Or it's important to them that others believe that they're actually depressed, not "just sad."
I know some people who seem (to me) more concerned with receiving VALIDATION for their mental health issues than solving them.
They seem to care most about other people BELIEVING their problems are real.
I'm curious about this.
Or it's important to them that others believe that they're actually depressed, not "just sad."
If no one cuts you slack because of your mental health stuff, maybe you're in a really bad place, so you need people to believe you.
https://t.co/07v275i2gt
While she said some things I agree with, I rolled by eyes at her use of the word "trauma" because it seemed to me a transparent way to show political support to folks who's trauma narratives are important to...
I guess there's a general thing here: the more you can claim to have been harmed, the more likely people are to rally to support you.
I was once in a social dynamic where I would construct things such that I was visibly sad or put upon, because that was the only way I knew to revive (a type of) affection.
They need it, and they need it to be believed, because that's the only way they can feel loved and supported.
(Though that begs the question of WHY people have that need.)
The establishment certifies that this problem is HARD, you're not expected to just be able to trivially solve it. Which gives one protection against others' claims (or even demands) that you can and should.
Do you have a story for what's going on?
More from Eli Tyre
I started by simply stating that I thought that the arguments that I had heard so far don't hold up, and seeing if anyone was interested in going into it in depth with
CritRats!
— Eli Tyre (@EpistemicHope) December 26, 2020
I think AI risk is a real existential concern, and I claim that the CritRat counterarguments that I've heard so far (keywords: universality, person, moral knowledge, education, etc.) don't hold up.
Anyone want to hash this out with me?https://t.co/Sdm4SSfQZv
So far, a few people have engaged pretty extensively with me, for instance, scheduling video calls to talk about some of the stuff, or long private chats.
(Links to some of those that are public at the bottom of the thread.)
But in addition to that, there has been a much more sprawling conversation happening on twitter, involving a much larger number of people.
Having talked to a number of people, I then offered a paraphrase of the basic counter that I was hearing from people of the Crit Rat persuasion.
ELI'S PARAPHRASE OF THE CRIT RAT STORY ABOUT AGI AND AI RISK
— Eli Tyre (@EpistemicHope) January 5, 2021
There are two things that you might call "AI".
The first is non-general AI, which is a program that follows some pre-set algorithm to solve a pre-set problem. This includes modern ML.
I think AI risk is a real existential concern, and I claim that the CritRat counterarguments that I've heard so far (keywords: universality, person, moral knowledge, education, etc.) don't hold up.
Anyone want to hash this out with
In general, I am super up for short (1 to 10 hour) adversarial collaborations.
— Eli Tyre (@EpistemicHope) December 23, 2020
If you think I'm wrong about something, and want to dig into the topic with me to find out what's up / prove me wrong, DM me.
For instance, while I heartily agree with lots of what is said in this video, I don't think that the conclusion about how to prevent (the bad kind of) human extinction, with regard to AGI, follows.
There are a number of reasons to think that AGI will be more dangerous than most people are, despite both people and AGIs being qualitatively the same sort of thing (explanatory knowledge-creating entities).
And, I maintain, that because of practical/quantitative (not fundamental/qualitative) differences, the development of AGI / TAI is very likely to destroy the world, by default.
(I'm not clear on exactly how much disagreement there is. In the video above, Deutsch says "Building an AGI with perverse emotions that lead it to immoral actions would be a crime."
More from Health
To start with, atheism is an unnatural self-contradicting doctrine.
Medical terminology proves that human beings are naturally pre-disposed to believe in God. Oxford scientists assert that people are "born believers".
https://t.co/kE0Fi588yn
https://t.co/OqyXcGIMJn
It should be known that atheism could never produce an intelligently-functioning society and neither ever will.
Contrastingly, Islam produced several intellectuals & polymaths, was on the forefront of scientific development, boasting 100% literacy
If the Muslim world had not existed, there literally would be no technology/achievements today.
— Starks\u262a\ufe0f\U0001f1f9\U0001f1e9 (@MegaIntelIect) January 8, 2021
Science only developed because of Islam, Europe should be grateful to Islam for civilizing their barbaric cult.
Source: The Caliph's Splendor, Pg 204-05 https://t.co/HVypO52Tpc pic.twitter.com/00jYSbaDSs
It is also scientifically proven that atheism led to lesser scientific curiosity and scientific frauds, which is also why atheists incline to pseudo-science.
Whereas, religion in general and Islam in particular boosted education.
https://t.co/19Onc84u3g
Atheists are also likely to affected by pervasive mental and developmental disorders like high-functioning autism.
Cognitive Scientists and renowned Neurologists found that more atheism is leads to greater autism.
https://t.co/zRjEyFoX3P
Imagine you go to the doctor and get tested for a rare disease (only 1 in 10,000 people get it.)
The test is 99% effective in detecting both sick and healthy people.
Your test comes back positive.
Are you really sick? Explain below 👇
The most complete answer from every reply so far is from Dr. Lena. Thanks for taking the time and going through
Really doesn\u2019t fit well in a tweet. pic.twitter.com/xN0pAyniFS
— Dr. Lena Sugar \U0001f3f3\ufe0f\u200d\U0001f308\U0001f1ea\U0001f1fa\U0001f1ef\U0001f1f5 (@_jvs) February 18, 2021
You can get the answer using Bayes' theorem, but let's try to come up with it in a different —maybe more intuitive— way.
👇
Here is what we know:
- Out of 10,000 people, 1 is sick
- Out of 100 sick people, 99 test positive
- Out of 100 healthy people, 99 test negative
Assuming 1 million people take the test (including you):
- 100 of them are sick
- 999,900 of them are healthy
👇
Let's now test both groups, starting with the 100 people sick:
▫️ 99 of them will be diagnosed (correctly) as sick (99%)
▫️ 1 of them is going to be diagnosed (incorrectly) as healthy (1%)
👇