Podcasts about Confusions

Confusions of Culture (Urdu) ماڈرن کلچر کا سامنا اور راہِ اعتدال

In a Gaslit Nation first, we're speaking to a guest whose voice is… well, masked like Putin's stiff botoxed face. That's because we've had to protect their identity—our guest today is none other than the undisputed ruler of the underworld, likely the wealthiest person on the planet (given the cadre of oligarchs they've got on speed dial), and—let's not forget—a master strategist. You may know them as Darth Putin KGB, the Twitter titan who once made parody fun before it got, well, a little too real. Now, if you're finding it hard to understand Darth Putin's voice, don't worry. We tried several different settings to find the right balance between protecting their anonymity and making sure we didn't sound like we were interviewing an angry vending machine. But, for those of you who are truly committed, you can follow along with the full transcript of the interview, which is conveniently available at the top of the show notes. Darth Putin is also the author of two books, the most recent being How to Tankie: The Anti-Imperialist's Guide to the Modern World, and The Darth Putin Guide to Being a Master Strategist: 13 Rules on How to Think, Act, Dress & Date Like a Master Strategist. We'll be sharing excerpts from our conversation in future episodes, including their thoughts on why satire is needed more than ever in an age of growing fascism, and how to be a master strategist when it comes to making fun of dictators and their lackeys. In this part of the interview, Darth delivers a chilling warning: we must not abandon Ukraine, for the security of both the world and ourselves is on the line. This is obvious to everyone, except for crackhead Ken Pete Hegseth, Trump's frat boy date rapist pick to run the most powerful military in human history.  Want to enjoy Gaslit Nation ad-free? Join our community of listeners for bonus shows, ad-free episodes, exclusive Q&A sessions, our group chat, invites to live events like our Monday political salons at 4pm ET over Zoom, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit!   Show Notes:   Transcript of the Darth Putin KGB interview: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fgG16BVg4_hdIMk0aBJWBaI3vW2Rk2xU/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=117489509282294341490&rtpof=true&sd=true   Heart of the Want to Believer from Limbic Psalms by Confusions https://confusions.bandcamp.com/track/heart-of-the-want-to-believer   Submit your song to be featured on Gaslit Nation! https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-d_DWNnDQFYUMXueYcX5ZVsA5t2RN09N8PYUQQ8koq0/edit?ts=5fee07f6&gxids=7628   Four Takeaways From the Special Counsel's Report on the Trump Election Case Jack Smith wrote that Donald Trump would have been convicted had the case been allowed to proceed and explained why he didn't pursue charges of incitement of the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/14/us/politics/jack-smith-trump-election-report-takeaways.html   Irregular Army How the US Military Recruited Neo-Nazis, Gang Members, and Criminals to Fight the War on Terror By Matt Kennard https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/233226/irregular-army-by-matt-kennard/   Merrick Garland Both-Sides the Coup https://www.gaslitnationpod.com/episodes-transcripts-20/2022/1/12/merrick-garland-both-sides   CBS News: Jack Smith's Trump Report  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNyd7mXI-hU    ICYMI: Here are previous documents the Security Committee has shared: • Tech Travel Tips : https://web.tresorit.com/l/hmKP6#FFHiLuu45pSJtMo_Z9Zp9Q   • Why defending your right to privacy is important: https://web.tresorit.com/l/73FHq#ip5_zE6hhWkuaDMBAAhpYw   • Introduction to VPN https://web.tresorit.com/l/WHdqz#-zI5O7Q2zHznO_NG7aZWPQ   • Three Security Steps to Take Today: https://web.tresorit.com/l/417K9#CaDJOcOrEOta4T5oDlNsYw   • Practice Safe Data Security: https://web.tresorit.com/l/hiw9s#wOykkL6Lh_Hz_TbRsiCiEQ   Read all the details in the PDF here: https://web.tresorit.com/l/W6ots#IydZ2pnTmE1MLPJLkLZ73A  

Dr Adam Koontz talks about Bible translations, updates to published editions, trends in those updates, and translation practices. Visit our website - A Brief History of Power Dr Koontz - Redeemer Lutheran Church Music thanks to Verny

Few murders have rocked the music world like the untimely deaths of Biggie Smalls and Tupac Shakur. Neither slain rapper has ever had their killer brought to justice. Recent allegations against Sean Diddy Combs, the producer who have Biggie Smalls his start, have forced questions about Diddy's involvement in this dark and violent tale.    Joining Tess to talk through Diddy's role in the Tupac and Biggie murders is writer, podcaster, and digital strategist Wynter Mitchell Rohrbaugh @wynter.    To learn more about this case check out the documentary “Murder Rap”, or read some of the Rolling Stone pieces used for research in this episode.    “Bad Boy for Life: Sean Combs' History of Violence    “The Hunt For Tupac's Killer: Confessions, Conspiracies, and Confusions.”    Follow Pop Mystery Pod on Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok @popmysterypod    Pop Mystery Pod is written and produced by Tess Barker @tesstifybarker. Produced by Tyler Hill.    Theme song by Rick Wood @Rickw00d.   Support independent pop journalism and join us on Patreon at Pop Mystery Pod. Get access to ad free episodes, bonus content, and polls about upcoming topics. patreon.com/PopMysteryPod   Follow Tess's other podcasts Lady to Lady and Toxic: The Britney Spears Story wherever you get your pods.    Make sure to leave us a review! And tell a friend about the show!  

Ce matin sur Skyrock, Difool et Rémi nous font la compil' de ceux qui ont fait la une de l'actu à cause d'une confusion !

Episode 305 continues, reacts to, and adds to episode 304 to again address the MIdeast and Israeli and U.S. motivations, the U.S. election and Democratic and Republican Party motivations, plus popular reactions to all that, and also rampant escalating ubiquitous dishonesty plus AI's dangers and finally a personal AI experience in podcast creation's larger implications.  Why again with confusions? Partly because these matters are incredibly important. Partly because I suspect I am not alone in feeling as I do. And partly because the confusions that I discussed last time left some listeners confused about why I am confused, so I clarify and also raise the stakes this time. Support the show

New to Soulution Grace Church? Click here: ⁠sgcph.org/im-new-here/⁠ Accepted Christ as your Lord and Savior today? Click here: ⁠sgcph.org/sign-me-up/⁠ Want to give your tithes and love offering? Click here: ⁠sgcph.org/give/⁠ Stay Connected! Facebook: ⁠https://bit.ly/2B59wym⁠ Youtube: ⁠bit.ly/394U2Hb⁠ Instagram: ⁠https://bit.ly/2Cc4jpj⁠ TikTok: ⁠https://bit.ly/3Ji78BK⁠

This episode concludes addressing an internet article which provides 21 common criticisms of Christianity. Each are answered using a Biblical world and life view.

In this weeks Quick Cuppa, Christie welcomes Ellie, who's the founder of an exciting new drinks brand; ‘Naughtea'. They play a juicy game of Don't Spill The Naughtea with hilarious confessions from across the internet, including girls' bottomless brunch stories with wild endings and giving colleagues accidental and very private access totheir phones that could never be lived down. Naughtea is an alcoholic iced tea, something we have all needed in our lives, and now you can order online at https://naughtea-drinks.com/. Any confessions or embarrassing stories please send to teaatfour@junglecreations.com or DM us on Four Nine.

Alex welcomes back Rich & Rox, two-time Sunday Times best selling authors, creators of the body doubling app called Dubbi and founders of the globally recognised brand, ADHD Love!Topics:00:00 Trailer02:16 What have you been up to and what have you learned about yourselves in the past 7 months!06:48 Have you had any huge ADHD realisations since we last had you on? Either Rox about your own ADHD, or Rich as a close observer of ADHD?09:45 So, no ADHD diagnosis for you yet Rich?13:44 Rich, are there still things you just have trouble understanding about ADHD no matter how often they're explained? 15:34 Rox, be honest, when was the last time you used ADHD to get out of an argument?28:02 Rich, which one of Rox's ADHD traits is most likely to cause an argument in your relationship?31:51 What does a good day look like in your household?34:36 What does a bad day look like?35:39 Sobriety and how that's impacted Rox's music career 39:48 How do you manage RSD when navigating the music industry?44:11 I've always wanted to ask a musician, what do you think the association between ADHD and music is?46:58 Has taking to the stage again dug up anything within you, either insecurities or passion for performing?50:08 So Rich, when was the last time you had a moment of "Thank god Rox is NOT neurotypical" and you found yourself really cherishing Rox's eccentricities?52:09 Do you consider that ADHD could be trauma related?56:30 Rox, has your father now accepted your diagnosis?60:13 Rox, my producer has a personal question for you…01:03:46 The ‘ADHD item' segment 01:05:47 Why your new book is called ‘Small Talk'01:20:38 Do any heartwarming stories from your audience spring to mind?01:24:08 Washing machine of woes01:31:18 Your most impulsive thing Buy their latest book, Small Talk

This episode series addresses an internet article which provides 21 common criticisms of Christianity. Each are answered using a Biblical world and life view.

This episode series addresses an internet article which provides 21 common criticisms of Christianity. Each are answered using a Biblical world and life view.

This episode series addresses an internet article which provides 21 common criticisms of Christianity. Each are answered using a Biblical world and life view.

குழப்பங்கள் செய்வதை விட்டும் விலகிக் கொள்ள வேண்டும்Eid-ul-Fitr 1445 (2024)மவ்லவி அலி அக்பர் உமரி | Ali Akbar Umari11-04-2024Trichy, Tamil Nadu

Fluent Fiction - French: Confusions & Laughter: Unforgettable Tales of Mistaken Identity Find the full episode transcript, vocabulary words, and more:fluentfiction.org/confusions-laughter-unforgettable-tales-of-mistaken-identity Story Transcript:Fr: Marie était à Paris.En: Marie was in Paris.Fr: Elle adorait ce lieu pour sa beauté et son art.En: She loved this place for its beauty and art.Fr: Un après-midi ensoleillé, elle est allée visiter le Louvre.En: One sunny afternoon, she went to visit the Louvre.Fr: Ce grand musée était rempli de peintures et de sculptures.En: This grand museum was filled with paintings and sculptures.Fr: Marie se perdait parmi les différentes œuvres.En: Marie got lost among the different artworks.Fr: Elle était tellement confuse qu'elle a pris un tableau pour une porte de sortie.En: She was so confused that she mistook a painting for an exit door.Fr: Elle s'est pris à pousser fébrilement le cadre du tableau, alors que tout le monde la regardait, à la fois amusé et intrigué.En: She started pushing the frame of the painting feverishly, while everyone watched, both amused and intrigued.Fr: Au même moment, en Provence, un homme nommé Hugo vivait une situation tout aussi étrange.En: At the same time, in Provence, a man named Hugo was experiencing an equally strange situation.Fr: Hugo était un homme simple.En: Hugo was a simple man.Fr: Il aimait profondément son petit village de Provence.En: He deeply loved his little village in Provence.Fr: Dans ce doux climat, en plein milieu du chant des cigales, Hugo prit une chèvre pour son voisin.En: In this gentle climate, amidst the sound of cicadas, Hugo mistook a goat for his neighbor's.Fr: Il l'avait déjà fait une fois et ne semblait pas s'en rendre compte.En: He had already done it once and didn't seem to realize his mistake.Fr: Il entama une conversation avec elle, lui demandant si elle avait aimé le temps.En: He struck up a conversation with the goat, asking if she had enjoyed the weather.Fr: Le son doux de la chèvre répondant lui fit hausser les sourcils.En: The gentle sound of the goat replying made his eyebrows raise.Fr: Pendant ce temps, à Bordeaux, une jeune fille nommée Camille essayait d'impressionner son rendez-vous.En: Meanwhile, in Bordeaux, a young girl named Camille was trying to impress her date.Fr: Camille était une fan de cuisine.En: Camille was a fan of cooking.Fr: Elle avait choisi un restaurant chic pour son rendez-vous.En: She had chosen an upscale restaurant for their date.Fr: Elle tenait à commander le plat le plus élaboré du menu pour impressionner.En: She was determined to order the most elaborate dish on the menu to make an impression.Fr: Mais la prononciation de ce plat était si compliquée qu'elle s'est trompée et a commandé un plat qui n'existait même pas.En: But the pronunciation of that dish was so complicated that she got it wrong and ordered a dish that didn't even exist.Fr: Le serveur a poliment essayé de cacher son sourire avant de lui indiquer son erreur.En: The waiter politely tried to hide his smile before pointing out her mistake.Fr: Le lendemain matin, Marie a compris qu'elle avait confondu un tableau avec une porte de sortie.En: The next morning, Marie realized she had mistaken a painting for an exit door.Fr: Elle était embarrassée mais a ri de sa gaffe.En: She was embarrassed but laughed at her blunder.Fr: Hugo, quant à lui, a réalisé son erreur avec la chèvre quand son vrai voisin est venu le chercher pour une partie de pétanque.En: Hugo, on the other hand, realized his mistake with the goat when his real neighbor came to fetch him for a game of pétanque.Fr: Il a ri de bon coeur de sa confusion.En: He wholeheartedly laughed at his confusion.Fr: Camille, encore rouge d'avoir mal prononcé le nom du plat, a ri avec son rendez-vous de sa mésaventure.En: Camille, still blushing from mispronouncing the dish's name, laughed with her date about her mishap.Fr: Ce dernier a été impressionné par son sens de l'humour et sa capacité à rire d'elle-même.En: He was impressed by her sense of humor and ability to laugh at herself.Fr: Marie a continué à explorer le Louvre, Hugo a passé une agréable journée avec son vrai voisin, et Camille a fini par commander un simple steak frites, souriant à son rendez-vous à travers la table.En: Marie continued exploring the Louvre, Hugo had a pleasant day with his real neighbor, and Camille eventually ordered a simple steak and fries, smiling at her date across the table.Fr: Ces trois histoires, dans trois villes différentes, étaient liées par une seule chose : une confusion simple mais drôle.En: These three stories, in three different cities, were linked by one thing: a simple yet funny confusion.Fr: Dans leurs petites mésaventures, ils ont trouvé un moment de bonheur.En: In their little misadventures, they found a moment of happiness.Fr: Chacun d'eux a ris, appris et a continué à vivre leur vie, nourri par ces moments surréalistes et amusants.En: Each of them laughed, learned, and continued living their lives, nourished by these surreal and amusing moments.Fr: Et ils sont devenus, chaque embarras, une histoire à raconter, une lueur de rire en souvenir.En: And every embarrassment became a story to tell, a glimpse of laughter in memory.Fr: Dans les rues de Paris, sur les collines de Provence et au coeur de Bordeaux, ils ont trouvé de la joie dans les moments les plus imprévus.En: In the streets of Paris, on the hills of Provence, and in the heart of Bordeaux, they found joy in the most unexpected moments. Vocabulary Words:Marie: MarieParis: Parisplace: lieubeauty: beautéart: artafternoon: après-midivisit: visiterLouvre: Louvremuseum: muséepaintings: peinturessculptures: sculptureslost: perduartworks: œuvresconfused: confusemistook: confondrepainting: tableauexit door: porte de sortiepushing: pousserframe: cadreeveryone: tout le mondewatched: regardaitamused: amuséintrigued: intriguéProvence: ProvenceHugo: Hugosimple man: homme simplevillage: villagegentle climate: doux climatsound: soncicadas: cigales

We're joined this week by radio host Ciara Kelly, and as Ciara traces back through her story of getting into media, Gary has to admit that their relationship got off to a rocky start, and Ciara tells us about her morning routine and how her Christmas food plans are already well underway. And there's some communal commiserating over serving people who just don't realise what they've ordered.There's more kitchen gadget tips – including Gareth's key advice on how to, literally, weigh up a good cooking buy.And the best biscuits and livening up the weekly recipe routine are all on the agenda with your questions.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: 'Theories of Values' and 'Theories of Agents': confusions, musings and desiderata, published by Mateusz Bagiński on November 16, 2023 on LessWrong. Meta: Content signposts: we talk about limits to expected utility theory; what values are (and ways in which we're confused about what values are); the need for a "generative"/developmental logic of agents (and their values); types of constraints on the "shape" of agents; relationships to FEP/active inference; and (ir)rational/(il)legitimate value change. Context: we're basically just chatting about topics of mutual interests, so the conversation is relatively free-wheeling and includes a decent amount of "creative speculation". Epistemic status: involves a bunch of "creative speculation" that we don't think is true at face value and which may or may not turn out to be useful for making progress on deconfusing our understanding of the respective territory. Expected utility theory (stated in terms of the VNM axioms or something equivalent) thinks of rational agents as composed of two "parts", i.e., beliefs and preferences. Beliefs are expressed in terms of probabilities that are being updated in the process of learning (e.g., Bayesian updating). Preferences can be expressed as an ordering over alternative states of the world or outcomes or something similar. If we assume an agent's set of preferences to satisfy the four VNM axioms (or some equivalent desiderata), then those preferences can be expressed with some real-valued utility function u and the agent will behave as if they were maximizing that u. On this account, beliefs change in response to evidence, whereas values/preferences in most cases don't. Rational behavior comes down to (behaving as if one is) ~maximizing one's preference satisfaction/expected utility. Most changes to one's preferences are detrimental to their satisfaction, so rational agents should want to keep their preferences unchanged (i.e., utility function preservation is an instrumentally convergent goal). Thus, for a preference modification to be rational, it would have to result in higher expected utility than leaving the preferences unchanged. My impression is that the most often discussed setup where this is the case involves interactions between two or more agents. For example, if you and and some other agent have somewhat conflicting preferences, you may go on a compromise where each one of you makes them preferences somewhat more similar to the preferences of the other. This costs both of you a bit of (expected subjective) utility, but less than you would lose (in expectation) if you engaged in destructive conflict. Another scenario justifying modification of one's preferences is when you realize the world is different than you expected on your priors, such that you need to abandon the old ontology and/or readjust it. If your preferences were defined in terms of (or strongly entangled with) concepts from the previous ontology, then you will also need to refactor your preferences. You think that this is a confused way to think about rationality. For example, you see self-induced/voluntary value change as something that in some cases is legitimate/rational. I'd like to elicit some of your thoughts about value change in humans. What makes a specific case of value change (il)legitimate? How is that tied to the concepts of rationality, agency, etc? Once we're done with that, we can talk more generally about arguments for why the values of an agent/system should not be fixed. Sounds good? On a meta note: I've been using the words "preference" and "value" more or less interchangeably, without giving much thought to it. Do you view them as interchangeable or would you rather first make some conceptual/terminological clarification? Sounds great! (And I'm happy to use "preferences" and "values" interc...

Pour ceux qui souhaitent rejoindre la #TribuESOA au sein de notre groupe Telegram exclusif, c'est par ici : https://bit.ly/ESOATribe --------- Le Podcast "#Entrepreneur State Of Africa" dit tout haut ce que les #entrepreneurs pensent tout bas, avec Kahi Lumumba (Co-Founder & CEO Totem Experience, Adicomdays) et Moulaye Tabouré (Co-Founder & CEO de ANKA (ex-Afrikrea) ). Dans cet épisode, Kahi et Moulaye sont rejoints par Antony Bah, le discret associé de Kahi sur Totem Experience, qui nous délivre une Masterclass technique et conviviale ! Pour télécharger le White Paper Report 2023 de ANKA : bit.ly/ANK-WP ----- Ce podcast est produit par Totem Factory by Totem Experience que vous pouvez joindre pour tous vos besoins de production

A new MP3 sermon from Broadview Heights Baptist Church is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: Correcting conflicts, cares, and confusions. Speaker: Dr. Roger Green Broadcaster: Broadview Heights Baptist Church Event: Sunday Service Date: 10/17/2023 Length: 54 min.

On this episode of the MLS Aces Podcast, Tom & Jason chat:The USMNT's two wins over Uzbekistan and Oman during the latest International WindowThe current state of the USMNT and opinions on how future international windows should operateDual national panic?!?! Noel Buck playing for England U19s & three MLSers playing for ArgentinaMLS transfers in regards to Caden Clark, Efrain Alvarez, Mamadou Fall, and othersRobin Fraser OUT at Colorado and Bruce Arena resigning from the New England RevolutionMLS Matchday 31 and looking ahead to MLS Matchday 32Thank you for checking out this episode of the podcast! Please make sure to check out the MLS Aces on social media below:Twitter: @MLSAces @TomSweez @JasonVevang @Uncle_SamXIIIYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@mlsacesSupport the show

Gil Schaeffer responds to Renzo Llorente's “The Contradictions and Confusions of ‘Democratic Socialism” and argues that socialists need to base their politics on a coherent ethical theory of democratic rights. Read by: Will Intro Music: ворожное озеро Гроза vwqp remix Outro Music: We are Friends Forever performed by Felix Dzerzhinsky Guards Regiment.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Responses to apparent rationalist confusions about game / decision theory, published by Anthony DiGiovanni on August 31, 2023 on LessWrong. I've encountered various claims about how AIs would approach game theory and decision theory that seem pretty importantly mistaken. Some of these confusions probably aren't that big a deal on their own, and I'm definitely not the first to point out several of these, even publicly. But collectively I think these add up to a common worldview that underestimates the value of technical work to reduce risks of AGI conflict. I expect that smart agents will likely avoid catastrophic conflict overall - it's just that the specific arguments for expecting this that I'm responding to here aren't compelling (and seem overconfident). For each section, I include in the footnotes some examples of the claims I'm pushing back on (or note whether I've primarily seen these claims in personal communication). This is not to call out those particular authors; in each case, they're saying something that seems to be a relatively common meme in this community. Summary: The fact that conflict is costly for all the agents involved in the conflict, ex post, doesn't itself imply AGIs won't end up in conflict. Under their uncertainty about each other, agents with sufficiently extreme preferences or priors might find the risk of conflict worth it ex ante. (more) Solutions to collective action problems, where agents agree on a Pareto-optimal outcome they'd take if they coordinated to do so, don't necessarily solve bargaining problems, where agents may insist on different Pareto-optimal outcomes. (more) We don't have strong reasons to expect AGIs to converge on sufficiently similar decision procedures for bargaining, such that they coordinate on fair demands despite committing under uncertainty. Existing proposals for mitigating conflict given incompatible demands, while promising, face some problems with incentives and commitment credibility. (more) The commitment races problem is not just about AIs making commitments that fail to account for basic contingencies. Updatelessness (or conditional commitments generally) seems to solve the latter, but it doesn't remove agents' incentives to limit how much their decisions depend on each other's decisions (leading to incompatible demands). (more) AIs don't need to follow acausal decision theories in order to (causally) cooperate via conditioning on each other's source code. (more) Most supposed examples of Newcomblike problems in everyday life don't seem to actually be Newcomblike, once we account for "screening off" by certain information, per the Tickle Defense. (more) The fact that following acausal decision theories maximizes expected utility with respect to conditional probabilities, or counterfactuals with the possibility of logical causation, doesn't imply that agents with acausal decision theories are selected for (e.g., acquire more material resources). (more) Ex post optimal =/= ex ante optimal An "ex post optimal" strategy is one that in fact makes an agent better off than the alternatives, while an "ex ante optimal" strategy is optimal with respect to the agent's uncertainty at the time they choose that strategy. The idea that very smart AGIs could get into conflicts seems intuitively implausible because conflict is, by definition, ex post Pareto-suboptimal. (See the "inefficiency puzzle of war.") But it doesn't follow that the best strategies available to AGIs given their uncertainty about each other will always be ex post Pareto-optimal. This may sound obvious, but my experience with seeing people's reactions to the problem of AGI conflict suggests that many of them haven't accounted for this important distinction. As this post discusses in more detail, there are two fundamental sources of uncertainty (o...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Responses to apparent rationalist confusions about game / decision theory, published by Anthony DiGiovanni on August 30, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. I've encountered various claims about how AIs would approach game theory and decision theory that seem pretty importantly mistaken. Some of these confusions probably aren't that big a deal on their own, and I'm definitely not the first to point out several of these, even publicly. But collectively I think these add up to a common worldview that underestimates the value of technical work to reduce risks of AGI conflict. I expect that smart agents will likely avoid catastrophic conflict overall - it's just that the specific arguments for expecting this that I'm responding to here aren't compelling (and seem overconfident). For each section, I include in the footnotes some examples of the claims I'm pushing back on (or note whether I've primarily seen these claims in personal communication). This is not to call out those particular authors; in each case, they're saying something that seems to be a relatively common meme in this community. Summary: The fact that conflict is costly for all the agents involved in the conflict, ex post, doesn't itself imply AGIs won't end up in conflict. Under their uncertainty about each other, agents with sufficiently extreme preferences or priors might find the risk of conflict worth it ex ante. (more) Solutions to collective action problems, where agents agree on a Pareto-optimal outcome they'd take if they coordinated to do so, don't necessarily solve bargaining problems, where agents may insist on different Pareto-optimal outcomes. (more) We don't have strong reasons to expect AGIs to converge on sufficiently similar decision procedures for bargaining, such that they coordinate on fair demands despite committing under uncertainty. Existing proposals for mitigating conflict given incompatible demands, while promising, face some problems with incentives and commitment credibility. (more) The commitment races problem is not just about AIs making commitments that fail to account for basic contingencies. Updatelessness (or conditional commitments generally) seems to solve the latter, but it doesn't remove agents' incentives to limit how much their decisions depend on each other's decisions (leading to incompatible demands). (more) AIs don't need to follow acausal decision theories in order to (causally) cooperate via conditioning on each other's source code. (more) Most supposed examples of Newcomblike problems in everyday life don't seem to actually be Newcomblike, once we account for "screening off" by certain information, per the Tickle Defense. (more) The fact that following acausal decision theories maximizes expected utility with respect to conditional probabilities, or counterfactuals with the possibility of logical causation, doesn't imply that agents with acausal decision theories are selected for (e.g., acquire more material resources). (more) Ex post optimal =/= ex ante optimal An "ex post optimal" strategy is one that in fact makes an agent better off than the alternatives, while an "ex ante optimal" strategy is optimal with respect to the agent's uncertainty at the time they choose that strategy. The idea that very smart AGIs could get into conflicts seems intuitively implausible because conflict is, by definition, ex post Pareto-suboptimal. (See the "inefficiency puzzle of war.") But it doesn't follow that the best strategies available to AGIs given their uncertainty about each other will always be ex post Pareto-optimal. This may sound obvious, but my experience with seeing people's reactions to the problem of AGI conflict suggests that many of them haven't accounted for this important distinction. As this post discusses in more detail, there are two fundamental sources of u...

In this lesson we go through a great series of Spanish questions and answers that will help to clear up your Spanish confusions. Come and join us and share the moment in the Spanish questions and answers session. Clear up those Spanish confusions! Learn much more about YA here! Join... Read more » The post 76 Beginner More Spanish confusions appeared first on Lightspeed Spanish.

In this episode we are looking at the teaching of Christ-Jesus and His Course in Miracles in regard to demonstrating what we can be immensely grateful for since we experience salvation and see that we are used for this purpose. Jesus teaches in this still early stage of the Course that "everyone makes an ego for himself and one for everyone it perceives." This is about perceptual distortions which are not abstractions, but merely confusions. He talks about "double vision", directs the mind to be patient and guides us the remembrance that "the outcome is as certain as God." He says further on, "Abstraction applies to knowledge. Perception is specific and therefore quite concrete." ◊ We are sharing A Course in Miracles as given in in the Notes correlating with — chapter 4-III.-1-end of the Complete & Annotated Edition, published in FIP-Edition as chapter 4–II-1-5, and parts of the daily Lesson of the Workbook — ACIM-Reflections (81).YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erGOw2bTFFw

Pags Analyzes Joe Biden's Speech: Exposing Fabrications and Confusions. PLUS - Biden's Recognizes His 7th Grandchild: A Significant Family Moment Suspiciously in the Spotlight

 Pags Analyzes Joe Biden's Speech: Exposing Fabrications and Confusions. PLUS - Biden's Recognizes His 7th Grandchild: A Significant Family Moment Suspiciously in the Spotlight   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

 Pags Analyzes Joe Biden's Speech: Exposing Fabrications and Confusions. PLUS - Biden's Recognizes His 7th Grandchild: A Significant Family Moment Suspiciously in the Spotlight   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Renzo Llorente engages with contemporary advocates of Democratic Socialism and argues that they ultimately fail to demarcate between liberal and socialist visions of democracy, resulting in capitulation to the liberal status quo.  Read By: Will Intro Music: ворожное озеро Гроза vwqp remix Outro Music: We are Friends Forever performed by Felix Dzerzhinsky Guards Regiment.

Magpies and crows in Europe are incorporating metal anti-bird spikes into their nests to keep other birds away. Laura finds this doubly "ironic," reminding us we're all in this together. The Eurasian Magpie recording was made by [Uku Paal](https://xeno-canto.org/contributor/XIBLXHRPJO).

Brian and Cole talk about working on Uh Huh 3 together ahead of its run at Oran Mor, Glasgow. Plus a healthy dose of comedy and panto chat for good measure. The post Confusions of Grandeur appeared first on Putting it Together.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Munk AI debate: confusions and possible cruxes, published by Steven Byrnes on June 27, 2023 on LessWrong. There was a debate on the statement “AI research and development poses an existential threat” (“x-risk” for short), with Max Tegmark and Yoshua Bengio arguing in favor, and Yann LeCun and Melanie Mitchell arguing against. The YouTube link is here, and a previous discussion on this forum is here. The first part of this blog post is a list of five ways that I think the two sides were talking past each other. The second part is some apparent key underlying beliefs of Yann and Melanie, and how I might try to change their minds. While I am very much on the “in favor” side of this debate, I didn't want to make this just a “why Yann's and Melanie's arguments are all wrong” blog post. OK, granted, it's a bit of that, especially in the second half. But I hope people on the “anti” side will find this post interesting and not-too-annoying. Five ways people were talking past each other 1. Treating efforts to solve the problem as exogenous or not This subsection doesn't apply to Melanie, who rejected the idea that there is any existential risk in the foreseeable future. But Yann suggested that there was no existential risk because we will solve it; whereas Max and Yoshua argued that we should acknowledge that there is an existential risk so that we can solve it. By analogy, fires tend not to spread through cities because the fire department and fire codes keep them from spreading. Two perspectives on this are: If you're an outside observer, you can say that “fires can spread through a city” is evidently not a huge problem in practice. If you're the chief of the fire department, or if you're developing and enforcing fire codes, then “fires can spread through a city” is an extremely serious problem that you're thinking about constantly. I don't think this was a major source of talking-past-each-other, but added a nonzero amount of confusion. 2. Ambiguously changing the subject to “timelines to x-risk-level AI”, or to “whether large language models (LLMs) will scale to x-risk-level AI” The statement under debate was “AI research and development poses an existential threat”. This statement does not refer to any particular line of AI research, nor any particular time interval. The four participants' positions in this regard seemed to be: Max and Yoshua: Superhuman AI might happen in 5-20 years, and LLMs have a lot to do with why a reasonable person might believe that. Yann: Human-level AI might happen in 5-20 years, but LLMs have nothing to do with that. LLMs have fundamental limitations. But other types of ML research could get there—e.g. my (Yann's) own research program. Melanie: LLMs have fundamental limitations, and Yann's research program is doomed to fail as well. The kind of AI that might pose an x-risk will absolutely not happen in the foreseeable future. (She didn't quantify how many years is the “foreseeable future”.) It seemed to me that all four participants (and the moderator!) were making timelines and LLM-related arguments, in ways that were both annoyingly vague, and unrelated to the statement under debate. (If astronomers found a giant meteor projected to hit the earth in the year 2123, nobody would question the use of the term “existential threat”, right??) As usual (see my post AI doom from an LLM-plateau-ist perspective), this area was where I had the most complaints about people “on my side”, particularly Yoshua getting awfully close to conceding that under-20-year timelines are a necessary prerequisite to being concerned about AI x-risk. (I don't know if he literally believes that, but I think he gave that impression. Regardless, I strongly disagree, more on which later.) 3. Vibes-based “meaningless arguments” I recommend in the strongest possible terms that ...

There was a debate on the statement “AI research and development poses an existential threat” (“x-risk” for short), with Max Tegmark and Yoshua Bengio arguing in favor, and Yann LeCun and Melanie Mitchell arguing against. The YouTube link is here, and a previous discussion on this forum is here.The first part of this blog post is a list of five ways that I think the two sides were talking past each other. The second part is some apparent key underlying beliefs of Yann and Melanie, and how I might try to change their minds.[1]While I am very much on the “in favor” side of this debate, I didn't want to make this just a “why Yann's and Melanie's arguments are all wrong” blog post. OK, granted, it's a bit of that, especially in the second half. But I hope people on the “anti” side will find this post interesting and not-too-annoying.Five ways people were talking past each other1. Treating efforts to solve the problem as exogenous or notThis subsection doesn't apply to Melanie, who rejected the idea that there is any existential risk in the foreseeable future. But Yann suggested that there was no existential risk because we will solve it; whereas Max and Yoshua argued that we should acknowledge that there is an existential risk so that we can solve it.By analogy, fires tend not to spread through cities because the fire department and fire codes keep them from spreading. Two perspectives on this are:If you're an outside observer, you can say that “fires can spread through a city” is evidently not a huge problem in practice.If you're the chief of the fire department, or if you're developing and enforcing fire codes, then “fires can spread through a city” is an extremely serious problem that you're thinking about constantly.I don't think this was a major source of talking-past-each-other, but added a nonzero amount of confusion.2. Ambiguously changing the subject to “timelines to x-risk-level AI”, or to “whether large language models (LLMs) will scale to x-risk-level AI”The statement under debate was “AI research and development poses an existential threat”. This statement does not refer to any particular line of AI research, nor any particular time interval. The four participants' positions in this regard seemed to be:Max and Yoshua: Superhuman AI might happen in 5-20 years, and LLMs have a lot to do with why a reasonable person might believe that.Yann: Human-level AI might happen in 5-20 years, but LLMs have nothing to do with that. LLMs have fundamental limitations. But other types of ML research could get there—e.g. my (Yann's) own research program.Melanie: LLMs have fundamental limitations, and Yann's research program is doomed to fail as well. The kind of AI that might pose an x-risk will absolutely not happen in the foreseeable future. (She didn't quantify how many years is the “foreseeable future”.)It seemed to me that all four participants (and the moderator!) were making timelines and LLM-related arguments, in ways that were both annoyingly vague, and unrelated to the statement under debate.(If astronomers found a [...]--- First published: June 27th, 2023 Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/LEEcSn4gt7nBwBghk/munk-ai-debate-confusions-and-possible-cruxes --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. Share feedback on this narration.

Les assistants vocaux sont-ils de vilains mouchards, comme l'affirment certains ? C'est une question importante mais encore faut-il ne pas raconter n'importe quoi.  Récemment, un pseudo "lanceur d'alerte" alertait sur une possible "surveillance généralisée" via l'assistant intelligent Siri d'Apple. Entre raccourcis, confusions et suppositions hasardeuses, on a du mal à y voir clair. Cela mérite quelques explications. 

This conversation was recorded May 24, 2023 as a Gaslit Nation live taping and includes at the end a Q&A of questions dropped in the chat by our audience. Thank you to everyone who joined us!   Can Florida, and with it, the rest of our democracy be saved? Or is Florida destined to be an authoritarian cesspool under Brooks Brother Viktor Orbán – Ron DeSantis? In this special solution-rich episode of Gaslit Nation, author David Pepper discusses his latest book Saving Democracy: A User's Manual for Every American.   David shares important lessons from the upset of Jacksonville's mayoral race; why Florida's Democratic Party State Chair Nikki Fried could give DeSantis a run for his money, and we discuss how Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota have their acts together while New York's Democratic Party remains stuck under Jay Jacobs who handed the House to Kevin McCarthy, bringing the American and therefore the global economy to the brink. (Elections have consequences, which is why Jay Jacobs must be replaced – join the movement here!)   If you're stuck in a so-called blue state like New York that's failing due to machine politics and complacency, or if you live in a fascist-gerrymandered hostage state known as a red state, this discussion has concrete steps you can take to empower your community. Local elections are the frontlines of our democracy, no matter where you live. And none of us are in this battle alone. Thank you to everyone who joined our live taping with David Pepper. Be sure to check out his book Saving Democracy. If you would like to join a future live taping of Gaslit Nation, be sure to support the show at the Truth-teller level or higher. And to submit questions for our regular Q&As, sign up at the Democracy Defender level or higher. We'll be back with an all new Q&A this coming Friday so stay tuned! Thank you to everyone who supports the show – we could not make Gaslit Nation without you!   Show Notes:   Our May song feature is “Paper Thin” by Confusions. You can find more of Confusions' music on Bandcamp at confusions.bandcamp.com   To submit your song to the Gaslit Nation Make Art Challenge, send us your music here. Thank you!

Be sure to check out and subscribe to GirlsLoveTalk on YouTube! ❤️ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/taylormaree/support

Inner Engineering is a comprehensive course for personal growth that brings about a shift in the way you perceive and experience your life, your work, and the world that you live in. isha.co/ieo-podcast  Conscious Planet: https://www.consciousplanet.org  Sadhguru App (Download): https://onelink.to/sadhguru__app  Official Sadhguru Website: https://isha.sadhguru.org  Sadhguru Exclusive: https://isha.sadhguru.org/in/en/sadhguru-exclusive  Yogi, mystic and visionary, Sadhguru is a spiritual master with a difference. An arresting blend of profundity and pragmatism, his life and work serves as a reminder that yoga is a contemporary science, vitally relevant to our times.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Inner Engineering is a comprehensive course for personal growth that brings about a shift in the way you perceive and experience your life, your work, and the world that you live in. isha.co/ieo-podcast  Conscious Planet: https://www.consciousplanet.org  Sadhguru App (Download): https://onelink.to/sadhguru__app  Official Sadhguru Website: https://isha.sadhguru.org  Sadhguru Exclusive: https://isha.sadhguru.org/in/en/sadhguru-exclusive  Yogi, mystic and visionary, Sadhguru is a spiritual master with a difference. An arresting blend of profundity and pragmatism, his life and work serves as a reminder that yoga is a contemporary science, vitally relevant to our times.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This episode was inspired by my recent discovery and purchase of an Encyclopedia Britannica. It's a fascinating collection of knowledge and I highly recommend finding some volumes and reading them. This is the Bach article appearing in the EB from as early as 1926 even until the 1960s, written by D.F. Tovey.  We also listen to fugue BWV 959, very early, very wild, very W.T.F. in unequal temperament.  More episodes on the way! Spread the love! -- LINKS: The text of the Borges story I mentioned Donald Francis Tovey (author of the article I read) The archived scan of a 1926 Encyclopedia Britannica volume containing, "Bach, J.S. Homepage of the EB: https://www.britannica.com -- Support us: https://www.patreon.com/wtfbach https://www.paypal.me/wtfbach https://venmo.com/wtfbach https://cash.app/$wtfbach   Complaints? Confusions? Write us: bach (at) wtfbach (dot) com

Sadhguru talks about love and what is really means. More wisdom, join us in your favorite social media.. Tiktok : https://www.tiktok.com/@sadhguruji Snapchat : @sadhgurustory Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/sadhgurustory/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/sadhgurustory/message

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: You are probably not a good alignment researcher, and other blatant lies, published by junk heap homotopy on February 2, 2023 on LessWrong. When people talk about research ability, a common meme I keep hearing goes something like this: Someone who would become a great alignment researcher will probably not be stopped by Confusions about a Thorny Technical Problem X that's Only Obvious to Someone Who Did the Right PhD. Someone who would become a great alignment researcher will probably not have Extremely Hairy But Also Extremely Common Productivity Issue Y. Someone who would become...great...would probably not have Insecurity Z that Everyone in the Audience Secretly Has. What is the point of telling anyone any of these? If I were being particularly uncharitable, I'd guess the most obvious explanation that it's some kind of barely-acceptable status play, kind of like the budget version of saying "Are you smarter than Paul Christiano? I didn't think so." Or maybe I'm feeling a bit more generous today so I'll think that it's Wittgenstein's Ruler, a convoluted call for help pointing out the insecurities that the said person cannot admit to themselves. But this is LessWrong and it's not customary to be so suspicious of people's motivations, so let's assume that it's just an honest and pithy way of communicating the boundaries of hard-to-articulate internal models. First of all, what model? Most people here believe some form of biodeterminism. That we are not born tabula rasa, that our genes influence the way we are, that the conditions in our mother's womb can and do often snowball into observable differences when we grow up. But the thing is, these facts do not constitute a useful causal model of reality. IQ, aka (a proxy for) the most important psychometric construct ever discovered and most often the single biggest predictor of outcomes in a vast number of human endeavours, is not a gears-level model. Huh? Suppose it were, and it were the sole determinant of performance in any mentally taxing field. Take two mathematicians with the exact same IQ. Can you tell me who would go on to become a number theorist vs an algebraic topologist? Can you tell me who would over-rely on forcing when disentangling certain logic problems? Can you tell me why Terrence Tao hasn't solved the Riemann hypothesis yet? There is so much more that goes into becoming a successful scientist than can be distilled in a single number it's not even funny. Even if said number means a 180 IQ scientist is more likely to win a Nobel than a 140 IQ nobody. Even if said number means it's a safer bet to just skim the top 10 of whatever the hell the modern equivalent of the SMPY is than to take a chance on some rando on the other side of the world who is losing sleep on the problem. But okay, sure. Maybe approximately no one says that it's just IQ. Nobody on LessWrong is so naïve as to have a simple model with no caveats so: let's say it's not just IQ but some other combo of secret sauces. Maybe there's like eight variables that together form a lognormal distribution. Then the question becomes: how the hell is your human behaviour predicting machine so precise that you're able to say with abject confidence what can exclude someone from doing important work? Do you actually have a set of values in mind for each of these sliders, for your internal model of which kinds of people alone can do useful research? Did you actually go out there and measure which of the people on this page have which combinations of factors? I think the biggest harm that comes from making this kind of claim is that, like small penis discourse (WARNING: CW) there's a ton of collateral damage done when you say it out loud that I think far outweighs whatever clarity the listeners gain. I mean, what's the chain of thought gonna be for the oth...

Host Karen Blaine confirms the rules around boundaries, the goalkeeper being allowed to carry the ball into the goal circle, and offsides. She also makes a critical correction to the new rule change regarding the restraining line. Lastly, she clarifies confusion around three questions from the 2023 NFHS rules exam. 

Hour 2: Keith talks about the Mets pursuit of Carlos Correa and the Jets Quarterback conversation. Plus some NFL talk about the new Sunday Ticket move to YouTube.

For the final Stall It over the year Joe uncovers yet more gaps in Darren's cover as a real human being, while between them they get lost down a rabbithole of graveyard holograms and 10,000 rental deals. We also have an excerpt from our recording with Killian Sundermann, in which Killian enlightens us on how he's gentrifying Joe's old area, and there's a review of Killian's show stealing turn in Free Gaff.

More than simply, “in tune” or “out of tune” a temperament is a solution to the ancient problem of creating a circle out of a spiral. By the time Bach had his shake at this problem, the musical world had advanced far enough, setting the stage for his great mind to create a well-tempered solution that allowed him to compose in all 24 keys. Not all keys sound the same in the vast majority of temperaments, in fact, in only our modern equal-tempered one do we find all keys equal. Does our insistence on this system destroy the whole point of temperament? Or is it the most perfect arrangement of tones?  Plus:  -Actually listen to a pythagorean comma, the root of the problem... -The circle of (pure) fifths -Bach chorales in different temperaments -The Art of Fugue, 6th fugue in a funky temperament   Try the frequencies experiment yourself!  Pull up multiple windows on: https://onlinetonegenerator.com   Support us: https://www.patreon.com/wtfbach https://www.paypal.me/wtfbach https://venmo.com/wtfbach https://cash.app/$wtfbach   Complaints? Confusions? Want to sponsor us? Write us: bach (at) wtfbach (dot) com  

How much more famous can music be than that one Prelude in C? The Prelude BWV 846, the first prelude in the Well-Tempered Clavier, is heard everywhere, but why? How? What purpose could such a piece have served in Bach's day? We discuss two early, shorter versions of the prelude, and one erroneous version with an inauthentic bar (the 'Schwenke measure' - be on the look out if your copy has 36 bars and not 35!) Answering, "How has this prelude influenced musicians even today?" we explore modern versions by John K. Stone, Elaine Comparone, my challenge to Brad Mehldau, and invert this prelude (and a few others) note for note to hear the 'photo negative'.  Links: 'Jesu Joy' in a Japanese Forest (Cell Phone Ad) John K. Stone's 'Fantasy on a Bach Prelude' Elaine Comparone's version of the same prelude   As always: Thank you for listening! Support us: https://www.patreon.com/wtfbach https://www.paypal.me/wtfbach https://venmo.com/wtfbach https://cash.app/$wtfbach   Got suggestions? Complaints? Confusions? Want to sponsor an episode? Write us: bach (at) wtfbach (dot) com

This week Steve picked a bunch of songs about air travel.  You know, flying in a plane or a helicopter.  Lots of great songs from these artists: 20/20, Pulsars, Receiver, Blondie, The Last Shadow Puppets, Fountains of Wayne, Guster, The Confusions, New Order, Led Zeppelin, The Motors, Cast, Stiff Little Fingers, XTC. On the Air on Bedford 105.1 FM Radio      *** 5pm Friday ***      *** 10am Sunday ***      *** 8pm Monday *** Stream live at http://209.95.50.189:8178/stream Stream on-demand most recent episodes at https://wbnh1051.podbean.com/category/suburban-underground/ And available on demand on your favorite podcast app! Twitter: @SUBedford1051  ***    Facebook: SuburbanUndergroundRadio   ***    Instagram: SuburbanUnderground   ***     

In this episode, I share an amazing interview with Emily Laidlaw. We're talking about letter confusion - what it is and how to address it at home! Emily has worked in private and public schools in various capacities, including as program director for students with learning differences and as a reading interventionist. She's tutored in person and online for several years now. She has a passion for providing efficient and effective instruction to help students achieve success. And, Emily strives to help other tutors, teachers, and parents do the same! Tune in to this episode for an in-depth explanation of what letter confusion is, what it means for your child, and the best tips for how you can help your child overcome it! Books & Resources Mentioned in This Episode: King Bidgood's in the Bathtub by Audrey Wood Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson Swiss Family Robinson by Johann David Wyss Fox in Socks by Dr. Seuss If you want more from Emily, you can check her out here. You can also follow her on Facebook, YouTube, TpT, and Instagram. If you'd like to support this podcast in a small way, you can do so here. Please know that any support you can offer is so very much appreciated! If you want to follow me on social media I can be found at the following links: Facebook, Instagram, and Pinterest Or check out my website at Your Reading Tutor for more reading resources and support! And don't forget to get my FREE Reading Rewards System and get your kids excited about reading today! Music from this podcast was used with permission from Epidemic Sound. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/thereadingproject/support

Watch the extended conversation here: https://www.patreon.com/theroommates Women Shares The Biggest Confusions About Men Today Follow Annalise on Instagram here: https://www.instagram.com/drbabyivy Follow Brittney on Instagram here: https://instagram.com/brittanyhbunch This week we are proud to bring you another episode of our new show, which we don't have a name for just yet. The idea is to continue to have conversations with women all around the world from different backgrounds, experiences and perspectives. The goal is to create a healthier society and to remove the animosity between men and women so we can learn how to talk with one another and not at one another. We are joined this week by Annalise and Brittney to discuss the biggest confusions about men today. If you want to watch the additional conversation you can sign up for Patreon via the link below Get the manhood course here: https://roommatesshop.com Sign up for Patreon here: https://www.patreon.com/theroommates