I think many of Bernie's policies would be disastrous if implemented (getting the economics right REALLY matters), but I can definitely see why he has such a following.
Granted, he's talking about my pet issue here, but he feels "real", in a way that few politicians do?
It feels so refreshing to listen to a politician respond to things in ways that feel straightforward and obvious, when everyone else is playing political double-speak games.
Even if his polices are pretty bad, I do believe that Sanders really does care about the American people and American workers.
This post is phrased in a way that implies that there are a bunch of people looking at LW, from the outside, thinking "man, I wish they would have less violent rhetoric".
Is that true, or is it mainly/only Critch who thinks this?
Even one other person who agrees, and who has had enough contact with LessWrong to have at least one example (as opposed to secondhand stories of how bad and violent the doomers are) would be helpful for my triangulating here.
I had claude write a dating ad for me. It felt like it was trying to hard to be fun and relatable, so I asked Claude to make a "joyless" version, and got this:
Another one:
(It's not actually true that I "don't socialize recreationally", but I can see why Claude wrote that.)
Vegan male, SF. Six-day workweek minimum. Diet: kale. Leisure: Anki. Seeking woman sincerely committed to the Good for honest, high-meta relationship. Conventional dating activities not offered.
Some thinking about the ethics around people funding me:
I'm working very hard pushing on projects that seem to me to be moving the world towards a better equilibrium. It feels like it does make sense for the broader ecosystem to pour resources into accelerating my efforts.
Wild as it seems, I have more strategic orientation than most, and enough taste to see how a lot of projects could be better, and the energy and agency to make them so.
So it feels not unreasonable or inappropriate for me to absorb more resources. There are people who want to help, I could absorb more resources to generically make things better in a flexible on the ground way.
@deanwball writes that the blocker to AI takeover risk is computational irreducibility. Intelligence can't predict everything, and so superinelligence can't overthrow humans.
This is wrong.
This argument misconstrues what superhuman "intelligence" (or if one prefers, superhuman "capability") entails.
Some specific human individuals have been world-historically skilled at managing capital, interfacing with hard-to-predict systems, organizing groups to accomplish goals, etc.