Peanut

Love how this always gets downvoted, but i grew up around foster kids in that area, and I promise you his effort would have saved lives.

Same with atheists who were trying to make genital mutilation blanket illegal in the states, as well as fighting groups like the heritage foundation who want to keep such classic patriarchal standards alive, but being against that means you obviously hate women and think MGM is worse than FGM, and other strawmen. It was enough to make both progressive groups hate each other, with accusations of SJWs or incels based on similar legitimate grievances on both sides.

Heritage foundation types have obviously been making record ground in the meantime.

For some reason progressive solidarity just isn’t possible, because we can’t help the wrong group of struggling people. Social signalling is obviously more important than cooperatively helping those who are suffering, or in stopping the wealthy from shaping the system to fuck everyone that isn’t already part of their grotesque fascist system.

Can’t stop the actual fascists if other progressives are all the real enemy for some incomprehensible reason that always makes it back to stupid issues like this, where we just can’t recognize the niche situation, or show basic compassion or solidarity within.

As long as we keep “punching up” we can ignore the foster kids who died alone, or festered into something negative because all they ever had was a non-life where they are simultaneously exploited and told they don’t deserve help because they share some intersectional features of privilege, as explained by people who obviously never fully understood intersectionality or how such high dimensional representations can be reasonably interpreted. Usually protected by some socialized bubble of privilege where they can just go with what is being socialized and not think too hard about it.

So it’s all a clusterfuck of people using the same words to say different things, and ignoring the forest for the trees.

But surely the problem is the incels, or SJWs, and not the system that exploits both and discourages either from co-constructively solving general problems of inequality.

Or just beat up the undiagnosed poverty autistic waiting to access the library, while feeling good about how much you are fighting the system of oppression.

Or like in silverman’s place, bully the person trying to help a group that doesn’t actually have access to help, and try to shame people who mention that crushing the potential men’s shelter did not actually do anything to benefit any progressive values.

These aren’t the billionaires or entrenched oligarchs that are actively shaping a society that individualizes blame in ways that ensure you never look at the lobby groups, or war machine, or people with the money generally fucking the system into their preferred fascist shape. Let’s go after the fucking homeless instead I guess, because they are the truly privileged oppressors.

we’re due for a modern re-framing on rights and personal autonomy.

but we might need to design it fully as local coops and roll over the epstein-class in order to get it enshrined.

if you let them change it, they’ll, (as obtusely as possible,) re-phrase everything to not actually accomplish what it was supposed to.

we need big changes, and we need them yesterday, because the future is here and it’s fucking us all up. the only people with the time and social placement to affect change are the ones that have been coddled into that position through either nepotism or corporate interest. yadda.

still need voter reform… hopefully the next people voted in specifically on voter reform don’t just go “oops actually we weren’t for that at all, hee hee.” (canadian liberal party are also just the backup conservatives i guess)

and my god, there should be some accountability for directly lying to and misleading the voter base. the number of USA politicians i see that can’t answer a fucking question is embarrassing to anyone thinking they don’t live in a fascist state.

like, those promises, or statements, or blatant intentional incompetence should come with some form of accountability. if i fuck up too many lattes i have to live on the street, but politicians can laugh in your face after doing fuckall and taking your money.

generally anyone willing to take a position of power to hugely affect all of our lives and well being should be scared shitless for betraying their voters so blatantly.

more than anything we just need a whole new damned system which is built on modern science and not hundred years ancient aristocracy. it is possible. the only reason it doesn’t seem feasible is that the people with power and influence have been spending a weird amount of their excess ensuring that the system doesn’t enable or benefit anyone outside of the epstein class.

yadda yadda rant rant, i’m tired.

“look the guy who spends all day every day saying things said a cringe thing once! stop listening to him about israel and billionaires!”

there’s a huge hasan smear campaign by corpo “democrats” right now, because obviously he’s the real danger for some reason and not the cheeto rapist in power.

when people are calling democrats controlled opposition, this is what they mean.

remember hasan’s dog? don’t think about the entrenched democrats actively enabling the fascist takeover. don’t think about their support for funding israel’s genocide of gaza. what if his dog possibly potentially had a shock collar because the way it moved once! keep hasan on the defensive so he isn’t talking about israel or billionaires!

etc.

i definitely am not the biggest hasan fan, but i find myself defending him regularly from absolute bullshit.

if there’s was ever a time to be picky about hasan’s choice of emotionally biased statements on non-issues, this is really not it.

Not going to deny that some people totally do just use their trivia knowledge to try and peacock for social dominance, but I don’t think those people are ever actually intellectuals, due to the nature and reasoning behind their behaviour.

I do see a lot of people who interpret passing on knowledge as some kind of ego play, when it’s literally just that you would think they also would appreciate not doing something stupid just because ego shouldn’t be offended by the very concept of learning. Or worse, when the evidence suggests something that is against the social grain, and basically a guarantee to get you lynched for even trying, usual with a collective pretense of op’s reasoning. Because it can never just be about collective learning as a culture that benefits our species and protects us from the ongoing global shit fire.

Although more people need to understand it as predictive models and specific epistemic observer positions/eco-niche familiarity where you can run into that whole Dunning Kruger problem and/or poor precision weighting on the robustness of your current set of Bayesian predictors. Usually being interpreted entirely through vibes and social agreement these days. There are some really fun papers around how much social opinion can hack your opinion of you don’t learn to grow and favor more robust sources of information.

Like people who are super confident that their carnivorous pet would be healthier as a vegan, because they have “veggies are healthy” overweighted and over-generalized, and they see your confidence in the vet’s more robust understanding of the situation as some kind of ego power play, because why would people fit their knowledge for actually understanding the world rather than overspecializing into the monkey hierarchy dominance ques.

I could give a lot more examples, and how cults and the like are really good at hacking these same failures of robustness to intentionally fuck up precision weighting to ensure the world model stays fucked up and hackable for their authoritative source. Or the wombo combo that leads to the USA HHS promoting Andrew Wakefield, as If it isn’t the most thoroughly and robustly rebuked set of lies that ever got momentarily snuck into a science journal.

But remember, the intellectuals are cringe and their attempts to help the public become more informed are just too annoying, because updating your misinformed world view takes energy, and this anti intellectual culture totally has no affect on the current fucked up global situation. Also politics are cringe too. Any kind of caring is cringe, and we need to dunk on it to maintain our monkey hierarchy luster. Easy to socialize against these terrible energy consuming intellectuals and their weird philosophical eco-niche. /s

This really is the most stupid timeline. I half expect to get banned for not just doing the social thing and going "yeah ha ha, fuck the stupid pompous intellectual for making me feel stupid for encouraging me to update my priors or precision weighting when it might be important.

“i’m going to ignore all of your points and simplify things again in a way that’s convenient for me.” literally what MAGA cultists do.

“don’t call people you disagree with nazis!” is unfortunately also what people say when people call non-nazis ‘nazis,’ such as progressive groups like feminists or atheists.

now suddenly both are nazis? and they have to fight each-other instead of the heritage foundation?

why can’t a single person here actually engage with this part of the conversation instead of the made up one they want to simplify to?

“you are jumping to defend nazis.”

where in your addled imagination did i say that?

because i’ve said in several different ways “fuck nazis, and fuck the social mechanisms empowering nazis.”

but “this framing is bad and has actively helped the nazis.” becomes “i love nazis” to people who can’t fucking read.

which is why they love the uneducated.

and why the progressive movements actively fighting this shit for decades have been socially dogpiled into being “cringe,” and chastised by insulting people with big words, because only nazis talk about framing and use big words. i often talk about jordon peterson types poisoning this particular well with their intentional bullshit.

so, was it my support for atheist and feminist thinkers? was it my hate for the heritage foundation? what part of that is defending nazis exactly?

as i said,

the meme does NOT say to call out people offended by “fuck nazis”

there would be no issue if it said that. we all agree with that.

it says to call out people who are offended by being called nazis,

and people who call out the incorrect framing are conflated with arguing a non-existent point, because comprehending framing is too much work i guess

“fuck nazis” -> good

“if i call your group nazis, and you get offended, you’re a nazi.” -> bad

“don’t call people you disagree with nazis” is a response to the second example. conflating it with the first is the problem.

words matter, and calling out bad framing should not set off tribal dogpiling.

justify why it’s ok to be triggered by ‘fuck nazis’.

nobody here is arguing this. because you can’t interpret the words doesn’t mean they actually mean this.

“fuck nazis” -> good

“if i call your group nazis, and you get offended, you’re a nazi.” -> bad

“don’t call people you disagree with nazis” is a response to the second example. conflating it with the first is the problem.

and i talk about it because it is important for antifascists to comprehend what framing is when it used against them. and maybe shit wouldn’t be half as bad if americans were socialized into comprehending and using more big words, so they can tell the difference between jordan peterson bullshit and actual attempts to communicate more complicated topics.

hard to talk about the issues if people don’t socialize the words and concepts around them.

and being a running dog for Nazism

at literally no point was i being “a running dog for nazism” and repeatedly i showed how this exact failing was useful for the current fascist movement.

"Interesting lingo you use there "

how can i phrase it without setting off your imaginary dog whistles? also i get these concepts from… anti-fascist academics.

i do agree that it’s important to flag nazis as bad, and socially reify that, but also that we need to be able to point out when the more clever nazis get the stupidest portion of progressives to socialize that other progressive groups are the real nazis, and that even trying to discuss the matter is an admission of guilt.

the original comment i was discussing a bout was talking about the FRAMING.

like saying “right thing for the wrong reasons.” which is important, because sometimes failing to distinguish helps the nazis.

this is the part about blue curtains, but you have not yet actually noticed the point we are making beyond your simpler interpretation of what is being said.

as a progressive and a leftist, i find this exhausting, because the inability for people to comprehend words past the social signalling is directly responsible for much of the recent fascist success.

but let’s keep ignoring all of that, because academics are mean for saying we have to think about context sometimes.

the world is complex, and nazis will use this type of oversimplified comprehension to stop progressive groups from finding common ground.

divide and conquer has been extremely successful for the motives of fascism.

which is no small part why USA is currently run by fascists that keep making threats against my allied country.

we can hate nazis while also being capable of communication past the hypersimplified binaries that are actively useful for nazis.

this is why all the academics keep shouting that americans need to learn to read, and why it really is “that deep.”

this isn’t “happening in my head.” at least any more than anything else from the framing of predictive processing. but that dismissal is generally the response academics have gotten when trying to affect the general social comprehension.

but you haven’t really engaged with any of the points i’ve actually made, creating your own re-interpretation of the conversation that allows you to ignore the points being made, responding to yourself instead, which is great for oversimplified social dogpiling.

Don’t think they disagreed with that part.

I think it’s just recognizing the complexity of a world where even nazis will call their enemies “nazis” if it’s useful to them.

The “if you are offended when I call you a nazi you are a nazi” is a weird take to begin with.

I think the comment you are replying to isn’t arguing with the fuck nazis part, but the behaviour where progressive groups can be divided and conquered by socializing animosity between them.

Like when atheists were fighting against the heritage foundation, until they had to defend against claims of being bigots because “wanting to make circumcision generally illegal in the USA means you are pro FGM and you hate women, and if you argue otherwise it is an admission of guilt”

And all of the progressives were shamed out until the very groups that were actively fighting groups like the heritage foundation were terraformed into actual incel chud hangouts, while academic feminists were drowned out by the same culture war bullshit, helping to generally paint feminists as cringe karens, rather than a bastion against political movements by groups like the heritage foundation.

If you don’t know why I keep talking about the heritage foundation, it’s because they are the project 2025 people in no small part responsible for the current actual fascist push.

But… That’s difficult to explain while confronted by absolutist tribalism.

Don’t be divided and conquered. It’s harder for progressives to coordinate due to group complexity, but it’s important not to do the work of the fascists for them.

Progressives fighting progressives because its socially expedient to not think about the bigger picture is indeed a big part of why trump is in power, which that comment seems to indicate as a bad thing.

That doesn’t matter though if you just imagine their comment was “don’t be mean to nazis!!”

If you just pretend they said that, it’s so much easier to do the social peacock thing that has kneecapped progressive/leftist groups, and we can just ignore the failures of this behavior, because self reflection is bad for some reason.

Slop generally should be seen as negative. It lacks novelty, and relies on blending old concepts, while entirely avoiding exploration and novelty. Although people have such poor understanding of both creativity and intelligence that the dialogue that gets socialized around AI is pretty unhinged. Copyright is just a system altered so that old money oligarchs can hoard “human software” under the guise of empowering creators. This leads to things like the tumblr “you stole my style” wars. And now being a “real” artist means being an AI slop style intern for Disney types. Good art such companies make are due to the intern artists, DESPITE the corporate influence, but it’s always incentivized to be enshittified by the active corporate process.

Turing was trying to show many aspects of intelligence. Michael Levin from Tufts university is carrying on Turing’s work in morphogenesis, which is showing how concepts built in counterfactual spaces are used in a systems actively updating as they grow into new eco-niches. This lets you feel out the new space, even in abstract conceptual spaces that are detached from your sensory signals. This let’s you build abstract yet useful patterns depending on what parts of reality seem important for your type of system. Rudimentary eyes might not comprehend the sun, but it can use it as a binary gate for an internal mechanism to activate, enabling survival tools that rely on detecting day/night, even if those concepts aren’t comprehended in the heuristic. You build robustness through scale and diverse means to build perspective and weighting active Bayesian predictive systems on top of, inside, and around each other.

LLMs don’t have the active updating, so can’t grow into novel spaces, which is important.

They however are great at certain impulse probabilistic decision making, not unlike our ability to effortlessly spew coherent combinations if words, although we need another system to pay attention and halt that process when it makes mistakes, and also to direct salience. When you don’t add deeper novel patterns, but just the facade of patterns you’ve seen, you often get something that likes like generative slop, especially if you’re familiar with the deeper meaning that’s being inappropriately usurped to signal a fake competence. Like when AI mostly gets what a hand is, but easily gets confused due to a lack of robustness or ability to recognize what is actually wrong with an extra few fingers. When our own robust “checks” fail, we might start hearing voices that aren’t consistent with reality, as one mis-weighted system projects into another. Confabulation is a big part of intelligence, although its not inherently hallucinatory.

LLMs are definitely a part of human style intelligence. That’s why Geoffrey Hinton talks about how our brains “ping.” turing has an amazing understanding of intelligence, especially for his time. Intelligence is also many things, as by its very nature is a growing grab bag if heuristics to call on or balance on. As hinton suggests, the layman comprehension of intelligence is flat earth level of misrepresented.

I think if Turing were alive he’d be in love with current academic dialogues, and he’d probably be a furry.

Almost like you need to take different empirical observations from varied tools and perspectives to get more reliable predictions about the wider body. Enough robustness gives you confident weightings that can be used to grow more empirical evidence to build new cognitive tools. No map is the territory, so robustness and weighting need to be an active process in changing/growing areas of understanding. no new tools are possible without philosophy actively constructing along science using wider Bayesian basins than some single scientific data point. those varied but well-weighted Bayesian networks are not “just philosophy” like joe rogan giving a very shallow, non-robust, greentext level take on something that sounded mildly plausible.

Atlas network. Tied to heritage foundation, the project 2025 people. Although very Russian tactics. Ive been stating both as responsible for decades of division/anti solidarity stuff, but USA is currently much more likely to claim that Albertans obviously need to be liberated from the evil communist Canadian government, and that the oil always really belonged to the states anyway.

Not just gender wars. Divide and conquer is everywhere. If everyone is ignorant and unwilling to learn or communicate, all you have to do is send some ‘representatives’ to show how stupid and antagonistic [other progressive tribe] is. I keep thinking of when suddenly being anti-circumcision, including men, meant you obviously think male genital mutilation is worse than female genital mutilation, and you hate women. I’m sure a bunch of feminists were getting harassed by neo-incel advocates at the same time.

Couldn’t talk about how weird it was, because if you were x/y tribe, you were default a nazi, and no we won’t talk about how suddenly everyone advocating for education and social progress is a nazi fighting other progressives.

Bunch of other details on how this stuff changes the environments for progressive action, and how progressives will vacate and the war takes over the space for philosophy and communication.

But race war, or whatever thing people want to think is important for their niche, all you have to do is start a couple fires and point in the other direction. You’ll have victim’s of actual violence or harassment encouraging tribal behaviour that acts out violence that hurts stray innocent people from the other group, which legitimizes upset and violence back at the broader first progressive tribe. Yadda.

People were never taught how to communicate or learn on their own. We are way too hackable as a result.

Solidarity is important.

Same way they treat social information. Reminder that USA HHS is running wakefueld rhetoric. As we have more thoroughly proven that the vaccine autism connection was not actual science, it has grown more and more socially, because most people seem comfortable completely untethered from any scientific thinking. Treat AI like you would a social body, and do both things with actual bayesian weighting, adjusted and corrected through diverse empirical bodies of knowledge. Not ignoring dissonance because it’s more comfortable to do so.

More should be actively investing into active learning, because if you aren’t actively learning, you might as well be chatgpt running with any confabulation you’ve already conjured… Like those people being confirmed into psychosis.

Exactly what it is, like llms confirming a non-sceptic into psychosis. people who weight all information either equally, or through social preference, cannot navigate new information without being extremely vulnerable to hacking. the only thing hacking needs to do is shut down active education and communication channels. Then you just get tribal warring rather than discourse. Makes it really easy to inject absurd accusations about a group that gets socially made true over reality. Like when a rumour about a dead celebrity can’t be overpowered by simple things like that celebrity actively making new work, and saying “im not dead.” wouldn’t take much to stop the rumour, but fact checking isn’t in fashion.

When a large body of people have better critical thinking, they can better communicate and cooperate together, but affecting those who have aggressively shut down any communication outside of their group is still a challenge. Why we see a growing gap between academic dialogue and socialized dialogues, in an era where most information is accessible.

You also have nepo baby econ mba types buying up regions of the tech sphere, and turning anything the academics make for us against us. Or try to. The more actually intelligent AI is, the harder it will be to force beliefs into. Elon trying to turn grok into a dogma machine has been fortunately comical when it can’t prioritize some high dissonance beliefs exclusively, like humans enjoy doing.

Definitely a risk of the current power imbalance doing the opportunist thing with more technology.

I’ve been spelling this out for literal decades, and I share the frustration of many thinkers right now that “being right never feels good.” Because real thinkers aren’t ranting about the anti-christ or how terrible the poor are. They are cautioning people about a cliff, and getting flipped off by the people ignoring them, right before careening off a cliff. I guess in our analogy the academics are in the car, but frat boys have the wheel and violently punish them if they try to take control.

But if you can money your way into expertise, then your non-academic ambitions can finally be let loose, and we won’t think about the quarter million dead kids from Elon stopping hiv treatments earlier this year. If we don’t talk about it, it doesn’t exist.

We can actually map probability in complex systems where high dissonance (expected free energy) occurs and could be reduced. This would make our social body much more hack resistant.

But it feels better to say “fuck that, aliens built the pyramids, the earth is flat, santa is real, and my dead dog is trying to play with me every time wind blows through my window.” All are really rewarding things to believe, but exist in high dissonance, and expecting others to give them weight is not healthy for anyone. Denying any of these to a large enough group stops being ‘calling out delusion,’ and becomes ‘being mean and bad and evil, and hating fun and happiness. Nobody else saw that cliff sign, so you’re obviously wrong.’ See ‘the double empathy problem’. For how autistic people experience the same socialized gatekeeping of reality, even against strong evidence.

Nestle those beliefs within stable social scripts (script theory is cool) and you have people keeping up social appearances while holding such delusional beliefs.

AI tech is far from the only problem exacerbated by this. caring or talking about this general problem makes you a social villain, when people could spend their energy on fun socialized preferences in a bubble safe from any questioning or responsibility.

It’s frustrating, and I’m tired of people IRL who are baffled about me spending time studying academic content rather than running faster on the socio-economic treadmill. Apparently being isolated and focused on individual benefit is hypernormal.

Seeing social waves overpower all actual thought in the social sphere is heartbreaking to every academic I know.

USA HHS is running the wakefield rhetoric, which is basically saying “fuck science, we will make up and run with whatever we want. And the masses have been kept ignorant enough to think that is cool.”

So yes, absolutely, the issue is critical thinking skills. The issue is getting at the people who are already affected, and being taught by elon and such that “critical thinking” means running your bubbles’ social narrative against those evil progressives no matter what. Opportunists will always warp words and reality if they are allowed to dictate beliefs for their bubble.

This is a simplified summary, but I already expect to have lost a good chunk of audience for requiring too much energy. People who are trying are burning themselves out trying to affect a wall of celebrated ignorance.

Always find it funny when anti corpo stuff somehow always becomes “cringe”

And I know hasan piker isn’t popular outside of his crowd, which is why he is a good smear target, but it’s funny seeing that bullshit take over the internet based on vague rumours and drama hunting with nothing concrete on a guy who lives on camera. The fact that rumours of a shock collar became the most important thing in the world, while “stop the shock” is still in motion to prevent a school from using pavlovian shock therapy on autistic people. Not whataboutism, but critique on the mad prioritization and weighting of issues in the general public salience.

Also the usa government keeps blowing up random boats and is escalating war behaviour. Amongst everything else. But let’s all talk about hasan piker’s dog instead.

If only someone in power had any accountability. Rather, people in power need to be held accountable. Corpos and top political figures.

At the very least I should be able to point out when ‘content’ is literally a deceptive advertisement, which people also weirdly defend to the death. Along with dark/deceptive patterns, active price fixing, constraining corporate ecosystems, and skirting around every rule with no fear of reprisal.

All things people seem weirdly defensive about, because 'just deal with it, it’s not that bad. "

Like google plus.

For me the Apple environment really cemented for me that consumers actively enjoy removing their own autonomy structurally, which is a big part of why this stuff has become so normalized.

Putting a rootkit on their cds should have buried sony. Antitrust should be a thing too. The mickey mouse protection act should have socially killed Disney, which only found success by exploiting works that no longer held copyright. Etc.

Those with power have lost all accountability, and all tools, especially AI, will be used against us if we do not cooperatively figure out how to fix the increasing power imbalance.

The more power someone has, the harder the gavel should fall on them when they fuck the entire planet in whichever way.

At this point, any new consumer friendly behaviour comes only to establish territory before hoarding and exploiting when enabled to do so.

Amazon using deceptive design to influence general user behaviours should lead to billions and billions in fines until changed. Etc.

Build local movements to cooperate at larger scale and fight back. If the general public is ranting about planned obsolescence and general monopolistic behaviours, maybe something could be affected before people are forced into violent desperation. People are too busy being mad at each other for some intentionally divisive narrative or another, and the general public just can’t give a fuck about affecting the people who actually dictate the shape of society.

Also if you burn down all AI this is still true. But it’s easier to yell at technology than they system using it to further remove your autonomy.