hoshikarakitaridia @ hoshikarakitaridia @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

425

Joined

2 yr. ago

Nah John Wick is for taking revenge for dogs.

This guy's name is probably John Wack.

Omg that's so important.

Why does that smell so much like the death of the free press? I'm getting West Taiwan vibes.

Just because I know how much the media loves to hype up these motions: motion for dismissal is super common and is done in every other case.

Don't make this out as "she is out of line, how could you even ask that". It's procedural, and it's nothing special at all.

It's worse. We have a surge in right extremism and it's scary AF.

Why do game engine producers feel the need to increase prices so much currently?

I'm down for that. Sounds awesome.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23979185-trump-gag-request

It looks like that's the criminal trial gov v trump org and it's the request for gag order by the state.

Is this it? Unfortunately things are hard to find and I am new to this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity_and_objectivity_(philosophy)

Well, let's look at geopolitics. The War in Ukraine. Putin says that the War is important to get rid of Nazis in Ukraine. A lot of ppl in Russia believe him.

I know for myself I don't believe it.

Let's walk through your definition: it's a big thing I think. So either me or they are objectively right. Well depending on if you define this as "actual morality". That concludes in your definition this can be objectively determined.

Well let's walk through Wikipedia's philosophical definition.

Can my opinion be formed independent of mind? That is, without bias, perception, emotions, opinion, imagination or conscious experience? Well I have biases against against Putin because I try to be neutral, but there's a lot of news articles highlighting bad politics from him. I have a certain perception about starting wars on an argumentation without good evidence. My emotions tell me that ppl dying is bad. My opinions tell me that there is no justification for a war if it clearly isn't a very limited defense against an attack. I do have an imagination of what the war looks like and what the consequences will be. And last but not least, ppl talking about how their relatives died or my father talking about his time in the army has left a conscious experience on me in that regard.

As you can see there's a lot going on that wants me to make this "objectively true" for me, but I really can't split all of these influences from my opinion, therefore this is not objectively determined via Wikipedia's definition.

Now I submit to you that you can't find anyone who doesn't have these biases to make the statement that the war is either right or wrong under that definition while being objective, per definition.

Which brings me to the conclusion that on this topic, your definition of it and Wikipedia's definition on it fundamentally differ and bring me to opposite conclusions. This means either your definition is the one we should follow, or Wikipedia's, and I have to say I'm gonna make my choice.

Btw this is in no way a dig at the idea that I wish there was some things that everyone knows are wrong, but I just think ppl are ppl and it doesn't work for most things.

Nope. You are bound to store prices and store products, and specifically applicable products maybe even bound to a time frame.

Gift cards are absolutely less valuable than the same amount in your bank account or in cash.

Well, first off, a lawyer can find evidence for everything, even if it's flimsy af.

Chemtrails? Everyone sees the white dust from air planes.

Flat earth? Well if earth is underneath me, and the ground is flat...

So there might be some teeny tiny evidence for that, but obviously not enough for any solid case.

Also consider the fact that "not enough evidence" can also mean none at all. That's not mutually exclusive.

That said, also remember everyone has their emotional baggage so if ppl criticise you, don't take it at face value eather.

I know, criticism and therefore self-reflection is hard. I've been over overcompensating and self optimizing to the point that ppl tell me to start being more confident and basically try do more mistakes. It's always a balancing act.

The judge always has a duty to avoid appellate issues and therefore judges tend to be very lenient to make sure this case is done for good at the end of the court process.

And just because ppl say this is a trump thing, NO. Sam Bankman-Fried, is one of a lot of other prominent cases where they have been swaths of leniency as well.

I've played the last two games of that series and even for someone who is up for the grind, it just felt lifeless and uninspired. No need to play it anymore.

Yay more convictions for driving while black. Great.

Source?

Iirc liability and damages usually go to the jury and there's only very specific circumstances based in law where the judge can take over liability, so that might be really interesting.

Edit: my bad

You know what? Sure. Imagine I find ppl really taste, especially hands. But I never chew on one. I just think about it. Literally the same thing. You should be rewarded for restraint on these urges. If I'd get punished for thinking about munching on a thumb, I'd at least take a hand with me to jail. I'm going there anyway.

The first part of your comment is rather confusing to me, but the latter part I fully agree with. Decoding age on appearance is a thing that will haunt us even more with AI until we face new solutions. But that is gonna be one of a list of big questions to be asked in conjunction with new AI laws.

sampling a fraction of another person's imagery or written work.

So citing is a copyright violation? A scientific discussion on a specific text is a copyright violation? This makes no sense. It would mean your work couldn't build on anything else, and that's plain stupid.

Also to your first point about reasoning and advanced collage process: you are right and wrong. Yes an LLM doesn't have the ability to use all the information a human has or be as precise, therefore it can't reason the same way a human can. BUT, and that is a huge caveat, the inherit goal of AI and in its simplest form neural networks was to replicate human thinking. If you look at the brain and then at AIs, you will see how close the process is. It's usually giving the AI an input, the AI tries to give the desired output, them the AI gets told what it should have looked like, and then it backpropagates to reinforce it's process. This already pretty advanced and human-like (even look at how the brain is made up and then how AI models are made up, it's basically the same concept).

Now you would be right to say "well in it's simplest form LLMs like GPT are just predicting which character or word comes next" and you would be partially right. But in that process it incorporates all of the "knowledge" it got from it's training sessions and a few valuable tricks to improve. The truth is, differences between a human brain and an AI are marginal, and it mostly boils down to efficiency and training time.

And to say that LLMs are just "an advanced collage process" is like saying "a car is just an advanced horse". You're not technically wrong but the description is really misleading if you look into the details.

And for details sake, this is what the paper for Llama2 looks like; the latest big LLM from Facebook that is said to be the current standard for LLM development:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.09288.pdf

Pizza Possum. Very small indie game, but very fun.