Scott Hamilton

[Scott Hamilton @DoqxaScott]

Why does solving problems matter?

https://t.co/49O6u2kCFw

[Scott Hamilton @DoqxaScott]

@bnielson01 When does the distinction matter? I guess if you are building a team and think it's important for one role not to cross into the other. I think that is a mistake more often than not.

[Scott Hamilton @DoqxaScott]

@bnielson01 @KWamlo Suppressing or overriding emotional impulses is only beneficial when those impulses are objectively wrong. Much of the time, they are not.

[Scott Hamilton @DoqxaScott]

@bnielson01 What shift? Lulie has always been interested in the subjective experience - feelings and emotion. You follow the Xcritrat discourse closer than I do. Is anyone dismissing our non-reasoning impulses? It's still computation. I am persuaded by The Enigma of Reason theory.

[Bruce Nielson @bnielson01]

Yup—that’s the problem.

To get past it, you need a learner built around explanations rather than just statistical pattern matching.

That said, in fairness to those who disagreed with Gary on this point: they ultimately showed that neural networks could generalize far far beyond the training data to a degree most of us didn’t expect. There’s probably an important lesson in that.

[Scott Hamilton @DoqxaScott]

@realtimeai 🤣

[Scott Hamilton @DoqxaScott]

@realtimeai Another schism would be epic. DJT head of the new American church. Just like King Charles.

[Kevin Burch | Sky High Confidence @thekevinburch]

Abigail Shrier is great at identifying problems with wishy-washy parenting and schooling.

But her solution - be more trad - ain’t it either.

Parenting is not limited to a simple spectrum of authoritarian-control-freak at one end to do-whatever-the-hell-you-want at the other.

You can allow your children to steer their own lives from very young AND be heavily engaged in helping them work out good answers to the questions and problems they encounter along the way.

After all, that’s what adult life is about – working out good answers to the questions and problems you encounter along the way.

Help kids do this and you preserve their agency and develop their autonomy far better than Abigail’s well-intentioned rule-setting.

[Scott Hamilton @DoqxaScott]

@IonaItalia @zoecabina I guess there is a way to at least give them a heads up. Possibly without jeopardizing any relationship.

[Scott Hamilton @DoqxaScott]

@CotswoldsQC @ToKTeacher @Matt_Camenzuli Shared culture constitutes a people.

[Scott Hamilton @DoqxaScott]

@ToKTeacher @JustinAllingham @Matt_Camenzuli We need to stop with the disincentives for these people to get on with it.

[Scott Hamilton @DoqxaScott]

@MemesMentat @agadmator Yes. Most people can.

[Scott Hamilton @DoqxaScott]

@astupple @codybaldwin The tension: how to best co-operate?

[Scott Hamilton @DoqxaScott]

@astupple @codybaldwin The avoidance of pain and suffering is a core motivator. With a little knowledge it becomes an incentive. This capability is culture enabling because we fear being socially ostracized.

[Scott Hamilton @DoqxaScott]

@realtimeai With a few qualifiers such as no liabilities.

[Scott Hamilton @DoqxaScott]

@Ankiii_i Eric Rosen + Irene Sukandar

[Scott Hamilton @DoqxaScott]

The idea of a too big a population to sustain rightly inspires various solution proposals. Some are misanthropic, others are not. I prefer the latter. If you disagree I'm open to discussing.

[Conjecture Institute @ConjectureInst]

The Overpopulation Myth

A popular meme in today’s society is that we are too many on the planet. This is apparently so-called “common sense”. The argument often used to defend this misconception is that there are supposedly not enough resources for everyone.

But that misses the point. The issue isn’t a deficit of physical resources; it’s a shortage of knowledge.

Consider Uranium, for instance. Before we understood its potential, it was just another raw material buried deep in the earth. The physical resource existed, but our ignorance rendered it useless.

Then, science moved forward, technology evolved, and suddenly we found ourselves with a powerful source of energy. Just like that, Uranium was no longer an inert element but a real game-changer for the world.

We’re not limited by what we have, we’re only limited by what we know.

There’s a myriad of undiscovered methods to utilize existing resources to generate more energy, food, and other necessities. Similarly, there’s an abundance of untapped potential to enhance our present resource utilization strategies.

This is where the population doom-mongers falter, assuming that our usage and efficiency of resources are static. But given the same physical resources we possess today, we can generate more food, water, energy, and so on tomorrow.

In fact, a larger population would result in more demand for food, water, energy, and other basic needs, resulting in an increased incentive to invent new ways to solve these problems (or improve current ones). The market adapts itself to supply and demand in real time, one of the beautiful aspects of our capitalistic system.

More people on the planet means more humans who get the chance of experiencing the beauty of life, more creative minds, more inventions, more technological breakthroughs, etc. This a net positive for the world! It’s wonderful.

~Conjecture Institute Fellow @maxdesalle

[Scott Hamilton @DoqxaScott]

@ConjectureInst The idea of a too big a population to sustain rightly inspires various solution proposals. Some are misanthropic, others are not. I prefer the latter. If you disagree I'm open to discussing.