Dennis Hackethal’s Blog
My blog about philosophy, coding, and anything else that interests me.
Tweets
An archive of my tweets and retweets through . They may be formatted slightly differently than on Twitter. API access has since gotten prohibitively expensive – I don't know whether or when I'll be able to update this archive.
But in case I will, you can subscribe via RSS – without a Twitter account. Rationale
It's not quite new to see it seeping into tech, either—given the major tech companies' location and demographics, it's not surprising that they'd be left-leaning. But having political messages shoved down your throat while programming is a whole different ballpark. It's nasty.
Google and Apple are perhaps the two most powerful companies on the planet right now. They don't have to signal this stuff. I highly doubt anyone would stop buying their products for lack of such signals. Yet they signal it anyway. Which means they must actually believe it.
...but it's much worse to see it seep into tech, an area normally so wonderfully devoid of messy human affairs, so egalitarian in nature (without trying to be). It's sad seeing this industry I love devolving.
That's how pervasive the cancer that is social justice has become. It follows you into your professional life. I've always been aware that academia is politically motivated and left-leaning...
It's a bit like a plumber reaching for his hammer on the job and the hammer having a sticker on saying "black lives matter," reminding the plumber of the meme on the job.
It is one thing to place political signals in ads, as Apple did today (twitter.com/dchackethal/st…; though even there I'd much rather they didn't). It is quite another to put it in the documentation.
Google knows this, of course. Yet that doesn't stop them from placing a banner at the top of every page in the documentation for one of their tools saying: "Google is committed to advancing racial equity for Black communities. See how."
developers.google.com/apps-script/re… https://t.co/qh56pPIy6z
That documentation is available online and searchable. While perusing the documentation, you're in programming mode. You don't think about political matters. You came there to solve a problem, to look something up. You don't want to be distracted by political messages.
While programming, if you're using some tool you didn't develop yourself (which is frequently the case), it is common to go that tool's documentation to look up how things work. The documentation is a bit like an owner's manual. It contains technical information.
Hoffentlich keins.
Es ist wirklich erstaunlich, wie viele Kommentare unter diesem Foto die Antifa gutheißen.
I'm still exploring this area myself, but I think when discussion, criticism, and persuasion are possible and effective, we should prefer them over penalty. Could there be exceptions? Maybe.
Yes, good point. Practically unfireable. Also because of public perception.
I just learned that Spotify has a “Global Head of Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging.” It doesn’t get much more “feel good” than that. All they need now is a Global Head of Ponies and Warm, Fuzzy Feelings.
It’s a start. No mention of the moral poverty, though. twitter.com/cowboyInNY/sta…
The coercive ideas surrounding the containment of COVID employ the same trick. If you resist being forced to stay at home, you're considered a grandma killer. Arguably, anti-rational ideas about the virus have spread much faster and are more harmful than the virus itself.
Once you understand this trick that such ideas use, you don't feel bad as easily anymore, and you'll have less of a problem criticizing them. The next step is to do so publicly, to help contain the spread of such ideas, and to show others they don't have to feel bad.
There are ideas which, through their defining attribute of the opposition to something evil, make you feel bad if you question them (that includes BLM, Antifa, etc). Such ideas should make us extremely skeptical. Penalizing criticism is about as anti-rational as it gets.
We should be careful not to romanticize the horror that was Soviet Russia.
Comments on the original post indicate that this was propaganda, and the poster agrees.
It’s a bit ironic that this message would be presented in a classroom setting forced upon kids by the state in the first place.
“People will die unless...” is easy to vary externally. twitter.com/DanielJHannan/…
Schnitzel mit Preiselbeersoße & Kartoffelsalat. Schweinshaxe. Oder ist das alles österreichisch? So oder so könnte ich mich jedes Mal reinsetzen. Ach und Maultaschen. Königsberger Klopse...
FWIW, many of those who are said to resist wearing masks actually just resist being forced to wear a mask. The difference is important because it brings out the real source of frustration and the actual point of contention: force vs persuasion.
I'm curious, does the "induced" happiness wane over repeated applications?
@mgoldingmd @ReachChristofer @Crit_Rat
Perhaps we are able to turn subconscious ideas into conscious ones through careful thinking, though. And then go from there.
@mgoldingmd @ReachChristofer @Crit_Rat
Ah, yes, and in that sense, death from earthquake is also caused by a lack of knowledge, of course. What I mean is some ideas may evolve completely subconsciously, and I'm unsure as to how much careful thinking could help tackle ideas we don't know we have.
One of the better articles I’ve read on the lockdown issue.
One minor note: even if there were evidence that lockdowns work in terms of controlling the virus (the lack of which is rightly bemoaned), we’d still need a good moral explanation for why it’s okay to lock people down twitter.com/MichaelPSenger…
@mgoldingmd @ReachChristofer @Crit_Rat
Yes, although I'm not sure I'd put it in terms of a lack of careful thinking. I wonder if sometimes bad ideas can evolve in minds undetected, and so careful thinking couldn't always help. Then some of them may be bad enough they lead to what we call "illness." What do you think?
In that book, Deutsch gives a refutation of a similar idea which says that people acquire new behaviors by imitating them, which can't work because you need the idea/explanation of the behaviors to enact them in the first place. It has to happen in that order. Same with AGI.
Well, AGI is a creative process. But overall, yes, I think so. + I'd add emphasis on not imitating humans. explanation > imitation
A useful rule of thumb from Deutsch's "The Beginning of Infinity": If we can already build it, it has nothing to do with intelligence.
Without such an answer, advocating neural nets over some other arbitrary "learning" algorithm is irrational, because any of them might lead us to AGI.
The difference is that evolution is creative, neural nets aren't. And before we dump millions into neural-net-based AGI research, shouldn't we first have an answer to the question: why and how would AGI arise from neural nets?
There are self-replicating ideas in our minds as well, and all they "want" to do is spread, too, yet that's how we come up with solutions to problems. In evolution (mental or biological), solutions are always created without regard for the problem situation.
Because an explanation of the human mind is the program that's needed.
It's very rare to stumble upon an explanation by accident/by doing something completely different.
Instead of asking yourself, “how do I know if I’m choosing the right thing?”, ask yourself, “how can I make it as easy as possible to detect when I haven’t chosen the right thing, and then change paths accordingly?”
@mgoldingmd @ReachChristofer @Crit_Rat
Got it, but... in the case of earthquakes, ideas seem to have nothing to do with it, whereas in the case of mental issues, it makes sense to me that they'd have something to do with it.
If ideas are software, couldn't bugs lead to symptoms we associate with mental illness?
Is there a no-go theorem à la Balinski and Young that mathematically proves that there can be no perfect representation in groups of people using a sufficient number of dimensions such as gender, race, age, etc?
Ein grosser Verlust im Kampf gegen Verfechter der "sozialen Gerechtigkeit" war der Tag, an dem der Duden das Wort "cisgender" uebernahm.
I don’t think so, because the greater the danger, the easier it is to persuade people, and so no force is needed.
I think there are parallels there to the weakness of character of the people acquiescing in or even eagerly accepting government-enforced lockdowns.
@ReachChristofer @Crit_Rat @mgoldingmd
Why is that a worse explanation, and of what?
No, problems are, and in a broader sense creativity.
@ReachChristofer @Crit_Rat
I think what you’re describing would also be a software issue. Also, I’m not sure there is such a thing as a “fear center” and “object recognition center”—it’s all ideas about what to fear and what objects to recognize.
@michaelerich5 @b_hasanni
Erfolg, die, wenn sie ernst genommen wird und wie aus der Geschichte nur allzu gut bekannt ist, nur zu Zwangsenteignung und Gewalt fuehren kann.
@michaelerich5 @b_hasanni
Daher haengt die urspruengliche Frage “Koennen wir uns die Reichen noch leisten” nicht nur vom angeblichen (und nicht existenten) Nullsummenspiel der Wirtschaft ab, sondern hat eine ganz ueble Grundeinstellung gegenueber wirtschaftlicher Taetigkeit und dem wirtschaftlichen...
@michaelerich5 @b_hasanni
Die Vorstellung, dass die Wirtschaft angeblich ein Nullsummenspiel ist, hat schon zu viel Intoleranz und Leid gefuehrt, weil dann die Frage ist, auf wessen Kosten Fortschritt gemacht werden soll, und wem man Geld wegnehmen darf (den Reichen).
@michaelerich5 @b_hasanni
Er ist das Resultat kreativer Arbeit und Zusammenarbeit und erfordert keine Kosten anderer. Die Wirtschaft ist kein Nullsummenspiel – da wird staendig etwas Neues erschaffen.
@michaelerich5 @b_hasanni
Es kann deshalb nicht stimmen, weil Reichtum nicht durch Umverteilung (von zukuenftig Armen zu zuekuenftig Reichen oder wie auch immer) erschaffen werden kann. Reichtum entsteht durch kreatives Schaffen ex nihilo.
@michaelerich5 @b_hasanni
Damit Ihr Zweifel stimmt, muesste man also irgendwie zeigen, dass Reichtum nicht erlangt werden koennte, ohne dass das auf Kosten anderer geschieht. Das kann aber nicht stimmen.
@michaelerich5 @b_hasanni
Um zu diesem Zweifel zu gelangen, muessen Sie also irgendeine Erklaerung gehabt haben (die ueber bloße Postulate aus der Literatur hinausgeht), von der Sie zu wissen meinen, dass Reichtum nur auf Kosten anderer erlangt werden kann.
@michaelerich5 @b_hasanni
Dass Sie kein Fachmann sind, macht uebrigens ueberhaupt nichts. Ich will mal versuchen, die Lage zu erklaeren. Sie zweifelten urspruenglich an meiner Aussage, dass der Reichtum eines anderen einen nichts koste.
@michaelerich5 @b_hasanni
Auch Bauarbeiter koennen sich ein Haus bauen, wenn sie den dafuer notwendigen Wohlstand erreicht haben (oder es finanziert kriegen). Und auch dieses Beispiel erklaert nicht, inwiefern Reichtum nur auf Kosten anderer erreicht werden koennte.
@michaelerich5 @b_hasanni
Angenommen, es ginge nicht ohne diese Mechanismen (was die auch immer sein moegen). Dann stellt sich erneut die Frage: Wieso muesste der eine arm werden, damit der andere reich werden kann?
Das ist uebrigens keine rhetorische Frage, sondern sie wendet sich direkt an Sie.
@michaelerich5 @b_hasanni
Naja, das ist ja nur die gleiche Behauptung, nur anders ausgedrückt. Also bleibt die Frage: warum ist das angeblich so, dass einer nur auf Kosten anderer reich werden kann?
Yes, instead of "kids," I should have said "kids and teens" or something along those lines. Basically everyone living at home having to bend to the will of their parent(s).
@mgoldingmd @Crit_Rat
I wonder if perhaps it's a bit like peacock tails in the biosphere—they bog the animal down in some ways, but the adaption managed to spread anyway. If an idea triggering a hallucination can spread through a mind, it will do just that.
@b_hasanni @michaelerich5
Ja, und das konnte man schon immer, denn der Reichtum eines anderen kostet einen nichts.
RT @ChipkinLogan:
As part of my constructor theory interview series, here's my chat with David Deutsch @DavidDeutschOxf about Constructor T…
Aren’t you a martyr! You’re lying. It’s clear this is at least in part about you.
Only problem is, C++ code is scarier looking than the monsters in the game ;-)
Kidding, of course—this is awesome.
Yes, and the need for certainty is what discourages many from ever starting a business.
I think you're right, calling it the main reason might be too much.
Conjecture: the main reason so many adults have trouble sleeping is because of trauma from forced bedtimes when they were kids.
Any refutations?
@MichaelPSenger @WillowWyse
The oldest tweet I could find with this text is this one: twitter.com/mhdksafa/statu…
Maybe that tweet started it? Is it a coincidence that the tweet's author, @mhdksafa, seems to work for the UN?
I’m guessing he’s somewhat widely read there. It wasn’t required reading for me—I think I first found one of his books in my mom’s bookshelf, then bought more later.
The opposite question seems more puzzling to me: how could one possibly raise happy, moral children with religion?!
Haffner’s books played a major role in my learning about the Nazis as a teenager growing up in Germany. Highly recommend his books.
If your application requires AGI but you haven’t built it, you haven’t succeeded.
That’s not to mention that AGI, like any other person, would need to consent to its “application.”
“Becoming better at pretending to think is not the same as coming closer to being able to think.“
What's needed is an explanation of how the human mind works—not an ever better imitation of any of humans' behaviors.
“[...] the ability to imitate a human imperfectly or in specialized functions is not a form of universality. It can exist in degrees. Hence, even if chatbots did at some point start becoming much better at imitating humans [...], that would still not be a path to AI."
GPT-3 has proven to be a jump to a much better chatbot than any previous chatbots. So, is it a step toward AGI? No. The explanation is in "The Beginning of Infinity," chapter 7:
“Those little smileys were a symptom of the social angst spawned by the introduction of e-mail” 😂
:-) :-) :-)
@heartbreak_sith
"Doesn't say sh!t" about owning guns? It says right there, in the image you posted, "[...] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Even such evidence wouldn’t cut it. What would be needed is a good explanation of why coercion is morally superior to freedom in this case, and why what coercion “achieves” can’t be done through freedom.
Much of what Rand wrote about—the hatred against white people (and now also straight and male ones especially), the moral inversion of the fight for racial equality, etc—could all be written today. The recent rise of SJWs has caused a big moral regression.
She then quotes from the NYT again:
“If the individual has all the rights and privileges due him under the laws and the Constitution, we need not worry about groups and masses—those do not, in fact, exist, except as figures of speech.”
Indeed.
Later on, in the same vein:
“It is an ironic demonstration of the philosophical insanity and the [...] suicidal trend of our age, that the men who need the protection of individual rights most urgently—the Negroes—are now in the vanguard of the destruction of these rights.”
“That absurdly evil policy is destroying the moral base of the Negroes’ fight. Their case rested on the principle of individual rights. If they demand the violation of the rights of others, they negate and forfeit their own.”
She points out the blatant irony:
“But that is the principle of the worst Southern racist who charges all Negroes with collective racial guilt for any crime committed by a [single] Negro, and who treats them all as inferiors on the ground that their ancestors were savages.”
“Since these questions are not to be considered, it means that that white laborer is to be charged with collective racial guilt, the guilt consisting merely of the color of his skin.”
I’ve been thinking this for a long time. It’s nice to read her putting it so well.
“It demands that a white laborer be refused a job because his grandfather may have practiced racial discrimination. But perhaps his grandfather had not practiced it. Or perhaps his grandfather had not even lived in this country.”
“Consider the implications of that statement. It does not merely demand special privileges on racial grounds—it demands that white men be penalized for the sins of their ancestors.”