or did you have some image conjured up in your head of me seeing some viral tiktok and immediately going vegan because it's the next cool label to acquire to show people how progressive I am?

Do you not see the irony in labeling people who represent less than 1% of the population and who go against the majority as "subscribing to a herd mentality" when they are not the ones who simply follow the rest of the herd from birth to death just accepting the values they are given by their upbringing?

How weak you must see your own position when, instead of taking time to actually understand their position, you just convince yourself that those you disagree with are just thoughtlessly following the herd and merely feigning their sincerely held beliefs. It's certainly less work, I'll give you that, and you don't run the risk of changing your mind.

Yeah, and being convinced is a big and important step for sure. I only meant to reassure that it is almost certainly far easier than you're imagining.

I understand and felt the same at first, but now I would compare it to learning a different way to tie shoe laces or something. It is not the complex thing it is often made out to be, unless you're trying to go whole foods only or some other such additional restriction.

There are many free introductory resources and meal plans to try to make it as easy as possible.

Why not at this time?

Nobody but you has access to the original, so unless you can detect the steganography without the original it is "perfectly secure".

I didn't read anything on this, but I'm guessing the only real advance is that the encoding is not discernable from noise.

Odds are in such a scenario you starve to death when your mini biome has some minor issue that disturbs the balance and ends up killing some crucial part of the system. Assuming all life is also dead outside your hab, you are dead.

If it's something that kills animals but not plants/fungi then maybe you'd have options, but it's still a massively complex system that you are trying to keep stable.

Maybe a system of many different but self-contained habs would have more resiliency. If you lose some component to a blight then maybe the other hab has some different strain that is unaffected.

>As long as you have some minimum number of people (specialized skills) and enough manufacturing machinery, this won't happen.

You'd need quite a large number of people with many specialties, I think. The idea of a small self-contained system is more of the problem. You also can't forget about materials (how are you getting them?). Much of our technology relies heavily on the global economy, and there has been no effort put in to try to make these self-contained systems even on a nation-sized basis (except maybe North Korea, and even they rely on the global economy despite every desire not to).

We don't necessarily have a good reason to believe we can for sure make a smaller self-contained system. It may be possible, but it isn't a given, an. it's certainly not an easy problem.

The things you point to are still dependent on the Earth's biosphere. If you want a truly isolated system with no inputs other than sunlight you are screwed if anything becomes too unbalanced. The systems are complex enough that we cannot yet engineer them to be stable the way the Earth is, despite many decades of trying.

I do think that if it became important enough we might put enough resources into this problem to find a way, but as far as we know it may require a much larger biosphere to achieve it than would be practical.

And all of this is assuming you have fully self-sufficient manufacturing capabilities for everything you need to maintain these systems, which is itself a complex problem, especially regarding microelectronic components or other high-technology tools. They don't last forever, so even if you did figure out the biosphere problem your work is not finished.

Yeah, like unless they are hooking up an AGI or other agent that has the ability to continually learn and affect the real world, all of the "safety" and morality talk is largely centered on making sure people can't turn it into a racist nazi bot, because that would affect their bottom line.

There is a threat to using these tools to mislead people (like russian twitter bots), but unless they stop publishing papers there is no way to put the genie into the bottle again. And the people fooled by that narrative would probably be duped by a basic ass Markov chain anyway.

I would think an AI might only need sapience, though.

It has to have an understanding, but yeah it doesn't necessarily imply a someone inside who knows anything about the human condition. It has no way to have a true internalization of anything other than how languages work and what words mean.

Maybe it is the same thing as a hypothetical man who is suspended in a sensory deprivation chamber and raised exclusively through the use of text, and motivated to translate by addictive drugs for reward and pain as punishment.

You could have perfect understanding of words, but no actual idea of the mapping to external reality.

>cannot be meaningfully observed and assembled into coherent information, yet.

And hopefully it never will be. Violations of causality would not be fun.

There is good evidence that during the low-fat craze most people did not actually change their diets overall, and they added these "healthy" low-fat products on top of their unchanged diets because they're "guilt-free".

It's also a big assumption that they're always adding something worse. It's a hard sell to claim we somehow get further away from knowledge of health with every discovery.

And plenty of people in alt health circles are swinging the pendulum hard back to high-fat low-carb products and diets, and just ignoring all the evidence that led us away from this in the first place.

>Thanks for the reply! And I largely agree. r/controlproblem has been a great sub to follow for some disturbing reads lately, if you're into that sort of thing.

Thanks for the sub recommendation, I was not aware of it. I've been getting my fix from computerphile videos on youtube, and all of the great videos by Robert Miles on his channel.

It's fascinating just how much we can know just by reasoning about advanced AI even when we have no idea how to make it or when we will.

>Just wanted to add "Before I get that out of your mouth" was from voice to text for my kid this morning as I read this and she, 4, was trying to eat leaves.

Ha, I did wonder about that, lol.

>Ironically enough, a robot wouldn't have been able to reproduce that weird blunder so I guess you know I'm human

Exactly what a superintelligent AI would say ;)

I won't tell anyone if you keep me around as a pet after you take over.

>1) How long will it matter that the source of our content is human? At some point I think there will be a gesture towards considering AI a comparable mind and asking them for their experiences and sharing in the joint qualms of existence. I do think that there will be a rubber band snap back of sorts whenever we realize they're smarter than the collective whole of humanity and then our ability to relate will be minimal. Also again, the trust factor of being exploited goes up dramatically.. before I get that out of your mouth

I think that one key issue here is that a true general intelligence (the comparable mind you speak of) is probably a very long way off. ChatGPT and related AIs can simulate talking about qualms of existence, but its true existence is as something which generates plausible responses to text prompts based on its training data. If there's anyone in there with a subjective experience (most likely and hopefully not), it is vastly different from ours.

And if/when we do create an artificial general intelligence there are far more serious things to worry about than whether some person/corporation is exploiting you. Hopefully whoever does it has somehow also managed to figure out all of the AI safety problems to avoid a guaranteed apocalypse. It's a surprisingly difficult problem, and is also very entertaining to think about.

We definitely don't want to find out the hard way what happens when a superintelligent stamp collector AI figures out that it can get the most stamps by overthrowing human governments and diverting all production to stamp printing, or when it finds that humans are a good source of raw materials...

It may have passed the test, but I would not use this as an indication that it could represent you in court. Unless it is fundamentally different than the other large language models it will confidently lie and is only really "motivated" to produce probable responses to given prompts.

The AI they trained on only research papers was shut down very quickly when it started making very detailed lies citing studies that seem plausible yet don't exist.

Now this is by no means an unsolvable problem, but solving it is not something we can just assume. AI alignment is not an easy problem.

>As far as should we? Livestock animals have more purpose than just meat/dairy to eat. In regenerative agriculture they can as a portion of a crop rotation system that improves the quality and quantity of vegetable production with the bonus of a meat crop, and this can be managed in a way that honestly shouldn’t make a vegan angry if it’s done right. Those animals should be treated as well as pets, or even better because they earn our deepest gratitude by feeding us.

Such a system would be undeniably better than what we have, but that does not mean a vegan will give a stamp of approval. The idea that animals have a purpose to serve for us is completely counter to the philosophy.

Your position here is similar to arguing for human slavery as long as it is done in a "good" way where the slaves are treated well and with a lot of respect and gratitude for their "sacrifice" for the betterment of society through their forced labor. Improving an immoral situation doesn't make it moral, just less bad.

I'm not equating human slavery and animal agriculture here. I'm just using the comparison to illustrate why your reasoning is flawed with respect to vegans.

Depending on what your existing tastes are, sure. There are probably a lot more people than you think who have not listened to them, or only have heard the most popular songs in other media.