CarbonIceDragon @ CarbonIceDragon @pawb.social

Posts

2

Comments

1,287

Joined

2 yr. ago

to be fair (not that Trump really deserves the benefit of the doubt at this point), the clip doesnt really make it clear if he's saying they rigged the 2024 election in his favor, or if he's referring again to his conspiracy theories that the 2020 election was rigged against him (with the implication being that he was "supposed" to win the 2020 one and therefore would have been ineligible to run for the 2024-2028 term)

I had usually seen it explained that the genie is somehow magically enslaved into the whole wish granting thing and, as one might expect, quite resentful of that, so finding ways to twist wishes they're forced to grant into something undesirable to the wisher becomes a way to rebel

To be fair, our ancestors, evolutionary speaking, didnt resemble us that much if you go back far enough. A system that just considers a few key features a "child to be protected" is probably more adaptable than if every change in appearance had to be accompanied with a corresponding mutation to whatever gives us our mental picture of what our young should look like, for them to still get taken care of.

Try fresh baked bread right out of the oven. I swear whenever my bread machine finishes, I get through the first third of the loaf within the first half hour and then take most of the week to finish the rest.

What if I want the reverse, shoes that have nice cushion to them but look like toe shoes?

that huge fruit slice is a bit interesting, because it seems like the AI cant decide if its generating a slice of watermelon or red pomelo

I just grab whatever random spices I have that sound good and add a few shakes

Grapefruits used to be my favorite citrus fruit. Then I learned about pomelos. Now I can barely stand grapefruit knowing there is something out there that has much the same flavor but with less of the sourness, while being much larger.

Indeed, it's not incoherent, at some level though I'd argue that morality is at it's core simply a tool for deciding what actions one should take, and a system that both follows a utilitarian model and makes it extremely easy for someone's life to be negative carries the implication that the world would be happier were you to just kill off the huge segment of the population who end up on the negative side. As this is completely contrary to our instincts about what we want morality to be, and completely impractical to act on, it is no longer a very useful tool if one assumes that.

I do tend towards a variant of utilitarianism myself as it has a useful ability to weigh options that are both bad or both good, but for the reason above I tend to define "zero" as a complete lack of happiness/maximum of suffering, and being unhappy as having low happiness rather than negative (making a negative value impossible), though that carries it's own implications that I know not everyone would agree with.

One could make the argument that suffering is more or less the opposite of happiness, and so that if you give the kid a good enough life, that cancels out the suffering and then some, but a lot depends on how exactly you define those things I guess.

I feel like just talking about the buying power of money or even the ability to effectively duplicate stuff is missing something: assuming your time travel actually allows you to change the past, and it doesn't just end up in a situation where you can only fulfill a timeline that always existed, you can take technology to the past too.

Go back to the beginning of civilization and give them current technology (or even the beginning of time, and found a new civilization there). Then do it again (or if you don't, someone else will eventually) with the new tech developed off the existing stuff over time. Repeated ad nauseum, you end up with a situation where civilization has and since the beginning has always had, every single technology it is physically possible to create.

You get the same kind of issues as "the singularity" (the concept where a super intelligent AI improves itself exponentially until it is as powerful as is possible to be). As such, our entire concept of markets and money and economy are likely completely obsolete, because find yourself in a universe populated by something as close as is physically possible to become to gods.

Dont I wish, but no, don't even get scales...

Somehow, I cant see Luigi anymore without thinking of the "Luigi going after health insurance CEOs" memes

Id bet Mark Zuckerberg has mental illness. Having the level of wealth that he has makes connecting with common people nigh impossible and leaves his pool of potential friends limited a handful of people who themselves focus on hoarding wealth that they don't even have any real use for.

Getting used to the power and comfort his billions give him means he has to worry about one day losing what he has attained, and forces him to justify to himself the possession of so much wealth while others starve.

I see no way someone can exist in that space for years on end without it warping their sanity into an uncaring money hoarder obsessed with making his numbers higher.

The Lemmy three day challenge

I'm no AI bro, but I do think this concern is a bit overblown. The monetary value in art is not in simply having a picture of something, a whole infamous subset of "modern art" commands high prices despite being simple enough that virtually anybody could recreate it. A lot is simply in that people desire art created by a specific person, be it a painting that they made, or commissioning a still active artist to create something, or someone buying a band's merch to support their work. AI simply does not have the same parasocial association to it. And of course, it doesn't at all replicate the non-monetary value that creating something can give to someone.

I can, at most, imagine it getting integrated into things like advertising where one really doesn't care who created the work; but even then there's probably still value in having a human artist review the result to be sure of it's quality, and that kind of art tends to add the least cultural value anyway.

That isn't zero impact obviously, that kind of advertisement or corporate clip art or such does still pay people, but it's a far cry from the end of creative human endeavor, or even people getting paid to be creative.

We don't even know if there is a reason or not. If stuff like cause and effect are properties of the universe itself, they they don't necessarily have to apply to it coming into existence (and if time and space are merely a part of the universe with no equivalent beyond, then the concept of it being caused by something runs into the issue of there being no time before it for a cause to occur and no place before it for that event to happen in).

There could be some equivalent of all those things of course, that the universe exists within, but we can't just assume that.

Im not sure Id consider that long enough to qualify as a wall of text, but Ive been accused of such before, so maybe my notion of what qualifies is different.

I see this sentiment a lot, but honestly I think it would actually do the reverse of what people suggest. "Common sense" isnt really some inherit knowledge that everyone not stupid knows, its actually just stuff that we expect everyone to have learned at some point, presumably in fairly early childhood. But learning stuff requires being taught, and its easy enough for something to just have never come up for someone when they were a kid, because there are so many things to know. Having an explicit warning somewhere is both another source of information in case someone just never got the memo and a prompt for someone unfamiliar with the danger, be it a kid or some ignorant adult, to potentially ask someone why that thing is dangerous. Obviously this is a bit of an extreme example since drinking unknown things is a foolish thing to do in general, but it makes more sense to just apply the labels when in doubt than spend effort making a judgement for every dangerous thing and potentially missing something. I'd bet that having warning labels on stuff actually slightly increases the amount of common sense in society.

Maybe the previous generation of manual writers didn't have the common sense to realize that a certain subset of people out there are stupid enough to drink the battery juice if you don't warn them not to.