anachronist @ anachronist @midwest.social

Posts

9

Comments

516

Joined

2 yr. ago

Well I'm not the ADL but yeah I'd say if, for instance, the NAACP decided that anti-black racism was equal to criticism of, say, Zimbabwe. And as long as a billionaire supported Zimbabwe's government it'd be fine if he threw the white power sign at the presidential inauguration. That's basically what you have with the ADL.

I wrote in "Palestine" for the president. It was the only option that wasn't pro-genocide.

Quebec

It’s a shame the ADL refused to call him what he is when it mattered: a nazi.

Musk doesn't fit the ADL's definition of anti-semite, which is anyone who opposes the State of Israel.

Canadians sure haven't!

And the fact that it was actually British regulars...

That's exactly how long you can stay in the country under the visa waver program.

If you have to stay longer you can get a B1/B2 visa.

This whole DeepSeek freakout seems like an Op by the AI grifters to get more money. "We have to defeat China at the new AI space race!"

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/hIFbUBeRyRw/maxresdefault.jpg

The thing is I don't drive unless I'm carrying stuff, so a car without cargo space isn't useful.

Minivans are the best. I own a DGC built in Ottawa. Reliable AF. Huge cargo capacity. Gets 21MPG on the highway. Basically use it as a truck, but it's way more practical than a truck because the cargo capacity is more and your stuff doesn't get wet when it rains.

Only real downsize is tow capacity.

That's the thing, Canada is mostly a raw materials exporter and the main importer is US industry.

It'd basically be like when China tried to "Wolf-warrior" Australia and ended up with coal, pork and grain shortages.

• Octopus: Antisemitic
• "Ok" hand gesture: Antisemitic
• Not buying a SodaStream: Antisemetic
• Nazi salute: Hey let's not misinterpret this one!

Just going to leave this right here:

but if we look at the countries on this planet that are the most successful in terms of economics, equality, personal freedom, human rights, etc. then we find countries that made it work through regulation and strong government institutions

Yeah that's socialism. The best societies were all degrees of socialist, this includes western Europe and the USA at its mid-century peak. These societies all had aggressive, borderline confiscatory progressive taxation, large scale government intervention in the economy (in the US especially aggressive anti-trust), a generous social welfare state, and a large and professionalized civil service.

They also had large and well-organized labor unions capable of wielding power on behalf of their members and disrupting plans of the elites.

Remove those things and you quickly slide into a dystopian fascist nightmare state as the US and parts of Europe like the UK are discovering.

Cope how? I'm not a fan. The worst thing in the world for Lockheed would be if US's adversaries decided they weren't going to be designing any new weapons systems. Lockheed runs on fear of what's next.

Lockheed's stock price fell because they missed on earnings. It's batshit to think a new fighter coming out of China would be bad for Lockheed. 🤡

During the Cuban missile crisis Kennedy asked about using a tactical nuke against Cuba.

Kennedy's generals explained that the only possible options would be enormous first strike against the USSR, or nothing. Because if the US used a tactical nuke Khrushchev would be forced to respond. Then you'd have a nuclear exchange between superpowers anyway, but would also be giving the enemy time to react.

Every time there's an AI hype cycle the charlatans start accusing the naysayers of moving goalposts. Heck that exact same thing was happing constantly during the Watson hype. Remember that? Or before that the Alpha Go hype. Remember that?

I was editing my comment down to the core argument when you responded. But fundamentally you can't make a machine think without understanding thought. While I believe it is easy to test that Watson or ChatGPT are not thinking, because you can prove it through counterexample, the reality is that charlatans can always "but actually" those counterexamples aside by saying "it's a different kind of thought."

What we do know because this at least the 6th time this has happened is that the wow factor of the demo will wear off, most promised use cases won't materialize, everyone will realize it's still just an expensive stochastic parrot and, well, see you again for the next hype cycle a decade from now.

You think when these journalists keep expressing "confusion" about why the public loves Luigi, are they just pretending to not understand? Or perhaps they're so fucking cooked that they can't see things from the perspective of the class that they're in?

just because any specific chip in your calculator is incapable of math doesn’t mean your calculator as a system is

It's possible to point out the exact silicon in the calculator that does the calculations, and also exactly how it does it. The fact that you don't understand it doesn't mean that nobody does. The way a calculator calculates is something that is very well understood by the people who designed it.

By the way, this brings us to the history of AI which is a history of 1) misunderstanding thought and 2) charlatans passing off impressive demos as something they're not. When George Boole invented boolean mathematics he thought he was building a mathematical model of human thought because he assumed that thought==logic and if he could represent logic such that he could do math on it, he could encode and manipulate thought mathematically.

The biggest clue that human brains are not logic machines is probably that we're bad at logic, but setting that aside when boolean computers were invented people tried to describe them as "electronic brains" and there was an assumption that they'd be thinking for us in no time. Turns out, those "thinking machines" were, in fact, highly mechanical and nobody would look at a univac today and suggest that it was ever capable of thought.

Arithmetic was something that we did with our brains and when we had machines that could do it that led us to think that we had created mechanical brains. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now.

Is it possible that someday we'll make machines that think? Perhaps. But I think we first need to really understand how the human brain works and what thought actually is.

There's this message pushed by the charlatans that we might create an emergent brain by feeding data into the right statistical training algorithm. They give mathematical structures misleading names like "neural networks" and let media hype and people's propensity to anthropomorphize take over from there.