agamemnonymous

joined 2 years ago
[–] agamemnonymous -3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

There are multiple progressive parties.

Edit: Why the downvotes? This is objectively true. We need one of our existing progressive parties to actually get votes, we don't need another new party to split votes.

[–] agamemnonymous 3 points 1 month ago

Gaming is an absolutely massive economic sector, driven by the escapism of virtual worlds. The functional kernel of the metaverse is a universal game lobby, a place for people to congregate while they navigate between the games they play together.

[–] agamemnonymous 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah I've had rough days and great days, but even the bad ones have been more inconvenient than anything else. The good has more than compensated for the inconvenience

[–] agamemnonymous 4 points 1 month ago

I prefer the flavor that the LHC opened a crack in the multiverse and weird timelines are seeping through

[–] agamemnonymous 4 points 1 month ago

Looks like a yummy meatball, it'll look great on your first spaghetti

[–] agamemnonymous 6 points 1 month ago

An excellent concept with some interesting opportunities, butchered by regressing it to the same kitschy formulaic plotlines as every other uninspiring adult animation show. I don't want Big Bang Theory, I want Twin Peaks.

[–] agamemnonymous 2 points 1 month ago

Voting may "materially affect" the "political landscape", but not voting in protest allows you to feel smugly superior to voters at the low low price of making life worse for yourself and the people you express alliance to.

[–] agamemnonymous 20 points 1 month ago

In what context is there a difference? "Orbit" and "revolve around" are synonyms.

[–] agamemnonymous 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I took Ethics to fulfill a social science requirement, but none of the schools I've gone to required it specifically.

[–] agamemnonymous -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

humans can learn a bunch of stuff without first learning the content of the whole internet and without the computing power of a datacenter or consuming the energy of Belgium. Humans learn to count at an early age too, for example.

I suspect that if you took into consideration the millions of generations of evolution that "trained" the basic architecture of our brains, that advantage would shrink considerably.

I would say that the burden of proof is therefore reversed. Unless you demonstrate that this technology doesn't have the natural and inherent limits that statistical text generators (or pixel) have, we can assume that our mind works differently.

I disagree. I'd argue evidence suggests we're just a more sophisticated version of a similar principle, refined over billions of years. We learn facts by rote, and learn similarities by rote until we develop enough statistical text (or audio) correlations to "understand" the world.

Conversations are a slightly meandering chain of statistically derived cliches. English adjective order is universally "understood" by native speakers based purely on what sounds right, without actually being able to explain why (unless you're a big grammar nerd). More complex conversations might seem novel, but they're just a regurgitation of rote memorized facts and phrases strung together in a way that seems appropriate to the conversation based on statistical experience with past conversations.

Also you say immature technology but this technology is not fundamentally (I.e. in terms of principle) different from what Weizenabum's ELIZA in the '60s. We might have refined model and thrown a ton of data and computing power at it, but we are still talking of programs that use similar principles.

As with the evolution of our brains, which have operated on basically the same principles for hundreds of millions of years. The special sauce between human intelligence and a flatworm's is a refined model.

So yeah, we don't understand human intelligence but we can appreciate certain features that absolutely lack on GPTs, like a concept of truth that for humans is natural.

I'm not sure you can claim that absolutely. That kind of feature is an internal experience, you can't really confirm or deny if a GPT has something similar. Besides, humans have a pretty tenuous relationship with the concept of truth. There are certainly humans that consider objective falsehoods to be Truth.

[–] agamemnonymous 0 points 1 month ago

Yeah, but Lucy has been letting us kick a pretty good portion of them. Dems are abysmal at marketing, but this administration has actually accomplished a decent amount of actual good policy. There are obvious exceptions and shortfalls, but it's not like every single football has been pulled away.

view more: ‹ prev next ›