I recently watched a nonempty subset of a Jubilee AI debate. I would class myself as generally agreeing with the "anti-AI" person who was stressing the danger of potential superintelligence - I think I regard the doomsday scenarios as less likely and the horizon further than he does, but I do generally believe that it is something that we should be worried about and prepared for. However, were I a participant in this debate, I would probably have wanted to represent the pro-AI side, as I think that it is likely that improvements to AI models have the potential to benefit many sectors of society and create an overall improvement in the standard of living in the world. I think that almost everything the participant in question said about superintelligence is essentially correct. This immediately raises the question of what we ought to do about this. Some Jubilee debaters suggested the idea that we as an international community can restrict it in a manner akin to how we restricted nuclear proliferation. There are several obvious issues with this idea. It's true that developing huge models like those that everyone are afraid of currently demands a sufficiently huge amount of money and resources such that a private entity would have difficulty undergoing this without it coming to the notice of the government of their nation, but it is not inconcievable that developments in model architecture and training algorithms could bring the cost and resource demand down to a level that could be covertly achieved. More significantly, in the case of nuclear non-proliferation, one must keep in mind the importance of the philosophy espoused by Reagan's favorite phrase of доверяй, но проверяй, of trust, but verify. In particular, the treaties only make sense since there are fairly effective ways of conducting compliance testing, which is possible for Nuclear Weapons development (for an example, see China's Nuclear weapons testing in the Taklamakan, though I don't believe this violates any existing agreements). I do not think such a thing exists for the development of ML models. Further, a substantial fraction of ML research is quite clearly innocuous - where do we draw the line? Such questions lack easy answers, and anyway building up international momentum for such an agreement in the absence of any concrete diaster is likely to be impossible. I think the conclusion I like most, though it is not without its own problems, is that we ought to continue developing these models at the rate that we develop them, but we should equally invest significant time, energy, and funds into furthering the critical work in alignment and safety. As for whether this is happening,
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you for the -- the kind introduction. And I want to start by thanking President Macron for hosting the event and, of course, for the lovely dinner last night. During the dinner, President Macron looked at me and asked if I would like to speak, and I said, Mr. President, I'm here for the -- for the good company and free wine, but I have to earn my keep today.
And I, of course, want to thank Prime Minister Modi for being here and for cohosting the summit, for all of you for participating.
And I'm -- I'm not here this morning to talk about AI safety, which was the title of the conference a couple of years ago. I'm here to talk about AI opportunity.
When conferences like this convene to discuss a cutting-edge technology, oftentimes, I think our response is to be too self-conscious, too risk-averse. But never have I encountered a breakthrough in tech that so clearly calls us to do preciously [see APP Note] the opposite.
-J.D. Vance
LMI!
This is a fact, please see Opinion 1.
This is a fact, please see Opinion 1.
Is this an opinion, or a fact? (c.f. Opinion 1 for the confused). Please shout your stance on this issue as loudly as possible into the nearest wall - the Хан (ie, Тэнгэр) will be intently listening and tallying up all answers. (See Opinion 10 for more on the Хан (ie, Тэнгэр))
I was extremely disappointed to see the leaders chosen to represent America in Civ VII. Harriet Tubman, of course, was in no way involved in the governance of the United States, and "Benjamin Franklin" is not even Richard's real name. I understand that Sid Meier & Co. wish to feature new leaders, who have not been seen before in Civilization. Sid may hide behind the notion that they were starved of choice - Civ is one of the oldest series in gaming, with Civ VII being the 8th mainline Civ game. Across the 7 of these 8 games, we have seen approximately 10.6 not-necessarily distinct leaders for America. But this is simply false - every single one of these 10.6 choices has been a major snub of the man most deserving of this position: The Emperor of the United States, Protector of Mexico, Joshua Abraham Norton.
Norton, born in the UK, appears to have been an immigrant to the US, taking at the very least a voyage from Cape Town to Boston. How he got to San Fransisco is quite unclear, though there's a often-repeated and potentially true story that he came from Cape Town via Valparaiso. He quickly became very successful, and then quickly became very unsuccessful, being effectively destitute by 1855. Something about this seems to have driven him quite mad, and in 1859, Norton published the following proclamation in the San Fransisco Evening Bulletin:
At the peremptory request of a large majority of the citizens of these United States, I, Joshua Norton, formerly of Algoa Bay, Cape of Good Hope, and now for the last nine years and ten months past of San Francisco, California, declare and proclaim myself Emperor of these United States; and in virtue of the authority thereby in me vested do hereby order and direct the representatives of the different States of the Union to assemble in Musical Hall, of this city, on the 1st day of February next, then and there to make such alterations in the existing laws of the Union as may ameliorate the evils under which the country is laboring, and thereby cause confidence to exist, both at home and abroad, in our stability and integrity.
Norton I.,
Emperor of the United States
Emperor Norton I would serve his nation as the first and last Emperor of the United States for 20 years, undisputably the best Emperor we have ever had. Norton was quite progressive, frequently publishing his official proclamations in the Pacific Appeal, a black-owned abolitionist newspaper. Norton also famously arrived early to an anti-Chinese rally, in an (unsuccessful) attempt to disperse it. (This has transformed into a story in which he arrives in the middle of the rally, and calms it by engaging the crowd in the Lord's Prayer. For example, Austin McConnell makes this claim, but it does not seem to have evidentiary support). Norton issued countless proclamations promoting racial equality and civil rights, despite being officially neutral on the Civil War. According to a book by David W. Forbes, Norton was formally recognized as emperor by Kamehameha V, king of Hawai'i, but I haven't been able to find the book and can't confirm this.
Emperor Norton may be the best-loved figure in the Bay Area. There is a small but highly dedicated cabal of Nortonians, who have created mods for Civ V and Civ VI adding him as a playable leader. Though much of the brainwashed American populace may be unfamiliar with the visionary architect of the Bay Bridge, the dissolver of the Democratic and Republican parties, and the Emperor from “the Queen of the Pacific.”, we few are in the know. Emperor Norton died on 8 January, 1880. He was buried at first in San Fransisco, before being moved south to Colma. The San Fransisco Examiner reports that
Norton's bones were tangled in a mass of cypress roots... so firmly was he rooted in the soil".
a factual occurence, with great poetic weight. His gravestone in Colma reads
NORTON I.
EMPEROR
OF THE UNITED STATES
AND
PROTECTOR OF MEXICO
JOSHUA A. NORTON
1819 - 1880
His gravestone in Dodeus bears a poetic quotation about the late Emperor from the great Nortonian, Neil Gaiman.
His madness keeps him sane
Sid, for future DLC - please consider becoming a Nortonian.
Sources: General
Chinese
Civil Rights
Emperor Norton & Hawaii (Forbes Book)
Norton's Grave
*As the primary format for chess. From a viewer perspective, it is just not interesting to wait for >1hr for a player to make a move, and the absurd density of basically dead draws is hugely detrimental to any real viewing value the game could have. In most sports, when one tunes in to watch a match between roughly evenly matched teams, they can reliably expect there to be a real, competitive fight, with both sides trying their best to win. In (classical) chess, this is just not the case.
I do not know the amount.
The Хан (ie, Тэнгэр) lives atop Хан Тэнгэр (as well as the other places) and is the supreme god of the religion. Хis exact role is not entirely clear, but I suspect that Хe is a nature spirit of some kind, though if you would prefer for Хim not to be, you are welcome to change this. Previously, the famed A.S. was a minor deity, but it appears that A.S. has recently been displaced by one \( \exists m \in \mathbb{Z} \text{ such that } (R, \dots, i) (X, \dots, k) \subset \{A, \dots, z\}^m\). In other words, unlike other crusty old religions where the beliefs and dogma is fixed, this one can be updated in real-time to maximize inconvenience! I strongly urge all to convert as soon as physically possible. If interested in conversion, please email "wearejoaopessoa" [at] gmail DOT com (omit the quotes) with relevant information.
If it were a fact, however, it would stll have its place on this page, as observed in Opinion 1
This opinion is stated somewhat generally, but specifically refers to flooding occuring in and around Yellowstone National Park. In particular, if one has the opportunity to decide between viewing floods at Yellowstone and reading Jayne's, viewing the floods would be a superior choice.
Imagine God were \(O(f(n))\) query omnescient in the form that ge could query any piece of information in \(O(f(n))\). Imagine there is a computation that times minimum time \(g(n) = \omega(f(n))\) to complete. Then ge could begin the action, and then query the answer from the future in \( O(f(n)) = o(g(n)) \) time, which is clearly a contradiction.
However, I will not choose this opinion to begin writing more. Perhaps the next.
Intriguingly, this is not a fact, but a true opinion. The notion that opinions can also be facts is first referenced in Opinion 1 and demonstrated in Opinion 2
While by Opinion 1 it is worthwhile to compile such a page of opinions, it is also preferable to display them in a location where they can be found by others, such that they can discover the opinions that you have held. However, if one is uncomfortable doing this, the option of creating an opinions page that is not linked to from one's main site, but can be accessed by those who are aware of its existence is preferable to the option of not creating one at all.
This is an example of an opinion which is not a fact, but truly an opinion. This is an extension of Opinion 1: It is annoying but worthwhile to list every opinion one has ever had on a website similar to this one
Please note that I do not discriminate between different definitons of state, nor do I specify a nation in which the state should be located. This claim is highly general. As observed in Opinion 1, this is a fact, despite being labelled as an opinion.
This opinion website would not exist without the great opinion website of Doron Zeilberger. I will only sometimes be providing justifications for my opinions. I will also be occasionally stating facts and not opinions, though I may label them as opinions anyway (for an example, see Opinion 2: California is the greatest State).