It's more like if the law says the maximum sentence for theft is 10 years, a thief appeals his 20 year sentence, wins, and gets out early. He goes and robs somebody else so you say the court was wrong to let him win.
The court's job is to uphold the law. If you disagree with their interpretation, you can call them incorrect. If you have a problem with the consequences of the law, you have a problem with the legislature.
True, but in this case they made a determination about where the acceptable limits on a constitutional right fall which leaves quite a bit more room to disagree with them. It's not at all clear to me that spending money was intended by the framers to be unconditionally protected by the first amendment. We've even got the interstate commerce clause and IP law codified in the same document so how is that not an obvious inconsistency? IIUC SCOTUS based the distinction on the political nature of the activity but certainly that's not something spelled out in the original document.
Yeah, I don't get this. If they're niche irrelevant issues that affect ~nobody, why not just concede them? Republicans could hardly dominate the discourse with these topics if there was nobody to discourse against.
This isn't a fight we can avoid by retreating. They would just advance and the same battle would happen on different ground. If we abandon the trans, the culture wars will be about the gays. If we abandon the gays, the culture wars will be about blacks or hispanics or jews or god only knows. There's something to be said for picking firm ground to fight on, but there will be a fight and it cannot be won by retreating.
Why am I being interpreted as advocating for abandoning the trans? I don't want to do that and I don't need to be convinced by my empathy for gays or blacks- I care about trans people themselves! I'm saying if an issue doesn't matter- according to the trans people in this thread- and it's a losing issue, why are we insistent on fighting it anyway? Who benefits from this?
Hmm, yes, I see that and that the person I was responding to is getting read the same way, but not clear why that's the case. We're both in this conversation under [1]. The sports issue is the one that's 90/10 [2], while the bathroom one is maybe in the neighborhood of 60/40 [3]- I do think there is a chance of winning ground on the latter and should have been more specific. But nobody is saying there's 90/10 in favor of transphobia- a substantial majority views trans people favorably[3].
> Yeah, I don't get this. If they're niche irrelevant issues that affect ~nobody, why not just concede them?
Because there's about 1% of people who are trans in the US [1] and most other populations, on top of that come a further about 1.7% people who are somewhere on the intersex spectrum [2].
Democrats aren't willing to throw literally millions of people under the bus. Republicans aren't just willing to cast them aside - they are knowingly driving trans people to extinction.
But this is not throwing millions of people under the bus. At least according to this thread, there are fewer trans women in sports than bills stopping them. If this issue does represent throwing literally millions of people under the bus- driving them to extinction-, why are you saying upthread that it's niche and irrelevant?
Bostock affirmed core civil rights to transgender people in housing, employment, etc. The fights now are about other things (not "rights") and as such, are much more unpopular. In fact, a majority of people, even on the right, support the core rights affirmed by Bostock.
> In fact, a majority of people, even on the right, support the core rights affirmed by Bostock.
A majority of people support wage hikes [1], anti-trust laws [2], higher taxes for the rich [3], at least a general responsibility of the government for healthcare insurance [4] and even a full or barely restricted right to abortions of pregnancies [5].
But neither of this gets done despite bipartisan support, because Republican megadonors and their networks heavily keep the GOP in line. And for trans people, it's the same. The anti-trans rhetoric in the GOP gets pushed primarily by Evangelical influence groups, the rest of the GOP does not care, and neither do the voters.
Because then they'll move on to the next victims and in having surrendered without even a fight you've granted them momentum for no good reason whatsoever, and you'll have fewer allies left too.
Is there a reason to believe this is how things work? Rather than "within a democracy as long as 'trans rights' means something that most people disagree with, it will be harder to advance the pro- side of the issue"? Is there evidence of 'momentum' being a real thing in politics, as opposed to the 'pendulum' that I've witnessed over the last decade?
Everything related to the right wing and fox news? We never had a big "swing left" - clinton was the democrats showing they can do economic conservatism as well. Modern acceptance of trans folks isn't a pendulum, most of the people espousing anti-trans views weren't pro trans 5 years ago.
Trying to abstract history into major shifts that are attributable to inanimate objects is just very ludic fallacy.
I'm confused by this. Are you saying that everything related to the right wing and fox news is evidence that momentum is a good model or that trying to model history with momentum is fundamentally fallacious? If the former, you've really got to be more specific- was firing Tucker Carlson evidence for momentum somehow? Did Republicans conceding gay marriage or Trump conceding abortion give Democrats momentum?
Sorry for being confusing, I was saying the latter - that these are reducing history to some game that can be understand with rules when it is nothing like that.
If you go back 15 years or so, you hear the exact same "concerns" about gay people pretty much word for word. Now that they're no longer an acceptable target for most people, they've moved on to regurgitating the same baseless fear mongering but targeted towards trans people. If society manages to progress further, they'll eventually come up with another group to serve as the "other" that they can blame everything on.
If I have something you want and I could give it to you but instead charge you money, is that malice? If so, what system wouldn't make malice indistinguishable from business decisions? If not, what distinguishes that from a login wall in exchange for viewing content?
If a thin model of language can write poetry, perform arithmetic, perform logical reasoning, develop software, play chess, beat factorio, identify and exploit novel security issues, and solve millenium prize problems, what is the purpose of the distinction? Are there tasks that you believe models of intelligence could do that thin models of language cannot?
Sure: refine their own concepts, imagine, and the list goes on. Indeed almost every mental capacity of mammals is poorly approximated in the text domain. Sure, you can generate text as-if the LLM can imagine -- and in the limit that you have a dataset with "everything you would ever want to imagine" the engineering distinction disappears. The engineering question is just whether you have that dataset: if you dont, then your system will fall-over in various hard-to-forknow places.
Philosophically, and scientifically, the distinction is vast (even with such perfect data). A scientist should not study an LLM to understand how imagination operates, since it has no such faculty. A philosopher should not modify the notion of 'mental simulation' to include appearing-as-if-simulating-in-text. A user of the system likewise should not spiral into "AI psychosis" thinking that because a system generates text as-if it cares about them, it does so.
The capacity to care, to imagine, to prefer, to hierarchically plan and coordinate, to refine one's own capacities in these very actions -- and so on, aren't trivial to the scientist or philosophy.
My goal isnt to guide, help or review the engineering goal of the immitation of such things in text. It is to help users of these systems better understand this imitation, and to promote science over engineering. To remind everyone that a science of the capacities of intelligence includes nothing on how to model text.
EDIT: One example of a place where LLMs 'fall over' today is exactly what is mislabelled as 'alignment'. The issue is that the reasoning traces arent actually grounding the answers. So LLMs appear to 'cheat'. But there is no cheating. LLMs have been rewarded for generating apparently correct reasoning, and apprently correct answers. They have not been given any understanding to derive answers from reasons. And so reasoning says what is pleasant to the trainer, and the completion says what is pleasant to the user. This is called 'cheating'. But it is no such thing.
Hmm, I guess what I mean is- is there an empirical difference between how a model of intelligence is limited and how a model of language is? Something I can evaluate in a year and say "Oh, the evidence still points to the latter" or else something that could falsify your theory? Otherwise this seems to be a distinction without a difference; believing it should have no effect on my actions or predictions.
On alignment, too, there doesn't seem to be a difference. For a decade I have expected models of intelligence to fall over on alignment. That these purported models of language do the same is hardly evidence that they are not intelligent.
If you only mean there is an undecidable philosophical difference, fair enough. I'm not especially interested in that question.
There's a difference in the science. You might say, "suppose we had a video game of the solar system where every object was represented and their orbits" etc. then can we study that system alone and ignore the real one? I mean, kinda -- but there's an immediate limit. As soon as we put a thermometer in the PC, its temperature reading doesnt represent the solar system.
To study an imitation is to study the causal processes of imitation. to study reality is to study the real causal processes.
Now if you want to know what the scientific difference is I can come back later and comment. I'm busy now. The development of intelligence in animals and how their specific capacities work basically grounds the answer. Eg., to have the capacity to imagine is to be able to modify one's sensory-motor relationship to the environment in the future, and so on
I don't follow. If I'm a biologist interested in studying life, I can't study rhododendra and ignore the rest. I'd learn almost nothing about locomotion, digestion, sexual reproduction, et cetera. But that doesn't tell me that rhododendra aren't alive. I have no problem believing that LLMs aren't an exact reproduction of a mammalian brain- that studying the one will not give you every piece of information you'd want to know about the other-, but I'm looking for a reason to believe the one is intelligent and the other is not.
They're not a reproduction in any sense. A marginal text token isnt computed from the weights of an LLM in anything like any sense of any activity of any mammal.
LLMs are immitation machines: they take impressions of prior text. Today, these include reasoning traces and they include reinforcement so the user-facing completions are correlated with these reasoning traces. The computation here, of "taking an impression" of a data distribution is similar to some impression-taking processes in animals (eg., there's no doubt a similar mechanism in the sensory-motor system acquiring initial impressions of external objects) -- but the computation says nothing about any process of intelligence.
I dont have the time atm to write the needed amount on this to make it clear. But the whole history of life from emergence of valence, bilateral symeterry, to model-free reinforcement and model-based reinforcement, sensory-motor coordination and the imagination -- and so on --- all these give a great amount of detail as to what the capacities of intelligence are which has generated this text for LLMs to copy. And they are nothing like this computation of immitation
What does the one have to do with the other? If I tell you I committed a crime and an independent investigator tells you I committed a crime, why would you need to know my income and outlays to decide whether I can commit crimes?
I have never seen an AI or a human produce a false proof without explicitly using weird meta programming tricks that are very suspicious. No "good faith" Lean proofs have every been shown faulty, to the best of my knowledge. While the risk is non-zero, many of the AI companies are also trying to find bugs in the Lean kernel, so it is becoming very well stress-tested.
What does verbal violence mean non-hyperbolically to you?
>Verbal abuse (also known as [...] verbal violence [...]) is a type of psychological abuse that involves the use of oral or written language directed to a victim. Verbal abuse can include the act of harassing, labeling, insulting, scolding, rebuking, or excessive yelling towards an individual.
I'm sorry for this verbal abuse you'll now receive, as I'm disagreeing with you, but it's really hard to see "rebuking" as verbal abuse, I think that page might need a pass or two to make it a bit more objective.
Just read this interview[1] the other day that contends that the blue collar workers, or at least their union leaders, are thrilled about the data center boom. There are loads of these projects underway and they show no sign of stopping, so the fact that it's only work for a few years per building hardly matters. Plus, the pay is great because the projects have to fight each other for labor. It also says that localities competed for these projects because of the substantial tax revenue they'll bring in for the communities.
Separately, while electrity usage is a valid concern with respect to pollution, data centers are not really driving electric costs up for residents, with (maybe?) a couple exceptions. Noise is likewise a non-issue by-and-large with (definitely existent) rare exceptions. And the water usage issue is totally invented; data centers use a tiny fraction of the water other industries that would otherwise occupy industrially-zoned land use.
You didn't mention it, but the interview also contends that the "this will take our jobs" angle that gets passed around here as a reason isn't on anybody's mind.
Instead, it seems that the AI companies used NDAs to prevent localities from efficiently pricing their deals. That's obviously sketchy on its own and worthy of attack, plus as a bonus it prevents governments from making statements to clarify that the populist narratives that surround the things and are, bluntly, false.
This is a very long interview, and I really don't think it's as rosy for AI as you're painting it. Jasmine makes it clear throughout that people are very concerned about data centers in their areas, and AI in general.
From the comments on that post, Rachel says:
> With all due respect to Nate and Jasmine I think they are overthinking why people hate data centers - it’s a fairly direct answer. People hate data centers because they are a tangible manifestation of a technology that is expected to take away their jobs and lifestyle, mess with their societal place and sense of self, and uglify their neighborhoods and the natural world, all while providing little obvious benefit to the regular person and the tantalizing prospects of all the weird elites they hate the most becoming brains in a jar who lord over them forever.
I read that comment as well at the time and was taken aback. After such a lengthy discussion where Jasmine went and talked to the people doing the disagreeing over multiple weeks and reported her findings, Rachel replies that no, this is wrong, her presumably pre-existing belief is correct, and she cites nothing at all in support of this. Due respect seemed lacking despite claims to the contrary.
Likewise, I am taken aback that you, having apparently read this lengthy interview to find it in disagreement with my summary, elected instead to quote Rachel's unsupported comment dismissing the whole thing. Why not just quote the journalist disagreeing with me instead of some rando disagreeing with her? Does Rachel have a reputation that I'm unaware of?
I feel like we read two different articles. Both Nate and Jasmine think the outlook for AI looks grim. They both think that the locals are right to protest, they think that the concern about AI and its environmental impact is real, they both think that AI is politically toxic and SV is out of touch.
Meanwhile, your comment downplays all of the legitimate concerns that Jasmine discusses and worse, even invents concerns to downplay as if Jasmine had reported on them. In particular, you said that noise is a non-issue – that's not discussed at all in the interview (CMD+F "noise" – zero results).
You said that data centers "are not really driving electric costs up for residents," but Jasmine doesn't say that at all. Instead, she says that power and electricity are the most serious of everyone's environmental concerns, and that electricity rates going up is just one of the concerns that motivates opposition.
You said that the "they will take our jobs" argument is not on anybody's mind, which is literally false. Jasmine says job displacement wasn't the dominant explanation that people gave for opposing local data centers, but they both repeatedly discuss job displacement. Jasmine even quotes people she interviewed as saying "my boss keeps making me use AI, I have to say that I’m using AI or people won’t resource my project."
You said that NDAs prevented governments from clarifying "bluntly false" narratives, but that's, at best, cherry-picking what Jasmine was saying. You're right that NDAs were used and officials couldn't correct rumors about deals or water usage, but the interview does not say that the concerns people had were just straight up false. She notes that they had real concerns like grid strain, gas generation (from the power plants they're putting on data center property), ugly facilities, temporary jobs, subsidies, secrecy, and an unequal distribution of the benefits.
> Likewise, I am taken aback that you, having apparently read this lengthy interview to find it in disagreement with my summary, elected instead to quote Rachel's unsupported comment dismissing the whole thing. Why not just quote the journalist disagreeing with me instead of some rando disagreeing with her? Does Rachel have a reputation that I'm unaware of?
I find it strange that you're putting more stock in a substack journalist from the Bay area who went to Wisconsin to figure out why people are doing something, than the people who live there and are doing that thing. Do the people who live in the places where data centers are going up have no value to their opinions? Does Rachel need her own Substack before we can take her bonafides seriously?
>even invents concerns to downplay as if Jasmine had reported on them. In particular, you said that noise is a non-issue – that's not discussed at all in the interview (CMD+F "noise" – zero results).
Huh? How about CMD+F on the comment I replied to? My comment was intended to argue against that, not to summarize a source. I cited the interview towards A.) blue collar workers are getting a good deal B.) localities are getting a lot of tax revenue in return C.) people don't oppose data centers out of fear for their jobs D.) people are primarily upset over secrecy caused by NDAs E.) those NDAs also prevent governments from fighting misinfo.
Separately, I argued that the electricity price, water, and noise issues are not actual problems. I didn't intend to imply that the interview proved that, and, in fairness to you, I could have made that more clear.
Per your objection to C. above, poor phrasing on my part. I meant "not top-of-mind".
>they had real concerns like grid strain, gas generation[...], ugly facilities, temporary jobs, subsidies, secrecy, and an unequal distribution of the benefits.
I didn't say these things were false. I mentioned pollution and subsidies as real, and I highlighted secrecy as the primary issue. Otherwise, I was responding to the parent's claims. My point was never that every complaint one could make about data centers is unfounded; it was that the complaints I was replying to were (except for job loss, which I do believe is a legitimate concern, but which I don't think many agree with me about).
>I find it strange that you're putting more stock in a substack journalist from the Bay area who went to Wisconsin to figure out why people are doing something, than the people who live there and are doing that thing.
??? How is it wrong to trust a person who interviewed people about what those people believe over someone who does not even claim to be involved? How about, instead of a substack, she provide any reason at all we should take her word over someone who talked to people who live there? As far as I can tell, you give the commenter as much credibility as the journalist because she agrees with you and lets you say "bingo". You can find my epistemics as strange as you like, they sure beat that.
The court's job is to uphold the law. If you disagree with their interpretation, you can call them incorrect. If you have a problem with the consequences of the law, you have a problem with the legislature.
reply