Maybe there’s a cultural idea about mirrors being somehow “the same”. After all, a mirror shows the same thing regardless of which one it is. Or related in cultural mythology to a singular adjoining world that contains your doppelganger (in such media, you don’t usually have a separate mirror-self for every mirror, but one that can be accessed from any mirror). Also could be a turn of phrase that stuck without a good reason.

1. Misalignment is a huge problem in any black-box system, not just in AGIs.
2. What would it look like for us to be close to AGI? I have doubts that we’re close, but it seems at least plausible.

So long as you have Firefox installed there’s a firefox search bar widget available. In Nova you add widgets with a long press on home screen and swipe up.

You can find the app for the launcher in the play store. There should be instructions in the app for making it your default launcher. Otherwise there are plenty of tutorials online.

You can use a different launcher to customize your home screen and get rid of the Google search bar. I use Nova and can confirm that a singular Firefox search bar works nicely, and I’m sure that it does with other launchers as well.

Ah, sorry. I sometimes forget to check for name continuity.

I’m not defending fossil-fueled energy production. When the product is energy it’s inexcusable to produce it in such a grossly irresponsible manner.

But if “coal energy” specifically was the product, and consumers overwhelmingly directly choose it rather than available renewable energy, then yeah I’d cut companies a bit more slack. When the harm isn’t in method but the product, and people are choosing that product instead of alternatives, then much of the blame rests on them.

Do you really only do good things when you’ve been conditioned to do so? You don’t ever try to grow past what society tells you? I’m not asking you to solve everything. I’m asking you not to be a part of the problem. Defending your behavior by pointing to that of others has not been a historically sound position.

As much as I’m generally on your side, that’s not honestly answering the premise, which is that those chickens do live a happy live.

I personally don’t seek so-called ethical meat because every example I’ve looked into has been a lie, and if it does exist it’s not worth my time to comb through supply lines in search for a product whose origin I would always worry about, and that I can do perfectly well without.

As horrible as those people are, it’s not like they’re just belching carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for fun. They’re fulfilling demand. That 40% wouldn’t disappear just by spreading ownership of the factories to more people. That’s not to say that individual action is the only thing that works. Regulations need to be put in place to curb emissions, incentives should reward producers for investing & transitioning to more sustainable practices, and yes, monopolies need to get split up.

But the fact remains that some products are just bad for the environment. As as long as people continue buying those products they’ll keep being produced. And when animal agriculture accounts for about as many emissions as the entire transportation industry, this seems like one of the easier steps to make.

The “my actions won’t end this problem so I don’t need to do anything” mentality never comes up in any other field (politeness, crimes, social change, voting). Yeah, choosing to never hold open doors for others wouldn’t noticeably affect the global rate, but I doubt you’d use that logic to justify being rude.

Language is how we create our stories.

The hard solipsist would disagree with you already from the 4th word. Your assuming an other to try to convince someone of their existence.

Here are a few theoretical realities:

• The Matrix.
• The Boltzmann Brain Hypothesis.
• You’re a higher form of life dreaming.
• Last Thursdayism.

The perceived existence of language is compatible with all of these, is it not?

Right now I’m a compatibilist. I haven’t yet found an explanation of how free will could non-deterministically work that makes any sense.

But I find the idea that free will is “your will coming into effect” reasonable (ie: I want something and make it happen), and it doesn’t require that you choose your desires so it’s compatible with determinism.

About #3, do you view this as a hard rule? Not the animal part (vegan btw), the “hurting is always wrong” part. There are situation where I’ve caused harm to someone for the sake of others, their future, or a greater pleasure.

Also interested in the “not killing you own species” section of #4. I would also kill another animal rather than a human, but for other reasons. What do you think about hurting a member of your own species is uniquely bad?

Ownership isn’t a scientific concept though. It’s a social construct which never depended on permanence.

How could you convince a solipsist of that? It seems impossible to disprove the position “I am imagining that anything outside my consciousness is real”. Anything you cite as evidence is premised on the conclusion.

Yeah, I don’t know that it solves much, but it’s rather tidy to take the one think we know exists (consciousness) and fit it into a fundamental question (what makes up the universe).

There are high caloric tasty vegan foods available, and when they are not it’s usually because they aren’t in high demand. How is the onus not on the consumer for picking animal products over those?

I’m all for vilifying the Animal Agriculture industry, they do some terrible stuff that goes way beyond the harm intrinsic to factory farms. But how exactly would they meet demand without factory farming, a brutally efficient way of producing animal products?

Governments should cease subsidizing animal products (maybe help their producers transition to other production), subsidize other foods more, and enact many other policy changes besides. But in most places it can be cheap and delicious to be vegan now. I don’t see how you get around personal choice being the main driver.

There are many problems in the world. Some people like to focus on the ones with the largest impacts, where you can personally do something about it (like veganism). Others like to focus on those where few cause grossly disproportionate harm, as they seem more addressable (like private jets).

Debating the merits of focusing on one problem over another is interesting, but in my mind the time for it is not when media is being shared that bolsters a cause without coming at the expense of any others. It hurts all movements when people always undermine issues, pointing to another more important from their perspective.

I highly doubt that most people think you aren’t doing enough for the environment. And I don’t understand why you’d assume that as the implication of this article.

In situations where the harm is caused by the industry’s approach, I’d agree. But animal products’ harm is pretty inextricable, and its production is caused by consumer demand.