#group’s data was in

[pallases]

my prof had us start analyzing some data for all groups across the whole entire class this semester before thanksgiving break and now im seeing he has apparently added in data for eight more groups since then im going to. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[reasonsforhope]

People ask me sometimes how I'm so confident that we can beat climate change.

There are a lot of reasons, but here's a major one: it would take a really, really long time for Earth to genuinely become uninhabitable for humans.

Humans have, throughout history, carved out a living for themselves in some of the most harsh, uninhabitable corners of the world. The Arctic Circle. The Sahara. The peaks of the Himalayas. The densest, most tropical regions of the Amazon Rainforest. The Australian Outback. etc. etc.

Frankly, if there had been a land bridge to Antarctica, I'm pretty sure we would have been living there for thousands of years, too. And in fact, there are humans living in Antarctica now, albeit not permanently.

And now, we're not even facing down apocalypse, anymore. Here's a 2022 quote from the author of The Uninhabitable Earth, David Wallace-Wells, a leader on climate change and the furthest thing from a climate optimist:

"The most terrifying predictions [have been] made improbable by decarbonization and the most hopeful ones practically foreclosed by tragic delay. The window of possible climate futures is narrowing, and as a result, we are getting a clearer sense of what’s to come: a new world, full of disruption but also billions of people, well past climate normal and yet mercifully short of true climate apocalypse. Over the last several months, I’ve had dozens of conversations — with climate scientists and economists and policymakers, advocates and activists and novelists and philosophers — about that new world and the ways we might conceptualize it. Perhaps the most capacious and galvanizing account is one I heard from Kate Marvel of NASA, a lead chapter author on the fifth National Climate Assessment: “The world will be what we make it.”" -David Wallace-Wells for the New York Times, October 26, 2022

If we can adapt to some of the harshest climates on the planet - if we could adapt to them thousands of years ago, without any hint of modern technology - then I have every faith that we can adjust to the world that is coming.

What matters now is how fast we can change, because there is a wide, wide gap between "climate apocalypse" and "no harm done." We've already passed no harm done; the climate disasters are here, and they've been here. People have died from climate disasters already, especially in the Global South, and that will keep happening.

But as long as we stay alive - as long as we keep each other alive - we will have centuries to fix the effects of climate change, as much as we possibly can.

And looking at how far we've come in the past two decades alone - in the past five years alone - I genuinely think it is inevitable that we will overcome climate change.

So, we're going to survive climate change, as a species.

What matters now is making sure that every possible individual human survives climate change as well.

What matters now is cutting emissions and reinventing the world as quickly as we possibly can.

What matters now is saving every life and livelihood and way of life that we possibly can.

[mostly-natm]

The student becomes the teacher.

[project-sekai-facts]

Here's 25-ji, Nightcord de.'s artworks from the 3rd anniversary site!

[chubbychiquita]

bitter that life is not a wg fic and i have to participate in society and fulfill obligations

[3-aem]

i just did something ive never done before…which was in planning to duplicate an art piece pre attempting to make drastic adjustments…deleted it…

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The real AI fight

Tonight (November 27), I'm appearing at the Toronto Metro Reference Library with Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen.

On November 29, I'm at NYC's Strand Books with my novel The Lost Cause, a solarpunk tale of hope and danger that Rebecca Solnit called "completely delightful."

Last week's spectacular OpenAI soap-opera hijacked the attention of millions of normal, productive people and nonsensually crammed them full of the fine details of the debate between "Effective Altruism" (doomers) and "Effective Accelerationism" (AKA e/acc), a genuinely absurd debate that was allegedly at the center of the drama.

Very broadly speaking: the Effective Altruists are doomers, who believe that Large Language Models (AKA "spicy autocomplete") will someday become so advanced that it could wake up and annihilate or enslave the human race. To prevent this, we need to employ "AI Safety" – measures that will turn superintelligence into a servant or a partner, nor an adversary.

Contrast this with the Effective Accelerationists, who also believe that LLMs will someday become superintelligences with the potential to annihilate or enslave humanity – but they nevertheless advocate for faster AI development, with fewer "safety" measures, in order to produce an "upward spiral" in the "techno-capital machine."

Once-and-future OpenAI CEO Altman is said to be an accelerationists who was forced out of the company by the Altruists, who were subsequently bested, ousted, and replaced by Larry fucking Summers. This, we're told, is the ideological battle over AI: should cautiously progress our LLMs into superintelligences with safety in mind, or go full speed ahead and trust to market forces to tame and harness the superintelligences to come?

This "AI debate" is pretty stupid, proceeding as it does from the foregone conclusion that adding compute power and data to the next-word-predictor program will eventually create a conscious being, which will then inevitably become a superbeing. This is a proposition akin to the idea that if we keep breeding faster and faster horses, we'll get a locomotive:

https://locusmag.com/2020/07/cory-doctorow-full-employment/

As Molly White writes, this isn't much of a debate. The "two sides" of this debate are as similar as Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Yes, they're arrayed against each other in battle, so furious with each other that they're tearing their hair out. But for people who don't take any of this mystical nonsense about spontaneous consciousness arising from applied statistics seriously, these two sides are nearly indistinguishable, sharing as they do this extremely weird belief. The fact that they've split into warring factions on its particulars is less important than their unified belief in the certain coming of the paperclip-maximizing apocalypse:

https://newsletter.mollywhite.net/p/effective-obfuscation

White points out that there's another, much more distinct side in this AI debate – as different and distant from Dee and Dum as a Beamish Boy and a Jabberwork. This is the side of AI Ethics – the side that worries about "today’s issues of ghost labor, algorithmic bias, and erosion of the rights of artists and others." As White says, shifting the debate to existential risk from a future, hypothetical superintelligence "is incredibly convenient for the powerful individuals and companies who stand to profit from AI."

After all, both sides plan to make money selling AI tools to corporations, whose track record in deploying algorithmic "decision support" systems and other AI-based automation is pretty poor – like the claims-evaluation engine that Cigna uses to deny insurance claims:

https://www.propublica.org/article/cigna-pxdx-medical-health-insurance-rejection-claims

On a graph that plots the various positions on AI, the two groups of weirdos who disagree about how to create the inevitable superintelligence are effectively standing on the same spot, and the people who worry about the actual way that AI harms actual people right now are about a million miles away from that spot.

There's that old programmer joke, "There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't." But of course, that joke could just as well be, "There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand ternary, those who understand binary, and those who don't understand either":

https://pluralistic.net/2021/12/11/the-ten-types-of-people/

What's more, the joke could be, "there are 10 kinds of people, those who understand hexadecenary, those who understand pentadecenary, those who understand tetradecenary [und so weiter] those who understand ternary, those who understand binary, and those who don't." That is to say, a "polarized" debate often has people who hold positions so far from the ones everyone is talking about that those belligerents' concerns are basically indistinguishable from one another.

The act of identifying these distant positions is a radical opening up of possibilities. Take the indigenous philosopher chief Red Jacket's response to the Christian missionaries who sought permission to proselytize to Red Jacket's people:

https://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5790/

Red Jacket's whole rebuttal is a superb dunk, but it gets especially interesting where he points to the sectarian differences among Christians as evidence against the missionary's claim to having a single true faith, and in favor of the idea that his own people's traditional faith could be co-equal among Christian doctrines.

The split that White identifies isn't a split about whether AI tools can be useful. Plenty of us AI skeptics are happy to stipulate that there are good uses for AI. For example, I'm 100% in favor of the Human Rights Data Analysis Group using an LLM to classify and extract information from the Innocence Project New Orleans' wrongful conviction case files:

https://hrdag.org/tech-notes/large-language-models-IPNO.html

Automating "extracting officer information from documents – specifically, the officer's name and the role the officer played in the wrongful conviction" was a key step to freeing innocent people from prison, and an LLM allowed HRDAG – a tiny, cash-strapped, excellent nonprofit – to make a giant leap forward in a vital project. I'm a donor to HRDAG and you should donate to them too:

https://hrdag.networkforgood.com/

Good data-analysis is key to addressing many of our thorniest, most pressing problems. As Ben Goldacre recounts in his inaugural Oxford lecture, it is both possible and desirable to build ethical, privacy-preserving systems for analyzing the most sensitive personal data (NHS patient records) that yield scores of solid, ground-breaking medical and scientific insights:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-eaV8SWdjQ

The difference between this kind of work – HRDAG's exoneration work and Goldacre's medical research – and the approach that OpenAI and its competitors take boils down to how they treat humans. The former treats all humans as worthy of respect and consideration. The latter treats humans as instruments – for profit in the short term, and for creating a hypothetical superintelligence in the (very) long term.

As Terry Pratchett's Granny Weatherwax reminds us, this is the root of all sin: "sin is when you treat people like things":

https://brer-powerofbabel.blogspot.com/2009/02/granny-weatherwax-on-sin-favorite.html

So much of the criticism of AI misses this distinction – instead, this criticism starts by accepting the self-serving marketing claim of the "AI safety" crowd – that their software is on the verge of becoming self-aware, and is thus valuable, a good investment, and a good product to purchase. This is Lee Vinsel's "Criti-Hype": "taking press releases from startups and covering them with hellscapes":

https://sts-news.medium.com/youre-doing-it-wrong-notes-on-criticism-and-technology-hype-18b08b4307e5

Criti-hype and AI were made for each other. Emily M Bender is a tireless cataloger of criti-hypeists, like the newspaper reporters who breathlessly repeat " completely unsubstantiated claims (marketing)…sourced to Altman":

https://dair-community.social/@emilymbender/111464030855880383

Bender, like White, is at pains to point out that the real debate isn't doomers vs accelerationists. That's just "billionaires throwing money at the hope of bringing about the speculative fiction stories they grew up reading – and philosophers and others feeling important by dressing these same silly ideas up in fancy words":

https://dair-community.social/@emilymbender/111464024432217299

All of this is just a distraction from real and important scientific questions about how (and whether) to make automation tools that steer clear of Granny Weatherwax's sin of "treating people like things." Bender – a computational linguist – isn't a reactionary who hates automation for its own sake. On Mystery AI Hype Theater 3000 – the excellent podcast she co-hosts with Alex Hanna – there is a machine-generated transcript:

https://www.buzzsprout.com/2126417

There is a serious, meaty debate to be had about the costs and possibilities of different forms of automation. But the superintelligence true-believers and their criti-hyping critics keep dragging us away from these important questions and into fanciful and pointless discussions of whether and how to appease the godlike computers we will create when we disassemble the solar system and turn it into computronium.

The question of machine intelligence isn't intrinsically unserious. As a materialist, I believe that whatever makes me "me" is the result of the physics and chemistry of processes inside and around my body. My disbelief in the existence of a soul means that I'm prepared to think that it might be possible for something made by humans to replicate something like whatever process makes me "me."

Ironically, the AI doomers and accelerationists claim that they, too, are materialists – and that's why they're so consumed with the idea of machine superintelligence. But it's precisely because I'm a materialist that I understand these hypotheticals about self-aware software are less important and less urgent than the material lives of people today.

It's because I'm a materialist that my primary concerns about AI are things like the climate impact of AI data-centers and the human impact of biased, opaque, incompetent and unfit algorithmic systems – not science fiction-inspired, self-induced panics over the human race being enslaved by our robot overlords.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/27/10-types-of-people/#taking-up-a-lot-of-space

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[mcytblrsexymen]

Highlights from the Mod Chat pt 3.

[ID: discord message from a capricious and willful god, reading: shoutout to the fact that the quackity and etho girlies still seem to be deciding to ship them now love whatever was happening over there with that alliance. godbless]

[ID: discord message from LITTLE FRAUD JOCKEY, reading: I might do a little joe fraud but at most i'll do like. 20 votes. me: wow I wish I had the dedication to sit down and force myself to do a task also me, from 330am to 8am this morning: I love voter fraud I love voter fraud I love voter fraud I love voter fraud I love voter fraud I love voter fraud I love foter fraud I love voter fraud it has been reacted to nine times with the pushpin emoji]

[ID: discord message from [binarual + bisexual] I love everyone in the notes like "oh no I voted for them both how could they be in the same poll now!" Well, you see.]

[ID: discord conversation, reading: SAD GAYISMS for SEXYLAMPNAP: yeah but tumblr/4chan was more popular as a hateship Fiendish Bots/Glorious Sideblogs: there's a sentence]

[ID: discord message from [binarual + bisexual], reading: Twitter is so good at reading]

[ID: discord message from classically trained drabbler, reading: hahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahhahha no you may quote me on that if you wish]

[ID: discord message from gay for infographics, reading: No and the reason is big number make me happy to put on the infographic]

[ID: Discord message from VOTE FOR TECHNOBLADE, reading: Scar would approve of the fraud]

[ID: discord message, reading: anon: like, do we have... any other plans for when the poll ends? Erotic Mushroom Indoctrination: ...nap? a capricious and willful god: yeah nap classically trained drabbler: an adult beverage (this message has been reacted to ten times with the Clap emoji) undercover weeb: pizza VOTE FOR TECHNOBLADE: Buying discount love candy after work (this message has been reacted to nine times with the elmo fire emoji)]

[ID: discord message from gay for infographics, reading: New nickname thanks to ma sœur! Now if there's ever another mod chat post and I have said a funny thing, my name doesnt have to be censored ahahaha this message has been reacted to four times with the Laugh emoji]

[ID: discord conversation, reading: Fiendish Bots/Glorious Sideblogs: I think it either has to be defaults or "recognized sexist skin" and my brain is just too slow to pick out what that means alone, right now fake GeorgeNotFound fan: beautiful typo Fiendish Bots/Glorious Sideblogs: oh no]

[ID: discord message from Fiendish Bots/Glorious Sideblogs, reading: god bless ren and martyn's open homoeroticism it has been reacted to 3 times with the pushpin emoji]

[ID: discord message from charlie slimecicile enoyer, reading: i think it'd be funny to let the blog collect dust for a few years to recover and then out of nowhere on a completely different, unrelated date, drop a series of polls where the only option for all of them is ethoslab and also one for pix. It has been reacted to 3 times with the 100 emojij]

[ID: discord message from classically trained drabbler, reading: "get your head in the game" is a very normal sportsball phrase that did not originate in high school musical y'all are just loser ners how am i a sports expert here]

[ID: discord message from classically trained drabbler, reading: also voter fraud makes autism brain go brr too good]

[ID: discord message reading: literally who the fuck is joe hills but I AM seriously considering doing it for the bit this has been reacted to with the Handshake emoji three times]

[ID: discord message from Fiendish Bots/Glorious Sideblogs, reading: Just had to explain both tumblr and Minecraft to my doctor]

[wearethekat]

it's concerning that I've seen multiple people commenting Lews Therin is attractive. please, thinking Lews Therin is hot is the leading cause of becoming a forsaken...

[fisheito]

let him speak

[azaracyy]

"...that's all from me. does any of you have any questions?" "nope! crystal clear." "kew!" "that's good! um... thank you for this discussion." "you're the one who came up with this awesome plan, lopmon. have more confidence in yourself." "kew, kew kew kew!" digimon survive week 2024 day 2: cooperation

[meticulousfragments]

Help me prove a point

[abstrakshun]

Neri Oxman (American-Israeli, b.1976) & Mediated Matter Group [MIT Media Lab, 2010-2021]

Vespers III project [hybrid living masks] - 2018

[Photos: Yoram Reshef]

"In this series, we integrate computational design with additive manufacturing and synthetic biology to digitally fabricate objects that direct living microorganisms to produce pigments ..."

more here & here

[reading-writing-dying]

I am supposed to be sleeping but instead I wrote an angsty little oneshot about Shiny Duo divorce while watching Gem's phasmo vod from today

[eridude]

sorting classes and aspects by dreaming moon majority !!!

this is just based off of the sole number of characters with named classpects and dreamselves in homestuck proper! ie - both sets of kids, both sets of trolls, and the cherubs.

sylph - prospit only

seer - prospit leaning

knight - prospit leaning

page - prospit leaning

maid - prospit leaning

bard - even split

heir - even split

thief - even split

witch - derse leaning

rogue - derse leaning

prince - derse leaning

mage - derse leaning/derse only - depends on whether or not you count sollux's prospit dreamself.

(we only have the one for muse and lord- so by default they are prospit only and derse only retrospectively.)

breath - prospit

space - prospit

rage - prospit

mind - prospit

blood - prospit

light - prospit leaning

doom - even split/potentially derse leaning, for the same reasons as mage.

life - derse leaning

hope - derse leaning

time - derse

void - derse

heart - derse

[rebellum]

I feel like... Perhaps... Arguing that transphobia is defined by murder and that anything other than murder doesn't even matter... May NOT be conducive to fighting for trans rights.

Like... people want the right to exist as they are. They want to have access to hrt and surgeries and prosthetics. People want access to clothes that fit them and reflect how they want to be seen. People want access to medical care (eg. Getting screened and treated for sex-based forms of cancer can be impossible if you have the "wrong" sex listed to receive those tests). People want to be respected and treated well. People want to not be sexually assaulted and beaten and abused. People want to have access to housing and jobs, and the protection to not lose those things for being trans. People want access to shelters for homeless people or survivors of domestic abuse. People want name changes.

Acting like all of those things don't matter because at least they weren't murderered by an individual (and instead die of suicide or state violence, or survive and suffer) isn't okay.