Not even -- it's a simplified Civilization clone for mobile. (It actually sounds like a pretty neat little game, but, uh, chess it is not!)

Oh my god, I can't stop laughing out loud at "women evolved small heads because they kept falling over and hitting their big heads on rocks," based on the fact that his sister hit her head when she was younger. What's his explanation for why men didn't do this then?? Absolutely next-level moon logic I love it so much

No no, it's "order of magnitudes". It's like "surgeons general."

Thank god I can have a button on my mouse to open ChatGPT in Windows. It was so hard to open it with only the button in the taskbar, the start menu entry, the toolbar button in every piece of Microsoft software, the auto-completion in browser text fields, the website, the mobile app, the chatbot in Microsoft's search engine, the chatbot in Microsoft's chat software, and the button on the keyboard.

yes, computing systems use energy. If our energy grid is overly reliant on the burning of fossil fuels that release harmful emissions, that doesn’t mean we need to stop the advancement of our computers. It means we need to stop using so much fossil fuels in our grid.

Now where have I heard something like this before? I'm trying to think of something, but I just can't quite seem to remember...

Yeah, it's such a braindead libertarian position to blame tech platforms blocking slurs on The Government. It's literally not illegal to say slurs! It's just not something most normal people want to be associated with

Six fingers on the right hand

It's like pickup artistry on a societal scale.

It really does illustrate the way they see culture not as, like, a beautiful evolving dynamic system that makes life worth living, but instead as a stupid game to be won or a nuisance getting in the way of their world domination efforts

The problem is just transparency, you see -- if they could just show people the math that led them to determining that this would save X million more lives, then everyone would realize that it was actually a very good and sensible decision!

This is good! Though, he neglects to mention the group of people (including myself) who have yet to be sold on ai's usefulness at all (all critics of practical AI harms are lumped under 'reformers' implying they still see it as valuable but just currently misguided.)

Like, ok, so what if China develops it first? Now they can... generate more convincing spam, write software slightly faster with more bugs, and starve all their artists to death? ... Oh no, we'd better hurry up and compete with that!

“We want to make sure that you see great content, that you’re posting great content, and that you’re interacting with the community,” he says.

I feel like using the phrase "great content" unironically is sort of a tell that someone has no idea what makes 'content' 'great' in the first place

Relatedly (and relevant to this article) I feel like the funniest part of the whole AI bubble has been executives repeatedly unwittingly revealing that they could be replaced by a simple computer program

Yud’s brilliant response is that this makes no sense to describe this as trauma, because you don’t get traumatized by physics class, right?

Isn't this literally formally fallacious? "There exist non-traumatizing true things" doesn't imply "all true things are non-traumatizing."

Ordinarily I'm not one to harp on logical fallacies, but come on Yudkowsky, you're supposed to be Mr. Rational!