Raizon

I really like pineapples.

[Raizon @00005Ray]

@NathanJRobinson @timnitGebru Distract from AI killing people by talking about how AI can kill a LOT of people? How does that even make sense?

[Raizon @00005Ray]

@NathanJRobinson Why are humans dominant over animals? Lions have sharper claws. Cheetahs are faster. Buffalo are bigger. Ants are more social. It sounds like the data of history does indeed validate the intelligence theory of power.

[Raizon @00005Ray]

@NathanJRobinson @_nausicaa__ @GaryMarcus I think a source of differing intuition is whether you view AI risk as dealing with an adversary whose capabilities grow nonlinearly as you scale it and feed it capital, vs just a tool subject to accidents or misuse by humans

[Raizon @00005Ray]

@NathanJRobinson @Tyler_A_Harper Does it matter pragmatically though? The people who think AI will kill literally everyone and the people who think it'll "merely" be horrifically catastrophic seem like they'd prefer similar policies in practice and be natural allies.

[Raizon @00005Ray]

@NathanJRobinson @gmiller Like a neutral observe in the pleistocene would be surprised by some hairless apes causing a global environmental catastrophe. There are a lot of steps from one to the other. But in retrospect, industrial capitalism had good odds of coming from us eventually

[Raizon @00005Ray]

@NathanJRobinson @gmiller I think it's inherently vague. It depends on the AI being smarter than us and therefore able to think of things we wouldn't think of ourselves; we cannot plan for it. If that seems mystical, we can see the other example of intelligence differences: us extincting the biosphere

[Raizon @00005Ray]

@leighbeadon @NathanJRobinson NYC should have a population 5x higher with people from all over the world that cannot move here because of policies that help incumbents at their expense. It's a strange accusation considering you're the one building a wall and making them pay for it

[Raizon @00005Ray]

@blackopsposter @NathanJRobinson [citation needed]

[Raizon @00005Ray]

@leighbeadon @NathanJRobinson There's still the immediate harm to non-incumbents caused by RC. And maybe those better policies would be close to implementation if RC defenders focused on them instead.

[Raizon @00005Ray]

@leighbeadon @NathanJRobinson RC tugs in the opposite direction of those policies tho by driving up market rate rents and squeezing supply, in addition to creating a political economy of incumbent renters. The immediate term harms of it still exist; it trades immediate benefit for long term harm

[Raizon @00005Ray]

@leighbeadon @NathanJRobinson If we built enough and drove down rent until it's cheap then ideally they could. Market rent isnt sky-high for no reason. Massively increasing public housing and a land value tax of 100% are better policies to drive it down

[Raizon @00005Ray]

@leighbeadon @NathanJRobinson That's why I said "also". Anyone who isn't an incumbent renter, i.e. new renters, immigrants, the unhoused, face higher market rents from the supply constriction caused by rent controls that only benefit established tenants that voted in the policy.

[Raizon @00005Ray]

@blackopsposter @NathanJRobinson [citation needed]

[Raizon @00005Ray]

@blackopsposter @NathanJRobinson I'm glad you agree, but the fact that your position (or at least your understanding of it) is intellectually bankrupt is more tragic than anything tho. I mean it's debate-convenient but bad for the world

[Raizon @00005Ray]

@blackopsposter @NathanJRobinson You're free to demonstrate intellectual bankruptcy all you wish

[Raizon @00005Ray]

@blackopsposter @NathanJRobinson That's what I said

[Raizon @00005Ray]

@blackopsposter @NathanJRobinson You're continuing to prove my point by failing to make an argument.

[Raizon @00005Ray]

@blackopsposter @NathanJRobinson Well good job representing your position I guess. Being unable to argue your stance says a lot about how valid the stance is

[Raizon @00005Ray]

@blackopsposter @NathanJRobinson That's not an argument

[Raizon @00005Ray]

@NathanJRobinson It also doesn't do the work of justifying how small the impact is. It describes a mechanism for immediate term conversion to ownership but doesn't make the argument that the downside is small.

[Raizon @00005Ray]

@NathanJRobinson This is great at pointing out the flaws of the wsj article but not as advocacy of rent control measures. It incorrectly describes removing rent control immediately in NYC as a transfer from tenants to landlords, but it's also a transfer from incumbents to new tenants and unhoused