RT @bstract_thot: God. grant me the courage to accept the things i cannot change. the wisdom to change the things i can. and the serenity t….

RT @ESYudkowsky: That's just "school".

Join millions who have switched to Grok.

i feel like this is. negaverse randian villain behavior, or something like that.

RT @psychiel:

this thread might not make much sense. i guess what i really want to say is that the social and psychological dynamics of institutions like the NYT seem genuinely mysterious to me in a way that i don't know if anyone else has noticed.

. themselves to be propagandists without admitting to themselves that's what they're doing.

. it to themselves, is that no one can discuss or think about how to produce propaganda in an intelligent and strategic way, and that pseudo-chelish psychological tension manifests itself by people making strange decisions and thinking in strange ways as they contort. .

. and perhaps to some extend have to enforce it, to show that they're a good, right-thinking person. and maybe what happens when you've tacitly decided your institution is going to produce propaganda, but no one can openly say that's what's going on, or perhaps even admit. .

. the forces of memetic competition have determined that this AI-guzzles-water idea has become popular among the class of people that works for the NYT, and they feel the compulsion of social conformity so strongly that they certainly can't publicly disagree with this idea. .

. so nakedly manipulative to accomplish their goal of anti-AI datacenter/company/AI-in-general propaganda. this is somewhat mysterious to me, i don't feel like i have a solid gears-level understanding of what's going on here, but i think that part of what's going on is that. .

like, the NYT, despite its proclivities, still aspires to be taken somewhat seriously as a newspaper (i think). it is not pure tribalist simulacra level four slop like they have on the right. so you have to wonder why they'd do this, when it seems like they don't need to be. .

(maybe i'm overestimating the amount of scrutiny propaganda actually needs to withstand to serve its purpose? maybe i'm imagining myself as a propagandist and think that i would take even so disgusting a job a little more seriously than this? idk).

like, they've decided they're going to write propaganda, sure. but this particular meme isn't even good propaganda! there are a lot of other things you could say to harm the public perception of AI that will be more persuasive and withstand some scrutiny.

it's kind of remarkable, the degree to which [the class of people that includes most NYT journalists] is committed to backing narratives that are completely wrong and crumble under the lightest investigation.

RT @AlexGodofsky: The criminal justice system should quickly and comprehensively identify people who have committed crimes, punish them, an….

RT @AndyMasley: My vague guess for what happened with gender polarization:. -Short form video content takes off in 2020.-Suddenly most of t….

RT @TetraspaceWest: "You were abused so you share collective blame for your abuser" No. I'm sorry you feel that way about yourself.

also like, there are small cities in expensive metro areas where if they just upzoned the whole city everyone's home value would skyrocket and they could just sell their houses to developers and buy a nicer SFH elsewhere. still unclear to me why exactly this doesn't happen.

i think it's very reasonable to object to your neighborhood becoming noisier, or traffic getting worse, but it's entirely possible to do density without those being a problem.

my neighborhood would be better if it was 150% more crowded. it would be great if there were more people who could support more businesses in walking distance. (altho tbf part of the problem is that there isn't enough land zoned commercial in walking distance).