HandwovenConsensus @ HandwovenConsensus @lemm.ee

Posts

10

Comments

139

Joined

2 yr. ago

So "Horonium" was once so abundant that it was accessible even with Earth's limited capabilities in the NX-01 era, but somehow it's now gone from the entire quadrant? Seems like there must be a story there. I wonder if something like The Burn could have come into play (I never watched DISC past the first season, so I'm going off of hearsay of what that was.) Or possibly it was a material somehow created and scattered all throughout the galaxy at once with a limited lifespan. Given that it powers the time portal, maybe it has some weird temporal properties that made it disappear.

I work at an office suite, and a lot of people say hi to me with my name. I know none of their names. I'm also really terrible at recognizing faces (prosopagnosia). People probably think I'm extremely cold and aloof, but really I'm doing my best.

Been awhile since I've watched it too, but given that Tellarite culture revolves around things we see as rudeness, do we really know for sure that runts are seen as or treated as lesser?

You could say "you lot" like our British friends.

This is similar, albeit much better written, to a theory that I posted on reddit ages ago.

What's interesting about this is that is seems like Worf is among those who misunderstand what Klingons mean by "honor." When Worf refused to support the invasion of Cardassia, Gowron warned him that he'd lose his standing in society, he'd have nothing. Worf answered, "Except my honor." Whereas that act entailed losing, not saving "face."

Another interesting scene was in The House of Quark, where Gowron told D'ghor, "...if you can stand here and murder this pathetic little man, then you have no honor, and you have no place in this Hall." If this theory is correct, Gowron was in a sense ceremonially stripping D'ghor of honor with that statement.

It's possible that the answer is somewhere in-between, however. Klingon honor involves both being trusted and being trustworthy.

I apologize for misunderstanding you.

I guess it would help if we clarified what ethical issues specifically are we talking about? If you tell me what scenario you are concerned with trying to prevent, I will gladly share my thoughts on it.

Well, the OP spelled out their criteria explicitly.

these should be episodes that can work with a minimum number of sets- In The Pale Moonlight could work on a single set. It's Only a Paper Moon could work with two. DS9 and holodeck/Vic's club.

no special effect and modest-to-minimal practical effects- In both cases the episode is carried out through dialogue.

amateur though dedicated actors- This one's a little harder to quantify, so I'll leave that up to OP's judgement.

In addition, they deal with themes that are relatable without being exposed to the context of the story. Moreso It's Only a Paper Moon than In The Pale Moonlight.

Is it a common trope in Westerns? Maybe it was there as an homage.

I wonder if it's really time healing itself, or someone healing time.

Taking the idea of temporal wars and a department of temporal investigation to its logical end, it's like what they said in the second Bill and Ted movie. Only the winner can go back and change things. We can speculate that, at some point in time, the most powerful time-traveling organization possible exists and is actively trying to maintain the meta-timeline that leads to its existence.

You say that as if the ethical concerns of AI kept tightly under control by a single organization aren't infinitely greater. That is no solution at all to any ethical concerns arising from AI.

Competition and open source is how we navigate it. Ensuring that the power is shared, not monopolized by the few.

The conversation was about ChatGPT and not about AGI.

What about DS9's In The Pale Moonlight or It's Only a Paper Moon?

ChatGPT is not AGI.

Really? I actually found it's gotten less restrictive recently. Maybe it's just because now I've learned to control the context so it doesn't perceive a request as offensive.

Well, I'll be the second. Like all tools, generative AI is going to be used for good and evil purposes. Frankly, I'm not comfortable with a large corporation deciding what is and isn't ethical for all of humanity. Ideally, it would do what the user asked it for, like all other tools, and society would work to control the bad actors, not OpenAI. Any AI doomsday scenario you can picture gets worst when one party has complete control over the AI technology.

I think it's important that we support unrestricted open source AI, just as it's important we support federated social media like lemmy.

You might be thinking of Gen X. Millennial parents are either Gen X or Baby Boomers.

Kind of. People are calling the next generation after Z Gen Alpha.

But that's subject to change. They used to call Millennials Gen Y or Mini Boomers.

fizzle

Well, we have a source of input that AIs don't for the moment, and that's our actual experiences in the world. Once we turn that into art or text or whatever, the AIs can train on it, but we're like the photosynthesizing plants at the bottom of the content food chain.

Does it work now? I think I forgot to add the instance.