AEsheron @ AEsheron @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

208

Joined

2 yr. ago

My go to recently has been some solitair.

Nobody wants to deal with the short term issues it raises, aside from the moral police issue. Legalizing it actually increases trafficking in the legalized area, while reducing it in a larger area outside the legal one. This only happens because it's an island of legality, if it was legal everywhere then trafficking would drop much more everywhere. But Nobody wants to invite the temporary increase by being the first. Germany, for example, has higher sex trafficking than most of Europe. It also ignore the difficulty of regulation, there's a reason it is so prevalent, even where illegal. There is always going to be a strong pressure on vulnerable women, and enforcing the regulations can be incredibly difficult.

That's not to say it shouldn't be legalized. But these are the challenges it faces.

Could be an issue for some kind of universal translator that has a hard time with proper boundaries that are also regular nouns.

Nick was supposedly fired for failing to meet goals, goals he was apparently never informed that he should be targeting.

I've read there is a lot of contention among doctors of whether you should fight a fever or not, with a lot of literature for and against it. My intuition is that, like most symptoms, it is probably best to live with it as best you can without taking meds to reducing it. But if it is causing you to have issues doing activities that will help you recover like sleeping, eating, etc, then to treat it.

Most headaches are caused by blood sugar imbalance, which in turn are often caused by changes in diet or sleep habits, and/or dehydration. If the meals help then yours may tend to be from low blood sugar.

The real answer is to vote local, get involved, if there are no good options run or find a decent person who is capable of running. Either way, support the campaigns of those decent options, do a little volunteering. Change happens from the ground up. Changing the whole system at once is impossible, slowly spreading change from the local level shows other disenfranchised voters there is a chance, and it picks up momentum from there.

In addition to that, I've heard that a large portion of that R&D spending is on iterating drugs they already own so that when the patent runs out they can patent a new version and lobby the old one to be made obsolete so generics can't be made.

Technically it does work for 6, more literally, still aiming for 3, not 6. That's half of it, if the starting number is even and divisible by 3 then it is also divisible by 6.

Holy shit, some nice news from NH. Seems like it's been a while since we were in the news for anything other than an embarrassment or the election.

Because one is a black box that very well may just be a much more advanced version of what current AI does. We don't know yet. It's possible that with the training of trillions of trillions of moments of experience a person has that an AI may be comparable.

I mean, the likelihood is basically zero, but it's impossible to prove the negative. At the end of the day, our brains are just messy turing machines with a lot of built in shortcuts. The only things that set us apart is how much more complicated they are, and how much more training data we provide it. Unless we can crack consciousness, it's very possible some day in the future we will build an incredibly rudimentary AGI without even realizing that it works the same way we do, scaled down. But without truly knowing how our own brain works fully, how can we begin to claim it does or doesn't work like something else?

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how AI works. It does not shred the art and recreate things with the pieces. It doesn't even store the art in the algorithm. One of the biggest methods right now is basically taking an image of purely random pixels. You show it a piece of art with a whole lot of tags attached. It then semi-randomly changes pixel colors until it matches the training image. That set of instructions is associated with the tags, and the two are combined into a series of tiny weights that the randomizer uses. Then the next image modifies the weights. Then the next, then the next. It's all just teeny tiny modifications to random number generation. Even if you trained an AI on only a single image, it would be almost impossible for it to produce it again perfectly because each generation starts with a truly (as truly as a computer can get, an unweighted) random image of pixels. Even if you force fed it the same starting image of noise that it trained on, it is still only weighting random numbers and still probably won't create the original art, though it may be more or less undistinguishable at a glance.

AI is just another tool. Like many digital art tools before it, it has been maligned from the start. But the truth is what it produces is the issue, not how. Stealing others' art by manually reproducing it or using AI is just as bad. Using art you're familiar with to inspire your own creation, or using an AI trained on known art to make your own creation, should be fine.

Do you actually think artists using AI tools just type shit into the input and output decent art? It's still just a new, stronger digital tool. Many previous tools have been demonized, claiming they trivialize the work and people who used them were called hacks and lazy. Over time they get normalized.

And as far as training data being considered stealing IP, I don't buy it. I don't think anyone who's actually looked into what the training process is and understands it properly would either. For IP concerns, the output should be the only meaningful measure. It's just as shitty to copy art manually as it is to copy it with AI. Just because an AI used an art piece in training doesn't mean it infringed until someone tries to use it to copy it. Which, agreed, is a super shitty thing to do. But again, it's a tool, how it's used is more important than how it's made.

There isn't really much about eternal torture or damnation back when Satan was still an agent of God, and he certainly wasn't in charge of Hell. All the talk of gnashing teeth and lakes of fire was originally metaphor for how much it sucked, not literal.

Hell isn't a place, it's a state of complete lack of Grace. The idea is that everyone has a 2 way connection to God, and all good feelings and emotions must come from it. People are free to reject that connection by committing mortal sin, but "the line stays open," as long as someone lives. Honest repentance is accepting the connection back. If one dies before accepting grace again, God shrugs and accepts they aren't interested, and cuts his side of the line. This leaves an existence with zero positive thoughts or feelings, best case scenario is eternal meh. Of course, it was hyped up to be awful to help convert and maintain control. And, ofcourse, Satan did do a bit of torture here and there, but it was generally all on living folk to test them.

My favorite is the gif of the skubbah diver with a lassear beam on their frickin head.

There's a lot of interesting ethical concerns about the Borg Collevtive. It's easy to think of it as some big, alien, external force that erases minds and uses the bodies as flesh puppets. But that isn't how they're described at all. The people are all still there, that big scary intelligence is made up from merging all their minds together. Obviously, the consent issue is problematic, and we know people generally find it horrific when they are freed. But the fact is, the majority of the Hivemind apparently don't mind, the hive mind is made up from the gestalt of the individuals, and that is the only thing keeping individuals from leaving.

Lawful>chaotic isn't about better>worse. If anything, using the gear that came with the product is the definition of lawful in this context. Lawful is more about following the expectations of society. That's not the full meaning, but close enough for this post. If anything, I would swap true neutral and chaotic neutral.

As a fan of both, neither are truly Sci-fi. They both use it as dressing, but one is an action fantasy and the other is drama with emphasis on social commentary. Neither are really harder sci-fi than the other in the grand scheme of fiction. Star Wars may even be a bit better in that at least they don't try to explain most of the tech so it can't self contradict as much as Trek does.

Don't forget they had previously been ordered several times to reduce the temperature and refused.

And is that a.... Lego brick?