voluble @ voluble @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

164

Joined

2 yr. ago

Excellent point.

I think this type of anthropocentrism extends to chess too actually. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I've heard that chess AIs are finding success doing unintuitive things like pushing a and h file pawns in openings. If, 10 years ago, some chess grandmaster was doing the same thing and finding success, I imagine they would have been seen as creative, maybe even groundbreaking.

I think the average person under-rates the sophistication of AI. Maybe as a response to the AI hype. Maybe it's because we're scared of AI, and it's comforting to believe that it's operations are trivial. I see irrationality and anger cropping up in discussions of AI that I think stem from a fundamental fear of its transformative power.

I agree - if there is a big-picture target for growth, it's so important that there are strong lines of communication and collaboration between citizens, cities, provinces, and the federal government if it's going to work.

To the poster above you - Trickle-down is a thoroughly shitty "¯(ツ)_/¯"-style policy. But so is any decree from above that lacks clear objectives, regularly measured outcomes, and checkpoints with the citizens. Our system is struggling right now when we reach checkpoint moments. Discussions get railroaded into these 'oh that's racist' or 'oh we should have 0 immigration' polarities. Discussing these things is worthwhile & good.

NOC's vocalizations were recorded and studied by a team of biologists from the National Marine Mammal Foundation (NMMF) led by Sam Ridgway. In 1984, Ridgway and others at the NMMF began to hear peculiar sounds coming from the whale and dolphin enclosure. They were reminiscent of two people talking in the distance, the words just beyond the limit of comprehension.[5] Later, a diver working in the enclosure came to the surface after he heard someone cry "out, out, out!"[1] After he asked his colleagues "Who told me to get out?", they realized it had been NOC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOC_(whale)

Interesting.

I'm not an expert on the matter, but to my eyes, taxes on alcohol and tobacco are set arbitrarily. It would be nice to see those funds enveloped for specific programs & a layer of transparency on how the numbers are determined. Canada taxes spirits at ~$13/ litre of absolute alcohol. We ought to wonder - why exactly that number? Is that too much, or not enough, from a healthcare outcome standpoint?

I feel like as a country, we should be pragmatic more broadly. Not just about tobacco, but about anything a person could enjoy, extending to the black market. Determine the things that people will consume no matter what the taxation, social, or regulatory structures are. Quantify the costs of the consumption of those things openly and honestly, and create systems to build those costs into the price of the thing consumed.

I think we're running aground on that right now, because federal & provincial tax on enjoyable things is set at a rate that isn't indexed to the costs incurred by the enjoyment of those things.

Personally I enjoy Nicotine, and I would like to know that the price I pay for it is fair to the base of taxpayers who fund our healthcare system. It doesn't stop at Nicotine though, of course.

Just to provide a counterpoint here.

I'm left leaning on most issues, and I don't think the current parliamentary composition is a good thing at all. The Liberals have a comfortable minority, and have an explicit agreement with the NDP that props them up. This means the Liberals simply do what they were going to do anyway, and the NDP rattles their sabres about cost of living and pharmacare and dental care, to no real effect. Liberals are not effectively kept in check, and real progressive policy issues that could materially benefit Canadians aren't being put forward.

I don't like it, and I don't think it serves the plurality of Canadian citizen views - we're in a bad place and I don't see how anyone who isn't already a Liberal voter could love it.

$330m is not nothing. But, with a funding split between a telecom CEO, and a shipping & logistics CEO - person has to wonder what sort of direction & tuning the team might be encouraged to explore. How will they stack up against existing & proven open source non-profits with impressive releases like EleutherAI?

These open source projects are neat, in that they give the average person the opportunity to peek under the hood of an LLM that they'd never be able to run on consumer level hardware. There are some interesting things to find, especially in the dataset snapshots that Eleuther made available.

In general, kind of cool to see France being on the cutting edge of these things. And I think it's worth saluting any project that moves to decentralize power from states and megacorps, who seal wonderful, powerful things in black boxes.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make above.

In this case specifically, the outcome isn't unclear. Let's call the crab's pain one unit of pain. Assume that unit can directly alleviate 20 units of pain across a handful of other beings. The utilitarian ought to prefer avoiding 19 units of net pain, than allowing 19 units of net pain to occur.

I read your initial post to be some sort of utilitarian moral argument, roughly, that less pain is better. Or something like that. That argument, in this case in particular, leads in the opposite direction than I think you want.

For the sake of argument, let's take for granted your statement, that 'suffering should be reduced as much as possible'.

If the discomfort of a single crab can prevent worse discomfort/suffering/death of many other beings, and results in reduced net pain, then the utilitarian line of reasoning seems to be that we might actually be morally obligated to take blood from crabs.

Disclosure - Before you had replied, I edited out the word 'psychotic' above, felt it was unfair.

Cheers, thanks for the thoughtful and reasonable reply. I agree with most of what you say. & it circles something I think about a lot but haven't made much sense of (if there even is sense to make if it), which is, the role of bad feelings in moral decision making.

I think though, the compassion line should be drawn somewhere, sometimes, with moral reason as a guide. To dip into the quagmire of philosophical thought experiments, you know, what if certain humans produced this special clotting factor, and we had to bleed them to get it, and it came with a risk of their mortality? I think reasonable people could agree, that would be an entirely different question to grapple with. So, you know, I would say it does matter, it's not a black & white thing, where either everything is worthy of compassion or nothing is. The circumstance can, should, dictate the moral approach. Eating meat, fighting in wars, there might be a right or wrong that's worth determining there. And knowing that, the moral and the practical are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

And totally, I expect people to have differences when it comes to compassion. Suppose I'm just surprised at the outpouring of love for the gross horseshoe crab, in spite of its real usefulness for global human health. Or at least my understanding of it, which I admit, is not very deep.

I've read good moral arguments for a veganism. I think it's the right thing to do when it comes to diet. For what it's worth, this isn't really a discussion about diet.

It isn't a decision between a lentil burger and a beef burger, this is an animal resource that can assist in saving human lives. There are other clotting factors used in medicine, and that's great, let's use and develop those. But suppose something more lethal and dangerous than COVID comes along, and vaccines need to be produced quickly and globally. I think it would be foolish to wince if we needed to take crab blood to roll out a program that would save human lives.

What I mean when I say moral is, I don't see why it's wrong if a bunch of invertebrates are subjugated, in pain, or die in order to provide something that improves the lives of humans. It's not sad, it's a good thing. "Oh but the crabs get stressed out, and 30% might die", yeah, who cares, they're crabs.

Sure, I'm a human, and I have a particular perspective on these things. But, we are special. Anyone who considers a trolley problem with a crab on one track, and a human on the other and honestly says, "hey it doesn't matter humans aren't special", that's, unappealing. In a purely academic, cosmic, arrangement of particles sense, OK, nothing is special. But in that condition, the suffering of animals isn't even a question worth considering.

The fact that so many accounts in this thread are going out of their way to give weight to the well-being of invertebrates, in a conversation about human well-being, is baffling.

Should we be using existing clotting factors in medical settings that don't rely on the blood of an endangered species that lives in an incredibly volatile habitat? Probably, but crab discomfort is at the very bottom of the list of reasons why.

Ripple effects, sure, I'm with you there, sustainability considerations, which I haven't seen anyone mentioning ITT.

I completely disagree with you about the status of humanity. Is it really your view that the well-being of a crab has equivalent moral status to your own well-being?

Thanks for the link and info.

Not a reply directly to you, but to contrast the dominant view in the thread - what would it matter if even 100% of the crabs died? Sustainability considerations aside - a crab died for my delicious salad, who cares if they die for a life saving vaccine? Who cares if it's painful and disorienting for the crab, it's a crab. As humans, why should we prioritize crab life and well-being over our own?

I agree on the point that minority governments on the whole are a good thing for the country. Parties should be kept in check. I feel like my tax dollars are fairly spent when politicians are obligated to negotiate and develop consensus. All this incessant posturing in the House is a waste of every citizen's time and money. But minority governments also lead to blood-boiling accidental absurdities like the BQ holding the reins on matters of national interest.

I have to say that I'm tired of the fear narrative that gets reeled out around elections in this country. No major party has a view to radically transform Canada. In the grand scheme of things, the three major parties are moderate, and I'm not convinced that any of them are literally dangerous. And so, the bland fruit that grows from the tree of our national politics, while not lethally poisonous, is not necessarily nutritious either.

electoral reform

If only some fresh party leader would make that a key promise of their platform. Surely they would use their majority government to make good on that promise.

Even though I align with the party on most of their platform, I cannot vote for the LPC under any circumstances, due to their history of broken promises, scandals, ethics violations, horrible handle on foreign policy, blatant disregard for demographics that brought them Parliamentary majorities, lack of a constructive, modern vision for the nation, lack of sincerity, the list goes on and on.

In light of all that, what is it about this particular moment that has Liberals getting their knives out? Of all the times to question a leader, why now exactly? Is this a polling thing? Am I out of the loop?

One variable that I think doesn't get looked at seriously is class size and school funding. Ask any North American teacher, and you'll get a grim assessment on the trajectory of schooling since the 90's. When teachers have more students than they can handle, it's no surprise that things get out of hand.

I'd argue that part of the solution is more teachers per student. This enables better relationships between faculty and students, and better opportunities for mentorship. Build more schools, hire more teachers, pay them well, make school a place where teachers want to be, and where kids can thrive.

But reforming the existing system is a hot potato that neither the left nor right wants to hold, so, here we are. The system itself is degraded to the point that it doesn't have the resources to self-correct. We need vision, wisdom, funding, and leadership, to steer things in a new direction. I think that would go a long way in preventing a misguided kid from fermenting the idea that murdering people, or their own classmates, is an answer to their problems.

I don't mean to paint school shootings as simply a rebellion against a malfunctioning system, but, we really need to look at the system and make sure it's serving the students that have no choice but to be there.

This is interesting, and I didn't think of it this way.

But, if the only way welfare administration can be streamlined is to give everyone money, I'd feel guilty about taking it. Wouldn't be hard to find a way to spend $2k, sure, but knowing I didn't truly need it to make ends meet, while other people did, & maybe would have been helped even more if they had some of my share? Ach, it wouldn't feel right. It would be cool if the program was opt-out, and people who chose to opt out got a break in some other way, maybe on taxes that go to retirement savings. Maybe that's a horrible idea, I don't know.

Anyway cheers, thanks for explaining, I appreciate it.

I'm an idiot, so please jump in here if I'm getting this wrong.

Per the article, predicted program cost is $88 billion per year. Divide by Canada's adult population of ~33 million, so, ~$2700 per person per year, minus administrative costs and bloat, so, say $2k per year.

Well, I definitely wouldn't turn down a cheque if I qualified for it, and I don't want to come off as complaining about a program that doesn't even exist yet. But, $2k doesn't sound like an amount that any person could function on. That's less than one month's rent almost everywhere in this country. It's like, a 6" subway sandwich per day. Something something middle class, I seem to remember a certain federal party saying during election time. Why not simply lower taxes in a targeted way?

In what way is this amount 'basic'? What's the point of embarking on this whole investigative song & dance over a few extra bucks per day? What actually is the minimum amount necessary to function as an individual in this country? I think I know why the government isn't investigating that question.

I'm not against UBI as a concept. This $88b program, if that number is correct, seems like it's not even worth investigating. Am I crazy?