I agree for the most part. I would like to point out that fish farms are actually very damaging to the ecosystems that they sit in. The excrement ends up dropping down in single locations, burying the seafloor in it. IIRC, this often leads to the oxygen levels in the water dropping, which further kills off the surrounding aquatic life.
EDIT: more context
I don’t think many would accept their gardens being pilfered either, though they might be more accepting if that’s how they paid rent.
You’re correct, we do. We all assist the operation of this war machine. It may not be in our control, but that does not nullify it. We bloody our hands to live instead of choosing to die, and we are all culpable to an extent for it. Some more than others, though.
People in all societies have to ignore a multitude of moral contradictions in order to live normal lives. That is the manufactured consent all states impose upon their people.
Would this not disqualify any mixed color? We only have receptors for three colors, and if we’re arguing that purple isn’t a color because it’s actually two mixed together, that should also mean colors like orange, yellow, cyan, magenta, atc are also not colors by that definition right?
404 not found lmao
True, I would say that there’s multiple issues dealing with AI that are more pressing:
These aren’t all of them. One thing I’ve noticed, however, is that these aren’t really AI-specific issues - these are all issues caused by automation and lack of regulation. This lack of proactive regulation is also very likely a failing of our currently neoliberal government systems.
I think that is why so many AI hype-mongers draw attention towards A(G)I safety, because they don’t want attention drawn to the actual danger which is automation safety in general.
Alright, I see what you’re saying now. We’re on the same page.
As an additional thing regarding AGI, I think it should be noted that ‘human-level’ and ‘human-like’ are importantly distinct when talking about this topic.
In reality, if an AGI is ever created, it will most likely not be human-like at all. Humans think the way we do out of an evolutionary conditioning for survival, a history an AGI will not be coming from. One example given by Robert Miles is a staple making machine becoming an ASI, where it essentially would exist solely to make as many staples as it could with its hyperintelligence.
We mean to say that this AGI is a ‘human-level’ intelligence in that it can learn to utilize abstractions and tools, be able to function in a large variety of environments without intervention or training, and be able to learn in a realtime fashion.
Obviously, these criteria for any AI shows just how far away we are from achieving anything right now.these concepts are very vague and the arguments for each one’s impossibility or inevitability are equally vague and philosophical. It’s still mostly just stuffy academics arguing with each other.
One statement I agree with, though, comes from the AI safety collective: We don’t know what we’re doing, and we should really sort that out. If any of this is actually possible and we accidentally make an AGI/ASI before having any failsafes or contingencies, it could be very bad.
I am not bait-and-switching here. The switchers were the business-minded grifters which made the term synonymous with LLMs and eventually destroyed its meaning completely.
The definition I gave is from the most popular and widely used CS textbook on AI and has been the meaning used in the field since the early 90s. It’s why videogame NPCs are always called AI, because they fit the conventional CS definition, and were one of the major things it was about the most.
As for your ‘1’, AI is a wide-but-very-specialized field and pertains from everything from robots to text autocomplete. If you want the most out of it, you need to get down into the nitty gritty and really research the field.
On a Seperate note, while AI safety, AGI, and the risk of the intelligence explosion are somewhat related to computer science’s pursuit of AI systems, they are much more philosophical currently, and adhere to much vaguer definitions of AI, Such as Alan Turing’s.
IIRC, within computer science, which is the field most heavily driving AI design and research forward, an ‘intelligent agent’ is essentially defined as any ‘agent’ which takes external stimulai from a collection of sensors in some form of environment, processes that stimulai in a dynamic fashion (one of the criteria IIRC is a branching decision tree based on the stimulai), and then applies that processing to a collection of affectors in the environment.
Yes, this definition is an extremely low bar and includes a massive amount of code, software and scripts. It also includes basic natural intelligences such as worms, ants, amoeba, and even viruses. One example of mechanical AI are some of Theo Jansen’s StrandBeasts
Right on the money. One of the big things with AI safety is “we have no fucking clue how AGI can originate so we are constantly in the dark.” If we ever did create it, we likely would not immediately know it was AGI, and that creation could go very terribly in a number of ways.
It’s just an absurd premise.
Researchers are specialists in their fields and have carved out an academic niche. They study a single thing for years at a time before publishing a paper, and the process of studying anything is brutally methodical and likely quite often boring until you maybe discover something. It’s then boring again as you write your paper on your work, regardless of whether it discovered something or not.
All of a sudden, your co-researcher just turns to you and goes “Fuck it. Let’s research something else tonight. Something fun as a treat”.
literally says: baseline is the average from 1991 to 2020, and the data is from ERA5.
For linux users, you can add it to Steam as a nonsteam game for proton support and add the .NET 8.0 runtime environment using the explorer app in protontricks. It runs great via that method.
I’d argue Hanlon’s razor is not a very good heuristic. It ultimately presupposes the user of it is the mental superior in the situation, and does not take into account polarized and ambiguous controversies. It also encourages energy wasting by presupposing the issue lies with mental capacity or education, suggesting that you could educate your opponent out of their stance.
I’d recommend moving towards more energy-conserving practices. Rather than arguing your points directly, it’s better to first understand why the opposition would be taking their current stance and adjust your argument based on what common ground you both share.
Possibly the greatest skill is to just learn when it’s no longer worth your time to argue with them.
What’s a smog?
It not a massive gap like that, but it’s tall enough and far enough away that 99.9% of people who try, fall.
Gimme an ASCII character for it. We can replace the bitcoin character with it
I am not following what you mean by “this” when you’re asking about what I’m advocating.
In explicit terms, my understanding is that Leninists and similar ideologies believe that humanity is in its capitalist phase, and that the next phase is communism. That is what I mean when I say that they believe a revolution in the US is good for humanity.
I don’t feel good about the impact of the US being dismantled, nor do I feel good about any western nation being dismantled. I don’t think anyone has a full clue what the US collapsing would cause, but I think it would cause catastophe. I am not advocating dismantling, if that’s what you think.
I expect downvotes, but I figure thinking out loud about online discourse can be healthy to the general community and so I’m gonna do so.
The real issue here is not the fate of Gaza, I think. I believe that in reality, your failure is choosing not to be apart of the revolution that aims to dismantle the US government - the only way these groups view Gaza has any chance of being saved (by “this group” I’m referring to the condemners, who I suspect are Leninists and similar idealogues). Saying this openly is currently outside of the Overton window in the US still, since a majority Americans are uninterested in actually fighting and dying for a new system. Instead, they just imply it, or condemn stances that constrain to the status quo.
IMO, Such a revolution would need to happen within Israel for it to halt the genocide, and a revolution in US would fail to impact the Israeli government quickly enough to actually save Gaza.
Your individual likelihood of becoming fodder against police, and eventually the US military itself, is also ignored. The revolution itself is for the greater good of mankind in their eyes, and thus your life by itself is inconsequential.
Probably should be directly shutting down this call for joining the revolution rather than trying to appeal to reason - or explicitly state how you’re participating.
Overall, I think that the holy week riots demonstrated how effective violent protest can be and that something like that happening again could be good for the US. I’m aware how extreme that statement will seem to some, but the fact that the fair housing act was passed in a week should really show just how effective that kind of violent action can be, and that we shouldn’t rule it out.
At the same time though, I understand that many leftists currently are doing what they can to leverage the system to their advantage. This is not out of indoctrination, IMO, but because they have a respect for the lives of those immediately around them - they understand the alternative is sending a large portion of those around them to their die for a cause and they can’t conscionably do that. I couldn’t do that either, and I’m gonna respect how they’re operating currently and try to help how I am able.
I could see this being directly out of someone’s personal copy, in which case it’s most likely highlighted for if they revisit.