penguin @ penguin @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

137

Joined

2 yr. ago

I think it's almost at the point where the only games that don't work are games with anti cheat that refuse to play nicely.

Well no one can prove they have a mind to anyone other than themselves.

And to extend that, there's obviously a way for electrical information processing to give rise to consciousness. And no one knows how that could be possible.

Meaning something like a true, alien AI would probably conclude that we are not conscious and instead are just very intelligent meat computers.

So, while there's no reason to believe that current AI models could result in consciousness, no one can prove the opposite either.

I think the argument currently boils down to, "we understand how AI models work, but we don't understand how our minds work. Therefore, ???, and so no consciousness for AI"

Everyone can only do the best they can. Anyone who expects everyone to have zero impact is an idiot. Even a salad involved death and cruelty somewhere (animals caught in farm equipment, underpaid immigrant farmers who get abandoned if injured, etc).

So really, all you can do in your life if you care about these things is minimize your impact as much as you can based on what you know.

Similar to people who value giving to charity. Do they give all of their spare money to charity? No and no one should expect them to. Just giving anything to charity regularly has a positive impact and the whole "you're not doing enough" does much more damage than good.

Reminds me of vegetarians/vegans. I'm not really either, but I don't eat meat. And I'm just happy when I hear people say they want to eat less meat. Whereas most people who are against meat are only happy if someone else is also against it completely.

For people who value reading: if they have no books on their shelves. They might be avid readers of ebooks, or just use the library.

But this should clear itself up with a rather simple discussion started by mentioning a book you read recently.

Clothing doesn't require the death of anyone the same way eating meat does.

One it's possible to be cruelty free, and the other is not.

Also, if I knew for a fact that a company committed acts of evil, I would avoid them as best I could, just like I do with meat.

Complaining that eating meat is not actually wrong, it's just marketing, is just a laughable way to look at ethics and empathy.

Lastly, whataboutism is a joke of a defence.

Is killing a person a moral issue, or is that also simply marketing?

The people who claim "real estate value!" have just latched onto the simplest reason they can which aligns with their worldview.

The reasons I suspect companies are forcing return to office are more:

• shareholders don't like unused assets, so they tell the ceo to "use it or lose it"
• the people who make the decision have the type of extroverted personality where they actually do work better in the office and they can't fathom people being different
• the people who make the decision prefer to have the office full because it makes them feel more powerful. They can see the people they lord over.

I agree. I still eat shrimp and some fish. The fish bother me, but not enough to stop eating them, and the shrimp don't bother me cause they're basically underwater crickets.

For example killing an elephant is worse than killing a chicken. And everyone draws the line somewhere already (unless you're fine with eating endangered animals and even cannibalism). It's just where does your own morality draw the line at what level of creature it's ok to ask to die for your next meal?

Lol you confidently incorrect dumbass. Gravity is the problem of modern physics and you think you can boil it down to a simple force of attraction?

There are theories that it's an illusion and theories that it's caused by time itself. But you've gone and proved my point by basically saying, "SEE, APPLE FALL DOWN"

I hear you. I don't eat meat, and I haven't for several years. I still find it extremely tempting sometimes to eat some chicken wings.

The only reason I don't is because whenever I actually think, "maybe I should just have some," I get overwhelmed with flashes in my mind visualizing the deaths of the chickens and then I just... can't.

But if those flashes weren't there I definitely would've caved by now.

What does betrayal have to do with the morality of killing something?

It's either right or wrong to kill something if you don't have to for survival.

If you think killing dogs is wrong, then killing cows or pigs should also be wrong.

Yeah, fuck em all

We should handle it the same way we treat invasive animals 🙂

Fireplaces?

Oof calm down man. Breathe. Also, your gravity analogy works against you.

In the gravity analogy, someone would be claiming they understand 100% of what makes up gravity, "it's the curvature of space time. That's it. Job done. Go home quantum theorists"

If electrical signals are all that is required to give rise to consciousness, then a computer would be conscious. But since it's obviously not, there's a big gap there. One that is so far inexplicable. And yet you're drawing conclusions about it.

Shouting about it doesn't do anything.

So do electrical impulses always give rise to consciousness? Is my computer self aware?

Please explain how electrical impulses can give rise to a sense of self. The actual experience of consciousness rather than brains simply being organic computers.

Put another way, is my computer conscious? Why is it not, but I am?

It would help all of their competitors. A non zero number of people would move from windows to each of the others.

Whether or not the number moving away from windows and on to each of the others is significant or not is a different matter.

The biggest thing helping Linux right now is Valve's work improving the gaming experience, IMO.

I have 64 too and my usage breaks down to basically be 32 for windows, 32 for different VMs.

Or just don't voluntarily go somewhere that could result in a "life or death" situation?