181Joined Sep 2014


Okay, it's good to see that it's finally there as it wasn't the last time I publically complained about it. At the time it seemed like apologizing deep in a comment thread was the only action that CEA felt warrented. 

The potential harms of these technologies come from their unbounded scope

Previous technologies also have quite unbounded scopes. That does not seem to me different from the technology of film. The example of film in the post you were replying too also has an unbounded scope.

This can therefore inform the kinds of models / training techniques that are more dangerous: e.g. that for which the scope is the widest

Technologies with a broad scope are more like to be dangerous but they are also more likely to be valuable. 

If you look at the scope of photoshop it can be already used by people to make deepfake porn. It can also used by people to print fake money.

Forbidding broad-scope technologies to be deployed would have likely prevented most of the progress in the last century and would make a huge damper on future progress as well.

When it comes to gene editing, our society decides to regulate its application but is very open that developing the underlying technology is valuable. 

The analogy to how we treat gene editing would be to pass laws to regulate image creation. The fact that deepfake porn is currently not heavily criminalized is a legislative choice. We could pass laws to regulate it like other sexual assaults. 

Instead of regulating at the point of technology creation, you could focus on regulating technology use. To the extent that we are doing a bad job at that currently, you could build a think tank that lobbies for laws to regulate problems like deepfake porn creation and that constantly analysis new problems and lobbies for the to be regulated.

When it comes to the issue of deepfake porn, it's also worth looking why it's not criminalized. When Googling I found which makes the case that it should be regulated but which cites a government report which suggests that deepfake porn creation should be legal while sharing it shouldn't be legal. I would support making both illegal, but I think approaching the problem from the usage point of view seem the right strategy.

When these factors are combined with the high population growth predicted in hotter countries, one report finds that 3.0 degrees celsius of averaged global warming translates to an average temperature increase as felt per individual of 7.5 degrees celsius.1 The same report estimates that 30% of the world’s predicted population will then be living in areas with an average temperature equal to or above the hottest parts of the Sahara desert by 2070.

It's very unclear how someone can on the one hand expect this kind of damage to be caused by climate change and on the other hand expect that people in the future won't do geoengineering that leads to different temperatures. Or expect that this isn't supposed to be an important element of any modal that predict the future of global warming. 

farmed animals likely have it worse than animals used in research

Why do you believe that farmed animals have it worse?

Farmed animals usually get killed in a way that's designed to be quick and minimize suffering. I would expect, that research animals that die death due to being infected with illnesses or toxicity tests generally die more painful deaths. 

Just because someone tried products for free and then posted about them doesn't mean that they haven't been paid to post about them. 

When I say that I know the German youtuber, I'm meaning that I privately talked with him about how that industry works. 

The people who make the most money in that industry do it through paid product placement.

Andrea Salinas got 36% of the vote while Carrick Flynn got 18%. I think it's pretty clear, that Flynn would have gotten more votes if he wouldn't have been perceived by the press as being funded by ill-intentioned corporate money. 

Whether that would have been enough to get double the amount of votes is unclear but I don't think the available data suggest that this isn't in the realm of what would have been possible. 

I agree that Protect Our Future should be a lot more explicit about its agenda. While the Valerie Foushee campaign was successful the Carrick Flynn campaign failed and likely failed for reasons like distrust of PAC money. 

It's unclear to me why the strategic decision of Protect Our Future to be this untransparent was made. Given the amount of money they spend, it was likely that it will get some public attention and the transparency made it look a bit shady.

Clear public-facing criteria would likely be helpful. It makes it clear to the media how Protect Our Future chooses its candidates. It also makes it clear to other politicians what they would need to do to get support from Protect Our Future. Given that politicians do spend a lot of time on fundraising, making it more clear to them what they would need to do to get support from Protect Our Future would likely be good. 

Having a blog that publishes posts about candidates they decided to support and also on legislative movements that they care about it would likely be a good move while costing very little compared to the amount of money that Protect Our Future spends.

I don’t think people who are anti-soy are racist – but convincing a swath of Americans that being anti-soy is culturally insensitive could be one way to reduce stigma.

Such a campaign might also significantly increase the stigma. It could turn soy into a culture war topic. 

If you tell a bodybuilder that he should be less anti-soy because it's culturally insensitive, I would expect that to reinforce anti-soy attitudes for most bodybuilders.

Load More