> Paul Graham's submarine essay

To save a few clicks: https://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

> [The] PR industry, lurking like a huge, quiet submarine beneath the news. Of the stories you read in traditional media that aren't about politics, crimes, or disasters, more than half probably come from PR firms.

If you're talking about the quote being a giveaway that the article is PR, I'm not following you. The point of the last paragraph is a warning that outsourcing ethical decisions to an AI is likely to result in decisions that one might not actually make and find morally dubious.

And prioritizing Consequentialism in AI, especially with weapons, is a dangerous bargain. "How do you make decisions when the consequences are unclear?" Since when are the full consequences _ever_ clear?

There's more to it than wordplay, but it's reasonable to argue that a lot of consists of building castles in the air, ie elaborating a theoretical system in a rigorous and consistent way but where your beginning axioms are kind of arbitrary, or depend on balancing considerations that are fundamentally unmeasurable.

You can turn anything argument inside out by attacking its axiomatic foundation. For example, if I give two people $1000 each as a gift I've favored them both equally, right? But suppose person A is not very materialistic and is completely satisfied with $1000 whereas person B doesn't think it's that much and only feels (say) 10% satisfied; if I know this in advance, wouldn't it have been more just to give person A only $100? But what if person B is just more selfish, or already has so much money that their threshold of satisfaction has escalated in proportion to their wealth? Should I considering the absolute utility of $1000 or the marginal utility to the receiver? And so on.

The problem with hyper-intellectualizing things is that it's like developing an autistic fixation on train schedules and making passionate observations about the 2nd derivative of punctuality metrics, but only on Wednesdays; it's not that the observations are wrong per se, but do they matter?

Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein - simply wordplay with limited actual content.

I have asked a mathematician to "Define consciousness." who self identifies to be a third of each: poet and linguist, mathematician; the thought bubble offered so far along the mandering trail at resonance to "intrinsic computational consciousness" is a reflection on knowledge and work, randomness in the context of complexity theory.

Jesus will come back in 2031 and say - oh shit where is everyone?

Humanoid Cylon pops out from the woods: Oh, crap you were really real! We exterminated all the humans a year ago. Well, I guess we did make a mistake.

Someone make an AI video of that.