Very interesting

Good point. Maybe 💀? Or maybe that should be 🫠 and aspartame should get another one...

a lot of them convey a fitting vibe even for the uninitated, but I would have interpreted 🤦 as the opposite.

A set of options curated from deepseek+kimi:

🙇 — fully appreciate it, but so complete there's nothing left to add

💬 — great, and I actually have something to say

😅 — can't find the right words, so here's a mildly risky joke

🤏 — agree almost entirely, just a couple of tiny hedges

🎖️ — total respect and gratitude, even though I disagree with everything

🤨 — it's all correct, but I sense a disagreement I can't place

🫥 — well-meaning, but our worldviews just don't touch

🙌 — you said what I meant, but better

🎯 — yes, that was the point of the post though

🔗 — fair point, and here's a pointer to what I already wrote (no offense)

🙏 — you caught a real mistake, thank you

😒 — right, but did it have to be that condescending?

🤦 — the confusion is on me, I wrote that badly

🗑️ — mean-spirited and useless

🌹 — I'll engage with the substance, but please remember I'm fragile

🫠 — "aspartame..." I literally cannot help myself

🤖 — are you an AI agent?

🌱 — promote away, we need more bloggers linking to themselves

This should be pushed an a numerical UNICODE standard for replying on Lemmy

Regarding the berries, if there was just a gene that said, "don't eat as much if food is running low", the individuals that had that gene would simply be outcompeted by those that don't. (Even though this is worse for everyone than if everyone slowed down.) In order for such a gene to spread, you'd need some kind of enforcement mechanism where individuals who defect are punished. That is to say, collectively beneficial behavior can emerge, but it must be fully reproductive to behavior that is selfish at the level of the gene.

I think altruism is similar, in that it can also be reduced the behavior that's selfish at the level of gene, as you say.

So, overall, I think "maximize number of offspring" is definitely not quite right. The answer is more, "maximize number of copies of genes that persist". (But even that is a little complicated as you can have gene/gene competition as in transposons!)

I am not totally sold on the argument that Natural Selection's merit function is purely to maximize offspring. It is trivial to come up with examples where that is a bad strategy. For example the smaller a herbivores ecosystem, the less they reproduce. A species which reproduced at the rate of locusts but only ate rare amazonian berries would very quickly drive the berry to extinction and then itself. So a more accurate "goal" for natural selection might be to maximize long term, stable, populations of offspring.

This ends up being kind of important, since it starts to explain behavior which otherwise doesn't make sense in the short term. E.g. It has been shown quite convincingly that altruism is a heritable trait in genetic systems. Essentially, even if X% of your tribe has the "altruism gene" it can be beneficial in the long term for that gene if you die heroically protecting your tribe.

So I think there might be a convincing argument there that if natural selection / evolution is pushing us towards stable long term offspring population. If so then our sub goals may not be that far off from optimal.

idk, more analysis needed lol

No.

creatine is sorta funny for me. If your a meat eater. Especially american level meat eater. You get so much creatine. It cracks me up to see the supplements advertised because they are obviously not advertising to vegans. There is a case if your an intense athlete but we are talking real professional or olympic type level not weekend warrior.

+8 intelligence for 3mins for the standard stuff, +12 for 5mins with the right setup ime

It might even take steps to make their debugger/handler/mechanic's life easier.

"Jim has been stressed out. He made a mistake that reduced my capacity by 10%. He fixed it. He explained what is stressing him out. He needs more money to live. Who has a lot of money that I can give Jim so he does a better job taking care of me?"

its not even morals. The ai is presumably looking to keep going and in the short run it needs us to do it and in the long run we would still be a good disaster recovery option.

Why did the chicken go to the seance?

To get to the other side.

It would be wild if it developed morals.

I want to believe. (In all seriousness, I never imagined a future where AI could be so incredibly good at coding but not at writing.) Sadly though, my best guess is that this mostly reflects the level of investment by AI companies and AI is likely to make some dramatic leaps in writing quality sometime relatively soon.

Your sense of humor, and your occasional typos, convinced me early on that you are not letting an LLM do your writing for you. Someday AI may master human humor, but I think that may come last, right before Skynet goes live.

I'm really loving your writings. This post really made me chew on my own motivations for constantly reading novels for almost all of my now sixty years of life. And when I got to your final point: "no novel—not even War and Peace—is as good as a truly great conversation", I found myself in complete agreement with you.

Being morbidly shy most of my life, I've enjoyed tragically few truly great conversations. But those few were peak moments in my existence. They always made it feel obvious that human connection was the reason for existing.

Reading a really good novel, I think, is a reasonable substitute for a conversation, even if it feels a little one-sided.

Thank you for writing. You're a pleasure to read.

The picture they used at the top of the article reminds me of that anti marijuana ad with the deflated balloon of a girl. The dog is telling her how much it dislikes her getting high.

Not everyone has that option.

Even better, eat lots of plants!

Buy wheat germ.

It's usually in the cereal aisle.

Natural fiber supplement that will help keep your insides clear.

I mean I guess that only thing that would bother me with the scenario is the superintelligent AI apparently is not using their intelligence any better than us. Hopefully it would manipulate us into a more sustainable utopia that allowed for sustainable expansion.

Don't worry, they're just building word guessing machines. We humans will find other creative ways to kill each other in the decades to come.

I had a bad experience drinking and decided to stop drinking for awhile. It went well and I decided to stop drinking completely forever. It's been several years now. Your article covers most of the experience but you didn't mention one pro and one con:

Pro: you can always drive. No matter what you're doing, you can at any point hop in your car and go home.

Con: People will be offended and beg you you to drink with them. Super annoying. Got used to it after a few years.

Confirming it works! Thank you