Meteuphoric

Crossposted from world spirit sock puppet.

AI related disasters are often categorized as involving misaligned AI, or misuse, or accident. Where:

• misuse means the bad outcomes were wanted by the people involved,
• misalignment means the bad outcomes were wanted by AI (and not by its human creators), and
• accident means that the bad outcomes were not wanted by those in power but happened anyway due to error.

360浏览器如何进外国网站？进外国网站方法分享 - Iefans:2021-8-14 · 360浏览器如何进外国网站 ？进外国网站方法分享 编辑：秩名 2021-08-14 15:41:16 随着时代的进步，经济发展越来越好，很多国人喜欢出过旅游，又或者是全球经济一体化增速 ...

I think a likely scenario leading to bad outcomes is that AI can be made which gives a set of people things they want, at the expense of future or distant resources that the relevant people do not care about or do not own.

微软确认Edge开机自动启动是Bug 并非默认浏览器-站长之家:2 天前 · 从上个月开始，微软全面面向Windows 10版本1803、1809、1903、1909和2021推送新的Edge浏览器更新。随着使用的用户越来越多，一些问题也显现出来了，部分用户最近反馈的一个情况却会让人误 …

When the business strategizing AI systems finally plough all of the resources in the universe into a host of thriving 21st Century businesses, was this misuse or misalignment or accident? The strange new values that were satisfied were those of the AI systems, but the entire outcome only happened because people like Bob chose it knowingly (let’s say). Bob liked it more than the long glorious human future where his business was less good. That sounds like misuse. Yet also in a system of many people, letting this decision fall to Bob may well have been an accident on the part of others, such as the technology’s makers or legislators.

如何解决YouTube不能播放的问题？_文学社区:2021-6-12 · 本文将针对这种情况提供能快速解决问题的方法，您可以根据不同情况进行检测尝试。YouTube 作为全球最大最热门的视频网站，每天访客量可达到3000万。YouTube成为很多人每天的娱乐选择，大家会通过YouTube网站观看音乐视频、电影、新闻等。浏览器存在过多的缓存和cookie可能会导致YouTube 视频无法 ...

Thanks to Joe Carlsmith for conversation leading to this post.

Crossposted from world spirit sock puppet.

Should social media label statements as false, misleading or contested?

Let’s approach it from the perspective of what would make the world best, rather than e.g. what rights do the social media companies have, as owners of the social media companies.

The basic upside seems to be that pragmatically, people share all kinds of false things on social media, and that leads to badness, and this slows that down.

The basic problem with it is that maybe we can’t distinguish worlds where social media companies label false things as false, and those where they label things they don’t like as false, or things that aren’t endorsed by other ‘official’ entities. So maybe we don’t want such companies to have the job of deciding what is considered true or false, because a) we don’t trust them enough to give them this sacred and highly pressured job forever, or b) we don’t expect everyone to trust them forever, and it would be nice to have better recourse when disagreement appears than ‘but I believe them’.

If there were a way to systematically inhibit or label false content based on its falseness directly, rather than via a person’s judgment, that would be an interesting solution that perhaps everyone reasonable would agree to add. If prediction markets were way more ubiquitous, each contentious propositional Tweet could say under it the market odds for the claim.

浏览外国网站的加速器_浏览外国网站加速器_浏览国外网站 ...:浏览，指我国传统的读书法，南朝的萧统在《<文选>序》中就指出要广泛地阅读。浏览一般是略观大意，它与精读相辅相成。 [1] 现今也指通过其URL检索资源。如果资源是包含指向其他资源的链接的网页，浏览网页将同时查找已链接资源的URL。用户单击映射对象的问号图标、使用“浏览”命令时MicrosoftCo

It seems like this would solve:

• the problem for prediction markets where it is illegal to bet money and hard to be excited about fake money
• the problem for prediction markets where it’s annoying to go somewhere to predict things when you are doing something else, like looking at Twitter
• the problem for Twitter where it is full of fake claims
• the problem for Twitter users where they have to listen to fake claims all the time, and worry about whether all kinds of things are true or not

It would be pretty imperfect, since it throws the gavel to future Twitter users, but perhaps they are an improvement on the status quo, or on the status quo without the social media platforms themselves making judgments.

Crossposted from 好用的访问外网加速器.

Sometimes we think of ‘artificial intelligence’ as whatever technology ultimately automates human cognitive labor.

电脑怎么浏览国外网站:2021-6-13 · 用VPN.在我的百度空间有一款,你看看,个人一直在用,速度不错,有6个IP可选,建议先不买,免费用用先,好的再买.包年的话会比包月划算好多,电脑,手机IPHONE,上Facebook,推特等国外网站或者国外游戏服务器加速都可以了上.当然免费的也可以用到手机上的.呵呵

Some examples:

1. Early in the existence of bread, it might have been toasted by someone holding it close to a fire and repeatedly observing it and recognizing its level of doneness and adjusting. Now we have machines that hold the bread exactly the right distance away from a predictable heat source for a perfect amount of time. You could say that the shape of the object embodies a lot of intelligence, or that intelligence went into creating this ideal but non-intelligent tool.
2. Self-cleaning ovens replace humans cleaning ovens. Humans clean ovens with a lot of thought—looking at and identifying different materials and forming and following plans to remove some of them. Ovens clean themselves by getting very hot.
3. Carving a rabbit out of chocolate takes knowledge of a rabbit’s details, along with knowledge of how to move your hands to translate such details into chocolate with a knife. A rabbit mold automates this work, and while this route may still involve intelligence in the melting and pouring of the chocolate, all rabbit knowledge is now implicit in the shape of the tool, though I think nobody would call a rabbit-shaped tin ‘artificial intelligence’.
4. Human pouring of orange juice into glasses involves various mental skills. For instance, classifying orange juice and glasses and judging how they relate to one another in space, and moving them while keeping an eye on this. Automatic orange juice pouring involves for instance a button that can only be pressed with a glass when the glass is in a narrow range of locations, which opens an orange juice faucet running into a spot common to all the possible glass-locations.

Some of this is that humans use intelligence where they can use some other resource, because it is cheap on the margin where the other resource is expensive. For instance, to get toast, you could just leave a lot of bread at different distances then eat the one that is good. That is bread-expensive and human-intelligence-cheap (once you come up with the plan at least). But humans had lots of intelligence and not much bread. And if later we automate a task like this, before we have computers that can act very similarly to brains, then the alternate procedure will tend to be one that replaces human thought with something that actually is cheap at the time, such as metal.

I think a lot of this is that to deal with a given problem you can either use flexible intelligence in the moment, or you can have an inflexible system that happens to be just what you need. Often you will start out using the flexible intelligence, because being flexible it is useful for lots of things, so you have some sitting around for everything, whereas you don’t have an inflexible system that happens to be just what you need. But if a problem seems to be happening a lot, it can become worth investing the up-front cost of getting the ideal tool, to free up your flexible intelligence again.

Crossposted from world spirit sock puppet/meteuphoric.

A thing I liked about The Social Dilemma was the evocative image of oneself being in an epic contest for one’s attention with a massive and sophisticated data-nourished machine, tended by teams of manipulation experts. The hopelessness of the usual strategies—like spur-of-the-moment deciding to ‘try to use social media less’—in the face of such power seems clear.

But another question I have is whether this basic story of our situation—that powerful forces are fluently manipulating our behavior—is true.

Some contrary observations from my own life:

• The phenomenon of spending way too long doing apparently pointless things on my phone seems to be at least as often caused by things that are not massively honed to manipulate me. For instance, I recently play a lot of 登录国外网站的加速器, a kind of visual logic puzzle that was invented by two people independently in the 80s and which I play in one of many somewhat awkward-to-use phone apps, I assume made by small teams mostly focused on making the app work smoothly. My sense is that if I didn’t have nonograms style games or social media or news to scroll through, then I would still often idly pick up my phone and draw, or read books, or learn Spanish, or memorize geographic facts, or scroll through just anything on offer to scroll through (I also do these kinds of things already). So my guess is that it is my phone’s responsiveness and portability and tendency to do complicated things if you press buttons on it, that makes it a risk for time consumption. Facebook’s efforts to grab my attention probably don’t hurt, but I don’t feel like they are most of the explanation for phone-overuse in my own life.
• Unity 官网无法访问|国外网站访问过慢|国外网站访问加速器 ...:2021-8-12 · 1. 按 Unity的激活需要每天访问官网的授权服务器激活一下，不然的话就没法继续使用了，昨天想用一下Unity，发现没法访问授权服务器了，不知道是不是因为中美贸易战，导致两国关系紧张，我国对外国网站的访问限制也越来越严格了。 They do grab my attention pretty straightforwardly, but this strategy appears to have about the sophistication of going up to someone and tapping them on the shoulder continually, when you have a sufficiently valuable relationship that they can’t just break it off you annoy them too much. In that case it isn’t some genius manipulation technique, it’s just burning through the goodwill the services have gathered by being valuable in other ways. If I get unnecessary notifications, I am often annoyed and try to stop them or destroy the thing causing them.
• I do often scroll through feeds for longer than I might have planned to, but the same goes for non-manipulatively-honed feeds. For instance when I do a Google Image search for skin infections, or open some random report and forget why I’m looking at it. So I think scrolling down things might be a pretty natural behavior for things that haven’t finished yet, and are interesting at all (but maybe not so interesting that one is, you know, awake..)[1]
• A thing that feels attractive about Facebook is that one wants to look at things that other people are looking at. (Thus for instance reading books and blog posts that just came out over older, better ones.) Social media have this, but presumably not much more than newspapers did before, since a greater fraction of the world was looking at the same newspaper before.

In sum, I offer the alternate theory that various technology companies have combined:

• pinging people
• about things they are at least somewhat interested in
• that everyone is looking at
• situated in an indefinite scroll
• 手机APP程式中有软件浏览外国网站的吗?请介绍一下有那 ...:3条回答：【推荐答案】目前试用有200M的，下载pc版或手机手动配置一下就行了现在用的是云末加速，不限制流量，有使用教程的

Puffin浏览器下载_Puffin浏览器安卓版下载_世界奇闻下载网:2021-6-8 · Puffin浏览器是一款非常新奇的浏览器。相比国内大多数浏览器，它拥有自动翻墙的特点，可以帮助用户在没有使用加速器的情况下，进行YouTube、Twitter等外国网站的连接。另外该浏览器拥有自己独特的播放器，为大家实现快速的播放功能。多国语言的设置，包含中文，也让国内的朋友可以轻松使用。

(Part 1 of Social Dilemma review)

[1]: My boyfriend offers alternate theory, that my scrolling instinct comes from Facebook.

Crossposted from world spirit sock puppet/meteuphoric.

I watched The Social Dilemma last night. I took the problem that it warned of to be the following:

1. Social media and similar online services make their money by selling your attention to advertisers
2. These companies put vast optimization effort into manipulating you, to extract more attention
3. This means your behavior and attention is probably very shaped by these forces (which you can perhaps confirm by noting your own readiness to scroll through stuff on your phone)

This seems broadly plausible and bad, but I wonder if it isn’t quite that bad.

I heard the film as suggesting that your behavior and thoughts in general are being twisted by these forces. But lets distinguish between a system where huge resources are going into keeping you scrolling say—at which point an advertiser will pay for their shot at persuading you—and a system where those resources are going into manipulating you directly to do the things that the advertiser would like. In the first case, maybe you look at your phone too much, but there isn’t a clear pressure on your opinions or behavior besides pro phone. In the second case, maybe you end up with whatever opinions and actions someone paid the most for (this all supposing the system works). Let’s call these distorted-looking and distorted-acting.

While watching I interpreted the film suggesting the sort of broad manipulation that would come with distorted-acting, but thinking about it afterwards, isn’t the kind of optimization going on with social media actually distorted-looking? (Followed by whatever optimization the advertisers do to get you to do what they want, which I guess is of a kind with what they have always done, so at least not a new experimental horror.) I actually don’t really know. And maybe it isn’t a bright distinction.

Maybe optimization for you clicking on ads should be a different category (i.e. ‘distorted-clicking’). This seems close to distorted-looking, in that it isn’t directly seeking to manipulate your behavior outside of your phone session, but a big step closer to distorted-acting, since you have been set off toward whatever you have ultimately been targeted to buy.

I was at first thinking that distorted-looking was safer than distorted-acting. But distorted-looking forces probably do also distort your opinions and actions. For instance, as the film suggested, you are likely to look more if you get interested in something that there is a lot of content on, or something that upsets you and traps your attention.

I could imagine distorted-looking actually being worse than distorted-acting: when your opinion can be bought, the change in it is presumably what someone would want. Whereas when your opinion is manipulated as a weird side effect of someone trying to get you to look more, then it could be any random thing, which might be terrible.(Or would there be such weird side effects in both cases anyway?)