Avatar

I LOVE DANGER ZONE

@morlock-holmes / morlock-holmes.tumblr.com

Pronouns He/She/They/Dealer's Choice

Pinned

Bringing this back because there are a ton of people who are going to need it. A lot of stupid bullshit disaster recovery companies will be reaching out to people whose homes burned down. A lot of people whose homes burned down will be searching for resources that come from websites that require them to give up personal details in order to get worksheets and tools.

These are free documents you can download to keep track of disaster recovery expenses or make a list for insurance claims.

I know people are exhausted and frightened and not thinking about stuff but start a folder in your email for receipts for things you're paying for right now so that you can fill out these forms later.

Don't enter your info on a random website or you're going to start getting calls from scammy companies.

And here's a story from the LA Times with advice for people who lost homes or businesses during the fire; one of the primary pieces of advice is DON'T RUSH. Take your time to make decisions and look over any paperwork that anyone wants you to sign.

If you need to send people a link to these documents that isn't a tumblr post they're collected here on my website with links to archive.org instead of gdocs.

There is a real sense of whiplash here, after the election people said, "Of course the Democrats lost! The voters only care about costs going up and economic insecurity, and they won't bother to understand some obtuse argument about how it's good in the long run."

Only for Trump administration messaging to immediately, within four months of taking office, start in with

"Look, these policies may cause a recession and we may miss a couple months of Social Security payments here or there, but the voters will understand that it's for the greater good."

OK so obviously it makes sense that artists would be anti AI. For like, mercenary class interest reasons. But it's bizarre to me that anti AI sentiment is so popular among the gen pop. I think the obvious angle is "a lot of AI art is shitty" but like. A lot of early cgi was shitty, and I don't think many people were against cgi in the 90s. Maybe they were? Idk the AI art thing is particularly stark because there was this period early on when it was not very good and then there was no ill will towards it. And then it got good and popular and is now hated by an appreciable segment of the (online) population. Very odd.

There's a couple separate things, I think. The first is just that you get an exaggerated sense of it in contexts where people are socially adjacent to artists because they tend to align with whatever the artists feel strongly about as long as they're otherwise mostly neutral -- social politeness/friendship rules trump abstract principle. This goes a long way to explain seemingly inconsistent attitudes toward IP violation for different types of art, for instance, or different standards for "auteur" work than media produced by a large team. The adjacency factor also means that values mirror pre-existing subcultural divides between communities, which allows people to bring all their prior animosity toward enemy style-tribes to the topic; this is where you get the connection with the "techbro" for example, this is partly just alluding to existing cultural distinctions between masc/likes-coding/makes-money subcultures vs. fem/likes-drawing/makes-no-money subcultures, which are highly relevant to internet arguments but not at all to the underlying question.

But beyond all that and unrelated to it, there's also a generalized anti-tech sentiment which comes from the fact that over the past ten or fifteen years "tech" has become synonymous with the plutocratic ruling class. Some of this is justified, some of it is symbolic (a lightning rod for wider class and ecological tensions), but either way it has currency. Honestly, on a purely vibe-based level it's an amazing allegory for how profit motive crushes the human spirit -- as long as you don't look too closely at what the human production of art was already like under the profit motive, in the jobs most at risk from AI.

People are against anything which seems to be strongly positive for big tech nowadays, on the (frankly pretty good) heuristic that nowadays the only things that are very good for big tech are very bad for society. This has a negative interaction with the boastful hype that always accompanies product launches and investment rounds -- I guess it's a bit comparable to the "great reset" stuff where people misinterpreted vapid Davos talks as a NWO threat, "I don't see myself in this fanciful representation of the world of tomorrow." The more fanciful the representation is, the worse!

We are barraged with cheap (in all senses of the word) manipulative images and words.

This is done in a way that has become, in my opinion, overtly hostile.

People aren't excited about an enormous flood of more images. I do think that is one of the big actual problems.

“My philosophy, Mr President, is that all foreigners are out to screw us and it’s our job to screw them first.” With these words, the US Treasury Secretary convinced the President to deliver a colossal shock to the global economy. In the words of one of the President’s men, the objective was to trigger “a controlled disintegration of the world economy”. No, those words were not spoken by members of President Trump’s team in advance of their “Liberation Day” tariff splurge. While the “foreigners are out to screw us” certainly has a Trumpian ring, it was uttered in the summer of 1971 by then Treasury Secretary John Connally, who succeeded in convincing his President to unleash the infamous Nixon Shock a couple of days later.

wait but the nixon shock was a good thing. like things are different because they are right, the reason the nixon shock happened was because the US was getting screwed because of bad policy! that was actually a thing! maintaining a gold peg at 35usd/oz was obviously wrong and dumb even at the time and the fact that it took until nixon to depeg it is an indictment on every president before him

Having read the article being quoted that seems to be the case.

Honestly the thing that beffudles me the most is what the tarrifs are meant to do, *in concrete terms*.

Like, the Tariffs work out exactly like Trump wants, what specifically happens?

Like, what is our economic relationship to Canada in Trump's ideal world?

Source: unherd.com
“My philosophy, Mr President, is that all foreigners are out to screw us and it’s our job to screw them first.” With these words, the US Treasury Secretary convinced the President to deliver a colossal shock to the global economy. In the words of one of the President’s men, the objective was to trigger “a controlled disintegration of the world economy”. No, those words were not spoken by members of President Trump’s team in advance of their “Liberation Day” tariff splurge. While the “foreigners are out to screw us” certainly has a Trumpian ring, it was uttered in the summer of 1971 by then Treasury Secretary John Connally, who succeeded in convincing his President to unleash the infamous Nixon Shock a couple of days later.

“My philosophy, Mr President, is that all foreigners are out to screw us and it’s our job to screw them first.”

I almost thought I was going to be vindicated.

As far as I can tell, Trump's philosophy is that in every deal there is a scammer and a sucker, and if you look at a deal and think to yourself, "I don't understand how the other guy is getting screwed by this deal" that makes you the sucker.

So he looks at our relationship with Canada and says, "I don't understand how this relationship is screwing over Canada, which means those fucking Canadians have been playing us for suckers."

Same with Iran, I think: The fact that they agreed to the treaty under Obama instead of capitulating to one sided threats means they must have been playing us for chumps.

It scares the shit out of me, to be honest.

No wait, he's calling it "Liberation day" and ranting about how everyone has been screwing us by... Uh... Selling things to us at low prices.

I think the aim of the tariffs is to raise prices on foreign goods so much that they can no longer undercut American goods on price, thereby forcing American companies to build out local capacity, at which point prices will stabilize.

But like... That means everything is more expensive at the end of the process, doesn't it? Like just by definition?

Am I missing something?

Source: unherd.com
“My philosophy, Mr President, is that all foreigners are out to screw us and it’s our job to screw them first.” With these words, the US Treasury Secretary convinced the President to deliver a colossal shock to the global economy. In the words of one of the President’s men, the objective was to trigger “a controlled disintegration of the world economy”. No, those words were not spoken by members of President Trump’s team in advance of their “Liberation Day” tariff splurge. While the “foreigners are out to screw us” certainly has a Trumpian ring, it was uttered in the summer of 1971 by then Treasury Secretary John Connally, who succeeded in convincing his President to unleash the infamous Nixon Shock a couple of days later.

“My philosophy, Mr President, is that all foreigners are out to screw us and it’s our job to screw them first.”

I almost thought I was going to be vindicated.

As far as I can tell, Trump's philosophy is that in every deal there is a scammer and a sucker, and if you look at a deal and think to yourself, "I don't understand how the other guy is getting screwed by this deal" that makes you the sucker.

So he looks at our relationship with Canada and says, "I don't understand how this relationship is screwing over Canada, which means those fucking Canadians have been playing us for suckers."

Same with Iran, I think: The fact that they agreed to the treaty under Obama instead of capitulating to one sided threats means they must have been playing us for chumps.

It scares the shit out of me, to be honest.

Source: unherd.com

it's kinda funny how Trump's political career has caused to a lot of people both on the left and left-of-center to turn to classical elitism, in the sense of "true democracy is bad because the peasants are simply too dumb to be trusted with a stake in their own governance, and the people must be protected from the vicissitudes of king mob." everything old is new again

but honestly, after watching Biden bend over backwards and go to so many lengths to subsidize American manufacturing only for so many of those manufacturing workers to go “I’m going to vote for the other person who will immediately make me lose my job,” like, I can sympathize

Biden wasn’t running in 2024, and the Teamsters declined to endorse Kamala. The Democratic message for 12 years has been “the status quo is fine”. In 2020 with a mishandled pandemic and political unrest (read: rioting in the streets) the pre pandemic status quo sounded good, but in 2016 and especially in 2024, more of the same old didn’t sound good to a lot of voters.

The Teamster thing is insane, Trump hates unions and there is no chance that his administration will do anything except make the Teamsters less powerful.

He sure the hell isn't promising "more of the same" for Anerica's unions!

Kamala apparently didn’t impress them. Trump might hate unions, but Dems hate blue collar workers, so six to one half dozen to the other. Seriously, are you baffled that police didn’t all vote Dem despite being unionized government workers?

Unions are traditionally dubious of mass immigration, for instance.

I think I have mentioned before that I was doing some shifts as a Teamsters work site in 2016 leading up to the primaries and every single political bumper sticker in the parking lot was Trump from before the primaries were held. This wasn’t a thing of Republicans who liked other candidates in the primary and supported whomever won the Republican nomination in the general; these guys were on the Trump train specifically from day one.

Trump doesn't hate police unions though, he and the Republicans make exceptions for the police union, so that's rational self-interest from the cops.

Trump is not going to make exceptions for the Teamsters, and unions need the government to protect them from retaliatory actions. When the President tells Elon Musk that he loves that Musk fires people when they try to strike, that should be a big red flag for the unions.

Something I find a bit vexing is the total cynicism, "Well, Trump doesn't support strong union powers against employers, but the Democrats are condescending, so, same difference."

Not when you want to strike or distribute union literature it isn't.

the development of chat bots that actually work is going to make every movie featuring robots seem so anachronistic

most movie robots are physically adept and stunted at speech, but real AI is currently the other way around

Most verbal chatbots, like Google assistant or Siri, seem to have the cadence of a customer service person who has to pretend to be nice to you and I cannot tell you how listening to a machine pretend to pretend to be friendly and chipper makes my skin crawl.

I would vastly, vastly prefer HAL 9000 or GladOS or the most vocoded 80s robot to that.

Talking about Watchmen makes me want to rewatch the criminally underrated Samurai Flamenco.

Any of you seen it? I'd love to talk about it with people but also there is a genuinely amazing twist and it's one of a very few animes that I actually think you shouldn't look into or spoil yourself on first so I also don't want to talk about it.

It's about a young male model who is obsessed with Tokusatsu shows and decides to make a costume and go out and fight actual crime as "Samurai Flamenco", and his friendship with a cop who doesn't really understand why anybody would be crazy enough to do that.

Oh man, what a good show, I don't know why it doesn't come up more often.

it's kinda funny how Trump's political career has caused to a lot of people both on the left and left-of-center to turn to classical elitism, in the sense of "true democracy is bad because the peasants are simply too dumb to be trusted with a stake in their own governance, and the people must be protected from the vicissitudes of king mob." everything old is new again

but honestly, after watching Biden bend over backwards and go to so many lengths to subsidize American manufacturing only for so many of those manufacturing workers to go “I’m going to vote for the other person who will immediately make me lose my job,” like, I can sympathize

Biden wasn’t running in 2024, and the Teamsters declined to endorse Kamala. The Democratic message for 12 years has been “the status quo is fine”. In 2020 with a mishandled pandemic and political unrest (read: rioting in the streets) the pre pandemic status quo sounded good, but in 2016 and especially in 2024, more of the same old didn’t sound good to a lot of voters.

The Teamster thing is insane, Trump hates unions and there is no chance that his administration will do anything except make the Teamsters less powerful.

He sure the hell isn't promising "more of the same" for Anerica's unions!

In an interview on Saturday, Trump said "there will be bombing" if Iran does not agree to a deal to curb its nuclear programme.
"If they don't make a deal, there will be bombing," he said, according to NBC News

you know I don’t think Kamala Harris would say that

Fucking terrifying.

Because the Trump administration has no idea what Iran is doing with their nuclear program and is deliberately rendering itself incapable of knowing.

Reminder that Trump was the one who pulled us out of the JCPOA treaty that Obama negotiated to curtail the Iranian nuclear program.

He is an evil, evil man.

These fervors are always so astonishing to me. I have struggled to understand what on earth Canada has done to us here in the US, or what they're supposed to do to show that their our allies.

Apparently Trump can just go, "We hate Canada now" and a ton of people just go along.

He's also standing up to another extremist who wants to murder millions of people.

He's the only honest man, surrounded by 'heroes' who want to use lies to pacify and control the population. He faces a living God, who tells him to kneel. He dies, standing, furious at the betrayal of everything the heroes claimed to stand for. His friend stands by and lets it happen.

He was just a man. He valued his life. He never wanted to be a martyr.

If Moore didn't think the audience would sympathise with him instead of the 'heroes', then he never understood humanity at all. "

9 years ago I get pissed off every time I see this scene. Everybody in this movie compromised their morals. Everyone was a hypocrite. Everyone failed their own values. Except for Rorschach. "

I hate to be the guy to defend Alan Moore but I think what he was going for was this:

Ozymandius: "If I don't do this horrible thing and if everyone doesn't keep their mouth shut about it then every single human being on earth will die, which is far more horrible."

Rorchach: "Guess everyone's fucked then because I don't compromise, for any reason, ever."

I actually just finished reading Watchmen recently.

It's an interesting study of about a dozen types of guy, although I think Moore lays the synchronicity on a bit thick. It deserves its title as a classic.

I don't know what Alan Moore intended. I assumed that the "media literacy enjoyers" on Twitter/X are just compressing down a some statement somewhere to support their position.

Watchmen ends on a very interesting note: Dr. Manhattan tells Ozymandias that "nothing ever ends."

It isn't just the matter of Rorschach's journal escaping - Ozymandias put a predatory cat through the Integrity Field disintegrator. Dr. Manhattan survived disintegration the first time that happened to him. The cat could, too.

Ozymandias is very intelligent, but he is also self-aggrandizing. He is, genuinely, the smartest man on Earth, but in part because he has no peers to humble him, he is not the wisest.

Every problem falls to his analysis, and so the dimensionality of the world, the limitation of any one man's ability to control things, escapes him. He even outwits Dr. Manhattan.

What Ozymandias was supposed to do, what would have made him a legendary hero of history, but a more modest one, although the text doesn't say this and doesn't even imply it specifically, was use his immense intellect, charisma, and creative power to fully analyze the political situation, the political currents, the flows of power, emotion, and information, and broker a strategic arms limitation treaty.

He decided to trick the whole world, becoming a mass murderer in the process, because the idea of being above others, and not trusting them, was more flattering to him.

It is likely that Ozymandias will get away with his crime, and set the general view of the world, for about ten years. The act is so absurd and overwhelming that people will not think to question it. Although not certain, it is quite possible that he will be hanged in twenty.

Rorschach stinks, and he eats cold beans, partly because he's a strange dude, but also because he values his work far beyond how he values himself. He's hardly without flaws (see his defense of the Comedian), but essentially every waking hour, he's thinking about how he can punish the wicked for the harms they impose on others.

He's poor. He's ugly. He stinks. He's abrasive, and has very few friends. But he is completely dedicated to the mission, above all material things on Earth.

In this way, no matter his origins, or no matter what happens to him, so long as he never strays from the mission, so long as he never betrays his principles, he has dignity.

Ozymandias will have his day, as befits his power - his gift. The world will turn.

Rorschach may well win in the end.

One of the things I think makes Watchmen compelling to people is that Nite Owl is friends with Rorschach and cooperates with him. Most people are not like Rorschach. Most people of the world, the good people who are responsible for bulk of good activities, are much more like Nite Owl. Nite Owl can see that Ozymandias has 'gone off the deep end' to a degree. He is horrified at the destruction that takes place.

Twenty years from then, he will likely be asked to testify. But in that moment, Ozymandias is dazzling. Nite Owl cannot see a future in which Ozymandias is found guilty and hanged for his crime. He is, well, pretty normal. For that reason, I take him as the audience's perspective character.

Rorschach is on a different level. Through Nite Owl, the audience can feel that even if they don't have Rorschach's courage, they could still help him along the way.

I got free tickets to the movie when it came out and it was a special premiere with some swag including issue one of Watchmen, which I reread (Never been a huge fan of the comic, honestly) and as a teenager I read the scene where Rorschach goes to the bar and breaks the guy's hand as "Hardboiled detective goes to the underworld looking for clues" but as an adult it reads just as plausibly as "Crazy guy beats up literally a completely random bar patron who probably just stopped for a drink while on vacation in New York."

Part of what's very much at stake is,

"How much of what these people do seems justified purely because they're in capes and called superheroes?"

I have literally never understood people who are categorically against Rorschach. He's the only guy at the end standing up for the idea that Ozymandias shouldn't get to murder you and me even if it seems like a really good idea at the time!

I think it's just that Watchmen is trying to do a lot of things at once, trying to attack superhero tropes on multiple fronts. Like, on the one hand it's trying to say "if superheroes were real, they'd be unable to handle morally grey issues with no obvious villain to punch, like the tensions of the Cold War." Rorschach is the hero of that debate - he's standing up for a reasonable principle, and if Ozymandias had some principles of his own maybe he wouldn't have tried to drop an alien psychic nuke on New York.

But on the other hand, it's also trying to say "if superheroes were real, they'd be fucked up nutcases with no better claim to moral authority than anyone else." And on that front, Rorschach is the negative example, he's the fucked up nutcase, so he's not supposed to come off as heroic.

I looked up what Moore actually said about Rorschach, to see if the above memes were accurate, and here's what I found:

“[Gibbons and I] thought about superhero types like Batman, so I thought, ‘What would he be like in the real world.’ And he’d be very much like Rorschach—if you’re a revenge-driven vigilante, you’re not quite right in the head. Yeah, alright, your parents got killed when you were a kid, whatever, that’s upsetting. But for most of us, if our parents were killed when we were little, would not become a bat-themed costumed vigilante—that’s a bit mental. So, I thought, ‘Alright, if there was a Batman in the real world, he probably would be a bit mental.’ He wouldn’t have time for a girlfriend, friends, a social life, because he’d just be driven by getting revenge against criminals… dressed up as a bat for some reason. He probably wouldn’t be very careful about his personal hygiene. He’d probably smell. He’d probably eat baked beans out of a tin. He probably wouldn’t talk to many people. His voice probably would have become weird with misuse, his phraseology would be strange. “I wanted to kind of make this like, ‘Yeah, this is what Batman would be in the real world.’ But I had forgotten that actually to a lot of comic fans that smelling, not having a girlfriend—these are actually kind of heroic. So actually, sort of, Rorschach became the most popular character in Watchmen. I meant him to be a bad example, but I have people come up to me in the street saying, ‘I am Rorschach! That is my story!’ And I’ll be thinking, ‘Yeah, great, can you just keep away from me and never come anywhere near me again for as long as I live?’”

So I think it's the second thing that Moore is gesturing at. Rorschach isn't a fucked up weirdo because Moore thinks that having principles is a bad thing, he's a fucked up weirdo because Moore thinks that the right-wing, Batman/Punisher-style fantasy of "I'm a hardass vigilante who will do whatever it takes to punish the criminal scum" is bad.

It's still so weird to me to think of the guy saying "Hey, this guy shouldn't get to murder a bunch of ordinary people just because he decided it's the greater good" as the "bad example."

Like, because the people who are most actually like you and me are the people who are getting murdered by Ozymandias, and their loved ones, dealing with the loss for the rest of their lives. Like Ozymandias is, you know Reagan or Bush or Bin Laden or whoever ordering the bombing of civilians because he's sure that it's necessary for the greater good.

I'm going to sympathize with the guy who's like, "Yeah, no, that's still bad though and I'm not going to be part or party to it."

He's not straightforwardly a good guy. Or even necessarily a good guy at all; Like I said, it really stuck with me the bar fight scene.

Like, when there's a panel where Batman has some guy hanging upside down five stories up you just go, "Well obviously that's Jimmy Fingers, who does B&Es for the Santucci gang, and he'd know the info Batman's looking for. Batman wouldn't just, like, grab a random guy by mistake because he has tattoos"

But you know... A lot of people who consider themselves to be real life Batman will grab a guy because he has the wrong tattoos and that's proof enough he's the guy.

But like, Ozymandias is doing a Vietnam, straight up. So of course I'm going to sympathize with the guy who says "No fucking thank you, I'm not being drafted into this".

I keep chewing on this topic but people really seem to struggle to accept that intelligence is computable (in the technical sense of the term), presumably for the same reason they struggle to accept that humans are made of atoms (or "humans are complex assemblages of molecules").

but the consequence of this worldview is that anything that can be computed is not intelligence, so we end up with this god of the gaps situation where the definition of intelligence is constantly shrinking to exclude things that computers can now do.

a lot of religious people just say intelligence = soul and end the discussion there, which is obviously crazy but actually more defensible than the muddled middle who theoretically accept how the universe works but in practice retreat into vague platitudes that make no sense at all.

"that's not intelligence, that's just an algorithm! applied statistics!" well what did you think intelligence was, the divine spark?

there is a common equivocation between intelligence and agency, where a roomba can seem more alive than ChatGPT despite being less intelligent as it appears to have a more obvious purpose and move in a way that expresses some sort of desire: it is literally trying to get somewhere and do something, and of course a cat or mouse has far more intelligent agency than any AI system despite not understanding verbal language at all.

our sense of humanity rests on the trinity of intelligence, agency, and ineffable moral worth, and as computation consumes intelligence we shift our attention ever more to what we believe remains unique to us.

Two questions:

Do we *know* "intelligence" is computable?

Do we have a coherent enough definition of "intelligence" for the question to even have a coherent meaning?

we do not know for a fact that intelligence is computable, but if it isn't then that would require some uncomputable physics hiding somewhere in the brain that we haven't yet discovered, which seems pretty unlikely at this point; it's been 90 years and nobody has discovered anything that can't be emulated by a Turing machine yet (besides quantum randomness I guess? although perhaps even that could be simulated by taking both branches multiverse style, hmm).

we don't have a coherent definition of intelligence and that's kind of the point: every time we discover an algorithm for something that used to sound smart (playing chess, solving maths problems, explaining jokes) we decide it can't have required intelligence after all if an algorithm can do it, but if physics is computable and brains run on physics then there's an algorithm for everything.

I don't actually think that this is moving the goal-posts, I think our idea of intelligence is just very, very mushy.

Like, okay, I'm a poor unlettered fool, but it seems to me that the problem "create every single combination of Unicode characters for x number of characters" is a computable problem, right? As best as my stupid brain understands computability, you have infinite time and infinite memory. So if x is 3, you start with AAA, move on to AAB, and so on.

Make X high enough and eventually this produces every novel that will ever be written by a human being, as well as every mathematical proof, every scientific breakthrough, everything that was ever produced in writing.

So, is it the case that if I program my computer to combine Unicode characters like this I have built a machine that is more intelligent than any human being ever has been or will be?

It seems like we've gone wrong somewhere. I mean, for one thing it will produce tremendous amounts of gibberish, so much that it will utterly swamp any useful insight, second, even if my computer lasts as long as the universe there's not enough time to finish, and, well, it won't last that long, and in all likelihood will produce a lot of gibberish and then succumb to time before producing anything of worth.

It seems weird to say that a program that simply methodically combines letters is more intelligent than all humans and, for that matter, Chat GPT, even though as best I can tell it is an algorithm that eventually computes every Chat GPT output and literally every single human discovery and beautiful turn of phrase.

So does intelligence have a time element? Is it about producing a certain output within a certain time? Is it not merely about the output, but that the output has a certain relationship with the input? Is it about a ratio of useful outputs to useless outputs? If so what do we even mean by useful and useless in that last sentence?

Once you start introducing those questions, it actually doesn't matter whether the human brain is computable and some other thing is computable, it may be, and in fact almost certainly is the case that two things can produce, say, the exact same text output but that one was "intelligent" and one was not.

And like, I don't think those questions are, like, sophistry, I think they really are pretty important to what we intuitively imagine "intelligence" to be.

hmm not to be rude but maybe your idea is mushy? I don't know where that Library of Borges script came from 😂

yeah I don't think we judge intelligence by the output in isolation, we know that writing "e = mc^2" on a billboard doesn't make that billboard Einstein, but if you showed that billboard a sequence of physical observations and it spat out a meaningful theory to explain them then that would certainly count for something.

Right, I guess I'm saying I think that, for example, "agency" is not actually seperable from "intelligence" if you actually try to dig deep down into what people even think they are talking about when they talk about intelligence.

I guess my other point is that "infinite monkeys randomly hitting typewriters will eventually produce Romeo and Juliet" is a well known fact, but nobody has gone,

"Well, that means producing Romeo and Juliet does not require intelligence"

Rather, the conclusion is that intelligence is producing Romeo and Juliet in a certain way.

"Shakespeare producing Romeo and Juliet is an example of intelligence; a random text generator producing Romeo and Juliet would not be an example of intelligence" seems almost too obvious to say.

And, like, once you have that thought, you have potentially opened the door to statements like "Deep blue is a good chess player but that's not intelligence" or "ChatGPT is not an example of intelligence".

I guess my point is, this is not entirely some retreat to a metaphysical belief in the soul or something, I think this is like, actually integral to, like, pretty much any definition of intelligence that is even vaguely related to colloquial use.

I have to write all those words to be able to make the same point better in way less words that's how my brain works.

"All intelligence is algorithms" does not mean "All algorithms are examples of intelligence"

Which means, "That's not intelligence, that's algorithms" might be a silly statement, but "That algorithm is not an example of intelligence" can still be perfectly reasonable.

And, like... I do feel like a lot of people who say the former actually mean the latter.

There are lots of things that current-gen LLMs probably aren’t. Conscious, sapient, agentic, people. There’s a liiiiittle uncertainty there, enough to spook me, but it seems pretty likely to be true. But “intelligence” is a word that (traditionally) doesn’t mean precisely what those things mean, and does mean a bunch of other stuff.

If I write a prompt, “hey GPT, write a poem in iambic pentameter about fish,” and it does so correctly on the first try, that’s clearly a system that is capable of solving complex problems. If I ask it to write a cover letter for my job application, and it does so, then that’s clearly a system that is capable of reading and writing English.

If you try to Searle your way out of that observation with “well, that’s not really writing, that’s just producing text,” then like, yeah, there’s no objective way to resolve linguistic disputes like that. But honestly what’s the point of that dispute? When I say “can you write a poem” what I usually mean is “can you cause there to be a poem.” What I don’t usually mean is “can the ~ineffable quintessence of the human spirit~ emanate a poem.”

Human cognition, selfhood, and agency have always been something that we’re ignorant of. We don’t know how to talk about the underlying forces there, because we don’t know what those forces are, or how they work. So we detect and recognize these features using their products and their biological correlates, like speech, faces, and human bodies.

These LLMs, being the artificial systems that have come closest (so far) to human-like behavior, represent our best guess so far about what some of the forces and patterns underlying the human mind actually are. So it’s doubly silly to reject the idea that they are intelligent. First, because our definition of intelligence has always been functional, not essential, by virtue of our ignorance of how intelligence works in the first place. And second, because LLMs represent the best kind of evidence you’ll find about how intelligence actually does work.

And sure, maintain a healthy skepticism and always be able to ask yourself if this evidence is misleading. But also, shifting degrees of uncertainty and actionable confidence are a thing; you shouldn’t wander in to epistemic nihilism just to protect your ability to say “but the ~ineffable quintessence~!”

When I say “can you write a poem” what I usually mean is “can you cause there to be a poem.” What I don’t usually mean is “can the ~ineffable quintessence of the human spirit~ emanate a poem.”

I'm going to say it:

I don't think this is what most people mean. I think people do, in fact, draw a distinction from cutting up words from a newspaper and drawing them out of a hat, and writing, say, Ozymandias.

That poetry, and writing in general, is conceived of as an act of communication. And so poetry that is not communicative is either not poetry, or at the very least a different *kind* of poetry.

A field of wildflowers and a painting of a field of wildflowers might both be "beautiful objects created by organic life" but I don't think we're out of line if we say that the flowering plant is doing something meaningfully different than what the human painter is doing.

I guess my argument would be that this does not have to be an "ineffable quintessence" or a "soul" or anything particularly supernatural or not mechanicstic. I don't think we need to introduce those things to make the argument, although of course many people do.

He's also standing up to another extremist who wants to murder millions of people.

He's the only honest man, surrounded by 'heroes' who want to use lies to pacify and control the population. He faces a living God, who tells him to kneel. He dies, standing, furious at the betrayal of everything the heroes claimed to stand for. His friend stands by and lets it happen.

He was just a man. He valued his life. He never wanted to be a martyr.

If Moore didn't think the audience would sympathise with him instead of the 'heroes', then he never understood humanity at all. "

9 years ago I get pissed off every time I see this scene. Everybody in this movie compromised their morals. Everyone was a hypocrite. Everyone failed their own values. Except for Rorschach. "

I hate to be the guy to defend Alan Moore but I think what he was going for was this:

Ozymandius: "If I don't do this horrible thing and if everyone doesn't keep their mouth shut about it then every single human being on earth will die, which is far more horrible."

Rorchach: "Guess everyone's fucked then because I don't compromise, for any reason, ever."

I actually just finished reading Watchmen recently.

It's an interesting study of about a dozen types of guy, although I think Moore lays the synchronicity on a bit thick. It deserves its title as a classic.

I don't know what Alan Moore intended. I assumed that the "media literacy enjoyers" on Twitter/X are just compressing down a some statement somewhere to support their position.

Watchmen ends on a very interesting note: Dr. Manhattan tells Ozymandias that "nothing ever ends."

It isn't just the matter of Rorschach's journal escaping - Ozymandias put a predatory cat through the Integrity Field disintegrator. Dr. Manhattan survived disintegration the first time that happened to him. The cat could, too.

Ozymandias is very intelligent, but he is also self-aggrandizing. He is, genuinely, the smartest man on Earth, but in part because he has no peers to humble him, he is not the wisest.

Every problem falls to his analysis, and so the dimensionality of the world, the limitation of any one man's ability to control things, escapes him. He even outwits Dr. Manhattan.

What Ozymandias was supposed to do, what would have made him a legendary hero of history, but a more modest one, although the text doesn't say this and doesn't even imply it specifically, was use his immense intellect, charisma, and creative power to fully analyze the political situation, the political currents, the flows of power, emotion, and information, and broker a strategic arms limitation treaty.

He decided to trick the whole world, becoming a mass murderer in the process, because the idea of being above others, and not trusting them, was more flattering to him.

It is likely that Ozymandias will get away with his crime, and set the general view of the world, for about ten years. The act is so absurd and overwhelming that people will not think to question it. Although not certain, it is quite possible that he will be hanged in twenty.

Rorschach stinks, and he eats cold beans, partly because he's a strange dude, but also because he values his work far beyond how he values himself. He's hardly without flaws (see his defense of the Comedian), but essentially every waking hour, he's thinking about how he can punish the wicked for the harms they impose on others.

He's poor. He's ugly. He stinks. He's abrasive, and has very few friends. But he is completely dedicated to the mission, above all material things on Earth.

In this way, no matter his origins, or no matter what happens to him, so long as he never strays from the mission, so long as he never betrays his principles, he has dignity.

Ozymandias will have his day, as befits his power - his gift. The world will turn.

Rorschach may well win in the end.

One of the things I think makes Watchmen compelling to people is that Nite Owl is friends with Rorschach and cooperates with him. Most people are not like Rorschach. Most people of the world, the good people who are responsible for bulk of good activities, are much more like Nite Owl. Nite Owl can see that Ozymandias has 'gone off the deep end' to a degree. He is horrified at the destruction that takes place.

Twenty years from then, he will likely be asked to testify. But in that moment, Ozymandias is dazzling. Nite Owl cannot see a future in which Ozymandias is found guilty and hanged for his crime. He is, well, pretty normal. For that reason, I take him as the audience's perspective character.

Rorschach is on a different level. Through Nite Owl, the audience can feel that even if they don't have Rorschach's courage, they could still help him along the way.

I got free tickets to the movie when it came out and it was a special premiere with some swag including issue one of Watchmen, which I reread (Never been a huge fan of the comic, honestly) and as a teenager I read the scene where Rorschach goes to the bar and breaks the guy's hand as "Hardboiled detective goes to the underworld looking for clues" but as an adult it reads just as plausibly as "Crazy guy beats up literally a completely random bar patron who probably just stopped for a drink while on vacation in New York."

Part of what's very much at stake is,

"How much of what these people do seems justified purely because they're in capes and called superheroes?"

I have literally never understood people who are categorically against Rorschach. He's the only guy at the end standing up for the idea that Ozymandias shouldn't get to murder you and me even if it seems like a really good idea at the time!

For context on the last post, this is my grandpa (grandma on the right in the second photo):

That man loved to hate shitty magic tricks. After he grumped at my little magic set he gave me a trick coin, a silk scarf, and a collapsible dove to play with.

I distinctly remember him holding the little rubiks cube with the "solved" center and the "unsolved" sheath from my kit and saying "the fucking thing doesn't even twist. fucking magnets at least."

Watching that I found myself thinking about which parts of those tricks you could let someone examine and which parts you couldn't.

Surely the solved cube should just be an actual working Rubik's cube.

Am I crazy in that finding out how a lot of magic tricks work has made magic shows more interesting to me? I watched a lot of Penn and Teller's Fool Us and the Scam School YouTube channel and trying to figure out how the trick works actually seems like a lot of fun.

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.