Shame.
Umbrias @ Umbrias @beehaw.org Posts 0Comments 602Joined 2 yr. ago
Umbrias @ Umbrias @beehaw.org
Posts
0
Comments
602
Joined
2 yr. ago
Unions aren't the ones who decide salaries outright, they negotiate with the employer. Wages go up under unions, not that all union workers are paid better than all non union workers. A Delta Union would almost definitely make their deal even better.
Not to mention trench foot and the wide variety of other diseases this would encourage. Shoes are breathable four a reason. This just feels like owning nothing and being happy about it, but shoes.
If that's what you feel is the case if you don't separate politics from technology then that sounds like a personal problem to address.
Technology and ethics and politics are not airgapped magically distinct things. Pretending that they are is a strategic political choice you are actively making.
"People want to talk about the things they care about when they should be talking about the things I care about!"
Alternatively, lol
I use these curves for real world cooking constantly, both sous vide and other methods. Why wouldn't this be useful for real world cooking?
You can see the keypassxc plugin button right there. What is the thread op on about lol.
One of these things is not like the others.
For anyone else spotting this ...incredibly long rant, I'll counter by simply pointing out that multicellular organisms are altruistic collectives of individual cells which survive best when all constituent parts cooperate. There is no central authority in any biological system. All parts simply communicate and process in extremely complex ways which defy hierarchal categorization.
Cancer on the other hand is a breaking of that altruism and excessive hoarding of resources to the point where it self destructs the hosting system that was letting it survive at all.
This individual's unique understanding of "four brains" isn't accurate nor detailed with how biological systems work, humans or otherwise, and fails to address the simple counter example of "what about plants though" or any other myriad of other counter examples.
Even non multicellular organisms often benefit from and perform rather incredible acts of altruism, and do so all on their own accord, nobody "above" organizing the process.
Cheers folks.
This wasn't a study and nobody has proven free will one way or another, the issue remains heavily semantic.
Scientists can have opinions and beliefs. A news organization encouraging it as being a scientific conclusion only because it comes from a scientist is really the issue here.
My assumptions are based in science. Yours is paranoia. You are also making far more assumptions than you're letting on. Your assumption that ai could perform substantially more energy efficiently for example, than an energy constrained highly optimized processor... Yikes.
The efficient coding hypothesis also helps these exact ai, because it's being used to justify research into neutral networks and emulating brain function is a huge goal.
My arguments have nothing to do with substrate dependence, but with observable energy issues. You meanwhile are just vaguely waving your hands and saying in a long time maybe somehow magically an ai could exist which magically has all these problems you're paranoid about.
Also human ai are categorically, observably, much much much slower than organoids. 30 minutes per prompt at human power levels proves that that issue is just "solved" by dumping more energy at the problem.
You need to do more legwork than just saying "substrate independence", addressed by my organoid thought experiment or "maybe we get Clarke tech or something technology crazy right" which is wholly unconvincing. Maybe we make a The Thing organism in 5 years and none of this matters, ooooh no! Except of course that's also thermodynamically impossible. Maybe we set the atmosphere on fire, maybe the LHC suddenly creates a black hole after all, maybe nif creates fusion but it turns out to summon demons from hell who eat souls.
Waving your hands and being paranoid about something when you have essentially no reason to expect it is even feasible, if possible at all, is just absurd.
It's absurd and nobody needs to, the onus of evidence is on you to justify your magical thinking.
Bearing that in mind, since you asked, human brains are magnitudes more power efficient than silicon chips. Your brain runs on about 20 watts, good quality tpu chips run on several hundred. Humans, despite having evolved substantial brains by and large to be social processors, kinda still just suck at doing that. The efficient coding hypothesis postulates that the way neuron circuits develop generally develop in the most efficient way possible. For the most observable systems we have found this to be the case, visual processing works exactly the mathematically most efficient way it can for each system. Very cool fact, very useful hypothesis.
This implies that human brains are probably doing social processing in the most energy efficient and generally effective way possible, remember, our brains essentially evolved for the purpose of social processing, there is a very high pressure to be good at it, and evolution is generally energy constrained.
Now imagine an ai that hopes to do even just the same thing as one brain. Well, if a whole human brain needs 20W, and if we assume 10% of that goes to social processing, then you'd need about 600 GW of power to do just the social processing of the us. And that's using organoids! Chatgpt isn't even doing social processing, just language processing, and though we don't know how much energy a prompt uses, they admit that. About 100 million queries costs about 1 GWh, or about 3600 GJ per day. Across the whole day that's about 42 MW, or about 36 kj per prompt![1]
That's 30 minutes of your entire brain activity to generate one okay response. Five hours with our bad estimate of social processing. Not even just our language processing, which is all gpt is doing, but social processing.
How many "prompts" a day do humans have to deal with? All for a measly 2000 kcal. Some magical ai managing to perform even on the level of human brains is going to need 600 GW just for the social processing of the us, it needs to do that without anybody with any power questioning if that's a good use of our 484 GW of electricity generation. Oops, that's right, we don't even have 600 GW of power generation in the US!
Sure, someone may be thinking, maybe the ai just gets more efficient than human brains! Well, if you reject the efficient coding hypothesis, maybe so. But then you still have to figure out how to fit 600 GW of human social processing brain power into whatever processing and optimizations you possibly can. Oh what if the ai can abuse big group dynamics to be more performant? Well, now you have to justify why it's not being outsmarted by anyone else, because it's gone from magic manipulator demon to a good economic modeling sim.
And that's not even getting into the complex systems debate about whether the kind of system that human society is is inherently, fundamentally, a predictable thing! Or that human metabolism has an 'engine' efficiency of about 50-62%, meaning brains are actually doing all that they do with more like 10W of working power, making the disparity even more absurd.
Look, be concerned about humans using really good ai to kill people, to manipulate behaviors on algorithmic services, to be better at predicting dissent patterns. But these are all things humans are already doing. An ai tool is just an expression of this, there can't be any monolithic manipulation ai controlling the world any more than a single human could, they'd be bad at it, and waste tons of energy on something fundamentally already solved by collective efforts.
Peoples fears about ai over lords essentially amount to "they'd do the things people in power already are doing"
This is just magical thinking. You're assuming so many things about a situation here to justify a magic ai manipulator demon.
Did you understand the communication being made? Clearly so. Looks like I used adequate wording.
Getting high oxygen isn't enough, you need propane purity and oxidizer purity (the not air inert gas and oxygen mix) or you get unburnt products. You also need perfect mixing, and essentially an adiabatic chamber. There is no combustion chamber on this earth outside of some absurd combustion lab that doesn't have soot buildup.
Not things you'd find in a dusty standard ass DND dungeon. But please continue bending over backwards to justify why you couldn't just day "you didn't think anything of it"
Synonyms.
And sure, that's another explanation agm could use, I wasn't being comprehensive or I'd be here forever.
Take a lighter to a rock. Fires leave char. There are very few combustion systems with a pure enough burn to avoid it.
That's not rules lawyering at all. If a player asks why they didn't spot that the easy answer is they didn't realize it was char.
Heat resistance generally reduces a pathogens fitness at normal temps. The human body is also far more heat resistant than individual viruses thanks to being a big multi cellar organism with many expendable cells. A fever isn't your only method of dealing with viruses either, you're just stacking the deck against them do your immune system has a better time.