Leate_Wonceslace

Leate_Wonceslace , 11 hours ago

I came here following the breadcrumbs from this account complaining about the "anti-Israel sentiment on lemmy". This isn't what I was expecting, but I'm not shocked.

Leate_Wonceslace , 2 days ago

It completely tracks b/c MLs can't do math as a consequence of their inability to reason.

Leate_Wonceslace , 3 days ago

No one is pretending that Biden is any good. Lots of people are pretending that he's no better than Trump.

Leate_Wonceslace , 3 days ago

If anyone is wondering, look up "cloaca".

Leate_Wonceslace , 6 days ago

Based anime set theorist.

Leate_Wonceslace , 6 days ago

But maximums are only guaranteed to be represented by a unique element in in total orderings.

Edit: also, infinite sets might not necessarily contain an element of their maximum value.

Leate_Wonceslace , 5 days ago

Okay, so Earth exists. This means for a set volume of space (say about the size of the solar system) there is some positive probability that it contains a planet that is indistinguishable from earth. Let's assume the universe is infinite. If we can search an arbitrary volume instantly, our probability for finding a duplicate of earth approaches 1 as our volume increases. This means the probability we will never find a duplicate of earth is exactly 0, which means that we will find a duplicate upon searching a finite volume. Since in our hypothetical the search is instant, we can perform this search again, locating a second duplicate of earth. Following this process, we can locate an arbitrary number of perfect earth duplicates in a finite ammount of time. This means that if Earth arose from natural processes in an infinite universe, there are infinitely many exact duplicates of earth with life that includes specimens genetically identical to humans.

This implies that there is no one gayest person in the universe.

Leate_Wonceslace , 5 days ago

Most of the entertainment comes from the non-obvious corollaries of the intermediate results. For example, every person has infinitely many perfect yet distinct copies that are identical right down to personal histories.

There's more, if you care to take the time to think about them. I was just using the conversation as an excuse to expose more people to the implication.

Leate_Wonceslace , 5 days ago

Please elaborate.

Leate_Wonceslace , 5 days ago

I don't think anyone knows enough about the universe to say whether or not there is infinite variety in macroscopic stuff

There are finitely many particles in the observable universe (that is to say, an infinite number will not fit), and a finite granularity to discern the position of those particles. That means there are finitely many configurations of particles within the volume of the observable universe.

Therefore, there are finitely many discernable things, so in a meaningful sense we can say with confidence that there's a finite variety of macroscopic things.

Leate_Wonceslace , 5 days ago

I'm not sure what you mean by finite granularity.

Are you aware of the plank length? It's the distance less than which which we can no longer determine if 2 things are any closer.

Not quoting you with the reference to a grid.

Don't worry, I understand.

Leate_Wonceslace , 5 days ago

My claim accounts for the possibility that the distances of particles may physically differ by amounts more granular than a plank length. My statement was that they are indiscernable. There are infinite copys of every person more closely identical than the two most similar identical twins. So closely identical that no physically possible device could ever distinguish between them. We cannot know if space is continuous. We simply know that if it is not continuous, it is of granularity as fine or finer than the plank length. So there is a meaningful sense in which there are finitely many macroscopic objects.

Leate_Wonceslace , 6 days ago

it's just expensive

I'm a mathematician who's been following this stuff for about a decade or more. It's not just expensive. Generative neural networks cannot reliably evaluate truth values; it will take time to research how to improve AI in this respect. This is a known limitation of the technology. Closely controlling the training data would certainly make the information more accurate, but that won't stop it from hallucinating.

The real answer is that they shouldn't be trying to answer questions using an LLM, especially because they had a decent algorithm already.

Leate_Wonceslace , 6 days ago

only return results for a specific set of topics.

This is true, but when we're talking about something that limited you'll probably get better results with less work by using human-curated answers rather than generating a reply with an LLM.

Leate_Wonceslace , 6 days ago

Are you talking about epistemics in general or alethiology in particular?

Regardless, the deep philosophical concerns aren't really germain to the practical issue of just getting people to stop falling for obvious misinformation or people being wantonly disingenuous to score points in the most consequential game of numbers-go-up.

Leate_Wonceslace , 5 days ago

Republicans denying basic facts in the oughts. Watching the Democrats burn Sanders. Seeing Trump turn the country into a nightmare. Vaush explaining what a cooperative is. Each event pushed me a little further.

Leate_Wonceslace , 7 days ago

I mean, AI eventually will take our jobs, and with any luck it'll be a good thing when that happens. Just because Chat GPT v3 (or w/e) isn't up to the task doesn't mean v12 won't be.

Leate_Wonceslace , 7 days ago

Considering that the average person would likely give answers slower and less accurately (most people know exactly 0 programming languages), being correct almost half of the time in seconds is a pretty impressive performance.

Leate_Wonceslace , 7 days ago

Yes, that's exactly the scenario we need to avoid. Automated gay space communism would be ideal, but social democracy might do in a pinch. A sufficiently well-designed tax system coupled with a robust welfare system should make the transition survivable, but the danger with making that our goal is allowing the private firms enough political power that they can reverse the changes.

Leate_Wonceslace , 6 days ago (edited 6 days ago)

It suggests to me that AI

This is a fallacy. Specifically, I think you're committing the informal fallacy confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions. That is to say, we know that if we can reliably simulate a human brain, then we can make an artificial sophont (this is true by mere definition). However, we have no idea what the minimum hardware requirements are for a sufficiently optimized program that runs a sapient mind. Note: I am setting aside what the definition of sapience is, because if you ask 2 different people you'll get 20 different answers.

We shouldn't take for granted it's possible.

I'm pulling from a couple decades of philosophy and conservative estimates of the upper limits of what's possible as well as some decently-founded plans on how it's achievable. Suffice it to say, after immersing myself in these discussions for as long as I have I'm pretty thoroughly convinced that AI is not only possible but likely.

The canonical argument goes something like this: if brains are magic, we cannot say if humanlike AI is possible. If brains are not magic, then we know that natural processes can create sapience. Since natural processes can create sapience, it is extraordinarily unlikely that it will prove impossible to create it artificially.

So with our main premise (AI is possible) cogently established, we need to ask the question: "since it's possible, will it be done, and if not why?" There are a great many advantages to AI, and while there are many risks, the barrier of entry for making progress is shockingly low. We are talking about the potential to create an artificial god with all the wonders and dangers that implies. It's like a nuclear weapon if you didn't need to source the uranium; everyone wants to have one, and no one wants their enemy to decide what it gets used for. So everyone has the insensitive to build it (it's really useful) and everyone has a very powerful disincentive to forbidding the research (there's no way to stop everyone who wants to, and so the people who'd listen are the people who would make an AI who'll probably be friendly). So what possible scenario do we have that would mean strong general AI (let alone the simpler things that'd replace everyone's jobs) never gets developed? The answers range from total societal collapse to extinction, which are all worse than a bad transition to full automation.

So either AI steals everyone's job or something worse happens.

Leate_Wonceslace , 6 days ago

You're welcome! I'm always happy to learn someone re-evaluated their position in light of new information that I provided. 🙂

Leate_Wonceslace , 8 days ago

My advice is to leave the crazy person alone.

Leate_Wonceslace , 8 days ago

They're almost certainly a bot. Report them.

Leate_Wonceslace , 7 days ago

I wasn't able to speak 30 years ago. 10 years ago, I was warning people about how AI was going to pose a problem unless we restructured society so automation benefited everyone. Almost 20 years ago I realized private insurance was a scam. Guess what? None of that shit matters. Playing the blame game won't help anyone fix it, but voting can buy us time.

Leate_Wonceslace , 9 days ago

Solid GF candidate.

Leate_Wonceslace , 9 days ago

I'm not picking up on that at all. Why do you think that?

Leate_Wonceslace , 9 days ago

P.much my exact thoughts.

Leate_Wonceslace , 11 days ago

WDYM they clearly said "flags." Who would ignore warning signs, that sounds dangerous!

Leate_Wonceslace , 11 days ago

.ml don't shill for China challenge:

Leate_Wonceslace , 10 days ago

All forms of bigotry are opinions, so yes; there are specific opinions that I get offended by when I see them.

Leate_Wonceslace , 10 days ago

🤨

.ml don't be a fascist challenge.

Leate_Wonceslace , 11 days ago

In my experience, Anarchists and democratic socialists usually get along just fine, so long as they don't argue over semantics. Tankies aren't leftists.

Leate_Wonceslace , 11 days ago

I don't think Libertarian Socialists should try to get along with tankies. I think we should excise them from every project. Not because we fundamentally disagree (we do) but because tankies are simultaneously traitors and an optics nightmare. Furthermore, they're not a large contingent of the population and so they don't really even grant us strong numbers by appealing to them. I'd honestly rather include progressive liberals than tankies because they're less traitorous (because they're usually not part of a personality cult) they're not terrible for optics, our politics have a similar degree of divergence, and they can draw better numbers. Liberals are also less frequently brainwashed and often less politically engaged than tankies, which combined with their frequent love of hearing people out makes it easier to couch our goals in language they find appealing and thus helping them align.

Leate_Wonceslace , 13 days ago

This dude hates attractive women who can't cook.

Leate_Wonceslace , 13 days ago

🫂

Leate_Wonceslace , 15 days ago

sus codpiece

I think you mean luxurious codpiece.

Leate_Wonceslace , 16 days ago

Step 1: hit snooze

Step 2: use the extra time to build dual power and/or electoral reform.

Note: The time to build an alternative to the DNC for 2024 was no less than 4 years ago. The time to start building the coalition for 2028 starts no later than December 2024.

Note: the time to build dual power is any day you can afford the time, acumen, and experiense.

Step 3: hit snooze again.

Voting doesn't change anything. Not voting kills us.

We vote to buy time. We use that time to perform direct action.

These 2 things are not mutually exclusive.

Leate_Wonceslace , 16 days ago

The Republicans use Red B/C lots of Lincoln's supporters read Marx.

Then the parties changed.

Leate_Wonceslace , 13 days ago

I really dont understand americans

Politicians strategically used gun rights as a wedge issue to ensure that the segment of the population with the most guns are more likely to be intensely loyal to the fascist continent of our political class. Furthermore, our law enforcement has more and even bigger guns.

Leate_Wonceslace , 13 days ago

Are you high?

Leate_Wonceslace , 17 days ago

Libertarian Socialism specifies a wide range of systems of political stances that include most if not all forms of Anarchism (excluding AnCaps, if they weren't already), some varieties of democratic socialism, classical libertarianism, etc. It does not include liberalism, laissez-faireism (what some refer to as "libertarianism"), Social democracy, MLism, or any ML-adjacent ideologies.

Leate_Wonceslace , 22 days ago

fringe pariah of the radical left

Tankies aren't leftists, and literally all of Hexbear is full of them. .ml too at this point.

Leate_Wonceslace , 24 days ago

The fact that the company that manages TikTok is insisting on maintaining the power structure that allows for influence by the CCP makes that claim incredibly suspicious.

Leate_Wonceslace , 24 days ago

Y'know Orwell wrote about how warping definitions was a tool of authoritarianism. Typical ML behavior, tbh.

Leate_Wonceslace , 24 days ago

First, that's materially different. Second, yes; I think Facebook giving the government our information without a fight is bad. What, did you think I would suddenly think the dissolution of our privacy was good because it was an American company?

Leate_Wonceslace , 24 days ago (edited 24 days ago)

I feel like you only think a country is a democracy if it says it's a people's republic while it commits genocide.

Leate_Wonceslace , 24 days ago

when the Chinese government serves a subpoena

We're not talking about subpoenas.

Leate_Wonceslace , 24 days ago

Fuck off, tankie.