I don't mind having my own arguments thrown back in my face, but I do disagree with the premise that humans are anything like LLMs.
We have more than just a catalogue of conversational training data. We are hugely influenced by our current emotions, experiences, and traumas/fears.
I do agree with the idea that we shouldn't give too much power to one person, but I'd argue it's due to a lack of objectivity and a tendency towards selfish actions, rather than acting like an LLM.
Ultroning the world to achieve world peace isn't exactly the best outcome, especially for innocent folks caught in the crossfire
Why the actual fuck is anyone considering putting LLMs into the driving seat of anything?!
Of course they make fucked up decisions with no proper or justifiable rationale, because they have no brains. They're language models, stochastic parrots stringing together sentences to fit the prompt(s) given to them.
I thought he was mask off in his previous campaign, but he definitely isn't holding back this time. He's telling his whole supporter base he'd happily do whatever Putin wanted and they cheer for him anyway... If they want to be Russian puppets so badly, we should just send them all off to Russia where they'd clearly be happier.
I said Jimmy Neutron for my answer, but I think Rick faces a similar problem.
He's a genius when it comes to engineering/academics, but otherwise he's a fool with an overinflated ego that won't let him acknowledge that - I mean hell the Ricks literally made the central finite curve so they didn't have to acknowledge the possibility of someone smarter than themselves out there.
Similar to Neutron, most of his problems come from him trying to engineer his way out of personal issues, or making overcomplicated solutions to simple problems that end up backfiring.
Jimmy Neutron. Almost all of his problems came from him trying to cheat his way out of something and/or making overcomplicated solutions to simple problems that inevitably backfire because of some simple flaw he never thought about.
Academically, he's a genius, but his overinflated ego prevents him from seeing that he ain't all that smart when it comes to the real world.
Exactly. An exclamation point or bolding your letters sure does add emphasis, but if you actually wanted to make it a clear counterclaim, though or tho does the job a whole lot better.
Do you know what you do when someone doesn't hold up their end of a bargain? You don't uphold your's...
If the FTC forces them to unmerge, it'd make others think twice about lying to the FTC, and give the agency much stronger fangs to bite back with in the future.
Recessive malfunctions can hide away amongst carriers for generations before manifesting any deformities, during which time they have no effect on the carrier's survival, so there's very little selective pressure against them.
Dominant malfunctions which cause deformities simply can't hide away, so have enormous selective pressure against them.
Interestingly enough though, there are times where dominant malfunctions can survive that pressure...
For example, having Sickle cell disorder increases your resistance to Malaria, so even though the full form is rarely passed on, the single allele form (which caused partial disorder) is passed on due to a slight positive selection pressure.
Firstly, capitalism isn't going to just "poof" away just because there are more resources available. The rich will just hold them back to create artificial scarcity - like is done with diamonds.
Secondly, even discounting that, there are plenty of resources that are genuinely scarce no matter how much money you have to throw at the problem.
But if you're referring to just the scarcity of information - then you're still not quite right as not all that information out there is good information - a lot of it is misinformation (i.e. propaganda, etc.)...
And even that discounts the fact that for many people, they don't have the tools/capability to access the information, or simply can't access the information full stop (I.e. due to censorship, etc.).
I'll try to keep it relatively simple - your cells contain chromosomes that contain your genes. You usually have two sets of every chromosome.
These genes come in different variations/mutant forms called alleles. Most alleles function more or less the same, but some malfunctions result in deformities.
If a malfunctioning allele results in errant gene inactivation, it is known as recessive, which means as long as your other copy works, you're all good.
If a malfunctioning allele results in an errant gene activation, it is known as dominant, which means if you have the allele you get the deformity regardless of if your other copy works or not.
Fortunately for life, most malfunctioning alleles are recessive, so as long as you've got high genetic variance (a lot of alleles) in a population, the chance of two people meeting with the same recessive malfunction is low.
Incest can result in a drastic decrease in genetic variation, which can result in malfunctioning alleles becoming much more prevalent than they usually would be, resulting in many more cases of recessive deformities than in the wider population.
For males this is not true of their sex chromosomes. Many genes present on the X chromosome are missing on the Y chromosome, which can lead to sex exclusive traits and diseases.
For example, it is the reason why there are almost no calico/tri-colour male cats, as the genes for it are in X but not Y chromosomes.
The term superorganic was coined by Herbert Spencer while discussing the idea of the social organism, that society itself acts like an organism - guess what concept that is?
Oh right, the superorganism.
Just because it doesn't say that exactword in your source doesn't mean it's wrong...
And again, that wasn't even my main point, that was an aside that you started.
What is wrong is acting like gravity is some supernatural mumbo-jumbo because we can't exactly pinpoint it's exact cause, despite the fact that we can observe, predict, and calculate it with pinpoint precision.
Not understanding the cause of something =/= not understanding the concept of something
Ghosts are supernatural because we don't even know if they're real, nevermind their cause...
If we were able to prove their existence, we can understand the concept and learn how they work - with sufficient understanding of how they integrate into nature, they would no longer be supernatural.
It isn't that vague or subjective, either something fits into humanity's understanding of the natural world or it doesn't.
Anyways, I'm just about done with this, so hope you have a good one.
Your source doesn't specifically say the word "superorganism", but that is what the idea of the superorganic points to - a higher level superorganism, the same as a bee hive, a termite nest, or an ant colony...
It doesn't refer to any ability/inability to understand culture, which was my main point.
Yeah, because they believe in ghosts, they don't know they're real...
If you can't definitively, scientifically prove ghosts exist, then there is no way to understand how they work in nature, ergo they're supernatural. I don't think it's that vague...
We don't know the exact cause of life on earth, doesn't mean all life on Earth (including you) is supernatural.
Last I was aware, the idea of human culture being "superorganic" referred to the idea of our culture itself acting as an organism above the individuals that compose it, i.e. a superorganism.
The concept being based on emergent behaviour observed in colony forming insects (I.e. ants, bees, etc.) to act as an apparent single larger organism.
That isn't the same as the concept of the supernatural, where it refers to things beyond our understanding of nature.
Not knowing the exact cause of a natural phenomena doesn't mean that we don't understand how it fits into nature - if it exists, then it can be understood, ergo not supernatural.
It's not that I don't like it, it's that you give such a vague definition as to what qualifies as supernatural that damn near anything you feel like could qualify.
Supermatural IS things beyond our understanding of nature, phenomena that cannot be explained by science.
If we could scientifically prove ghosts exist, the phenomena associated with them are no longer inexplicable to science, they would no longer beyond our understanding of nature, ergo they'd no longer be supernatural - just natural
For a petty theft committed by a mentally disabled minor?
The situation was non-violent and under control - the cops escalated far beyond what was needed because they got bored waiting for the kid to fork over the last couple of e-cigarettes. There was no need to pin the kid to the ground, and definitely no need to inject them with ketamine.
In a world where all cops weren't bastards, they would have continued to build a rapport until they could convince the kid to give them back, give the kid a lecture about stealing, then let everyone be on their way.
Supernatural means things that are beyond nature (I.e. don't obey our known understand of nature).
If ghosts are proven to exist in nature, then they become part of nature, thus are no longer supernatural.
We might not have a definitive explanation for gravity, but it is definitively within our understanding of nature - we can observe it, test it, and predict its effects far into the future.
I don't mind having my own arguments thrown back in my face, but I do disagree with the premise that humans are anything like LLMs.
We have more than just a catalogue of conversational training data. We are hugely influenced by our current emotions, experiences, and traumas/fears.
I do agree with the idea that we shouldn't give too much power to one person, but I'd argue it's due to a lack of objectivity and a tendency towards selfish actions, rather than acting like an LLM.
Ultroning the world to achieve world peace isn't exactly the best outcome, especially for innocent folks caught in the crossfire