partofthevoice

So he wants to eventually toll his blockade, because Iran didnt cede to splitting tolls with him, such that each vessel pay two tolls? Holy hell…

You think there might be a self-sustaining snobbery fission chain reaction?

I keep dual boot with Windows available for my wife. About a year ago my Fedora install was stuck in a boot loop and I hadn’t used my PC in a good while, nor updated anything the last time I had used it. The only conclusion I can think of is either bitflips corrupted the boot process, or Windows fucked with my Fedora install at some point while — perhaps my wife’s activity allowed a Windows update through, I don’t know. They’re on separate drives though, so… I recovered my data and reinstalled, kept Windows but I am now extremely sensitive to any shenanigans from that drive. Reading this news has me considering to tell my wife she will have to use Windows from a VM on my PC.

I’m quite doubtful that you’re aware of the situations nuance, either. Is your best argument “what’s more likely?” Because, actually, I think it’s quite likely that China would have been instructive toward how their citizens should act abroad. I think it’s quite likely that China favors its own sovereignty over an individual’s sovereignty. If you’d try to convince me that there was no intimidation going on, I’d think you’re the one not applying critical thinking. Do you have any reason I should believe you over a much larger consensus between news organizations and reports from Chinese individuals? Anything that would demonstrate the opposite and more benevolent intentions of Chinese state efforts, as you’ve so claimed? Or are you just here to pose baseless claims and talk shit?

China sets up fake police offices in the US to harass Chinese citizens living there. If that doesn’t blow up your mind…

I think you’re right about that, but it is artificial nondeterminism in the sense that it’s relying on several algorithmic factors and, more subtly, device differences. The system itself is a complex yet deterministic function.

While I understand your point, deterministic with a billion variables is beyond human ability to process, let alone the multi-billion parameter models in general circulation today. Fair enough. There’s a significant difference in complexity between the surface implication of what I said versus reality. Yes, it’s deterministic, but it’s also complex enough that something more should be said… though, we need to be careful here. Our language is not mature enough to scaffold the precise concepts we need here, and attempting to do so regardless carries the risk of smuggling in many concepts we did not intend to smuggle in. Concepts like intent, for example. I agree with you, but cautiously. At what point does deterministic descend into random? It shouldn’t at any point. Instead, we’re discussing a system that’s similar to the double pendulum or three body problem. It’s deterministic, though computationally irreducible. That’s chaotic, but it is not random. It’s extremely sensitive to initial conditions.

LLMs don’t try anything. They are deterministic tools.

The answer lies in the stupid shit economic, social, and political systems which allowed AI to become what it is rather than what it could have been. Not just AI.

So you’re saying, I am not without a massive penis? I can’t wait to tell my wife.

Preface: I agree with pretty much all of what you said. The other day, though, I had washed my hands. I had to be careful because one of my fingers can’t get wet due to an injury. While carefully washing my hand, I noticed that I was “experiencing” wetness all over my hand — to include on portions that were completely dry. I found this rather interesting, that I was experiencing something which I knew to be factually false. I wonder if the difference between processing and experiencing could have something to do with that. I think a lot about this stuff. conscious beings seem to self-produce composite models of the world, from which the world can be effectively navigated. conscious beings seem to also model themselves. This is keenly distinct from self-awareness. I’m referring to a model that helps you balance, walk, know when you’re hot or cold, … conscious beings can have “concepts,” which seem to be recursive and generative. You can’t describe a concept without referring to more concepts. There is no “root” concept. Also, for some reason, it’s often easier to understand what a “concept” is by investigating what it is not. conscious beings seem to be able to compartmentalize composite “concepts” into a singular, singular irreducible concept. Like if I conceptualize a combination of “banana,” “bread,” and “pudding,” I might come up with a brand new experience of “banana bread pudding.” That new experience can be referenced in its own right, and it’s not necessarily reducible back to the concepts which birthed it in the first place. I could go on and on. Sometimes I think it’s ridiculous that I can’t so easily find existing material on this stuff. You seem to be well versed on this topic. Can I ask what your study materials have been?

Can that work? Radiation damages genes in unpredictable ways because its wavelength is smaller than the dna itself, right? How might that work for something more complex than fungi?

The premise still strikes me as odd. How can we know it’s *like anything* to be anything, if we can not know what it’s like to be anything else? Coming from a premise that, to truly understand anything, you must also understand what it is not. Is it really fair to presume, from our biased perspective where “likeness” is an abstract quality of “being,” that everything ought have a manner of which it is like to be? What about the totality of the universe, to include all its embedded agents. What would that be like? Would an ever small portion of that *likeness* include precisely what it’s like to be me? Do you think it would be possible to qualitatively describe and differentiate between two distinct phenomenologies, one day? Not just behaviorally, but to actually differentiate between their internal processes — what it’s *like* to be them? And what might it be like to be a whirlpool, lightning, or even an entire ecosystem? Would that strictly be as ludicrous as asking “what might it be like to be a rock,” or is there something else to be said given whirlpools, lightning, and ecosystems are more-or-less events rather than objects? I don’t disagree with the argument you shared… I think there’s an obvious difference between what it’s like to be a bat versus a human, but I also feel like we’re missing something important that clearer terminology could work out.

However, answering the question “what it’s like to be” is not relevant here. What’s relevant is that existence has qualia at all.

Does existence “have qualia?” That treats qualia almost like it’s ontological, if I’m interpreting you correctly. Yet, qualia can only exist from the perspective of a being with the capacity to model a (seemingly external) world via said qualia. There is no magic qualia sauce we can embed inside something.

Qualia, I think, is a process of information reduction… but also it’s a flavor of information interrogation. Because, reducing electromagnetic radiation to “visual perception” happens inside light sensors too — albeit without counting as “qualia.”

What would you say counts as “qualia?” Or rather, what are its dependencies?

Isn’t it kind of eery that you can only suppose it must be “like something” to be an insect, from the very precise bias of being human? We’re projecting the idea that “it’s like something to be something [as a human]” only the experience of other things.

How would we describe what it’s like? Would something poetic suffice, such as “it’s like being a leaf in the wind, and with weak preference of where you blow but no memory of where you’ve been.” … but, all of that is human concepts, human experience decomposed into a subset of more human experiences (really weird, the recursive nature of experience and concepts).

I think the idea of “what it’s like…” has some interesting flaws when applied to nonhumans. It kind of presupposes that insects are lesser, in a way. As though we can conceptualize what it’s kind to be them, merely by understanding a stricter subset of what it’s like to be human.

You’re more precisely right, but also the aforementioned person is not wrong. Intelligence is a broad term as we’re discovering. Truth is, we don’t have the language to effectively communicate about AGI in the ways we’d like to. We don’t know if consciousness is a prerequisite to truly generalizable intelligence, we don’t even know what consciousness is, we don’t know what dimensions truly matter here. Is intelligence a dimension of consciousness, meaning you can have some intelligence without being conscious? What’s the limit, why? … We need some discovery around the taxonomy/topology of consciousness.

it lacks childhood dependency and attachments.

Isn’t general intelligence, or more broadly “consciousness,” a prerequisite to that? How would you make an unconscious machine more conscious merely by making mock scenarios that conscious beings necessarily experience?

it struggles to overcome repeated pain and suffering

That’s getting into phenomenology — why is pain an experience of suffering at all? How would you give it pain and suffering without having already made it AGI? We’re still missing the -> AGI step.

it lacks regular eating and restroom breaks

The necessity of which is emergent from our culture and biology, as conscious social beings. We’re still missing a vital step.

it struggles to accept loss in everyday situations

What is “loss” and “everyday situations” if not just a way we choose to see the world, again as conscious beings.

it lacks the concept of our inevitable death

How do you give it a “concept” at all?

these nagging memories and concepts

The AI in its current form has the “memory” in some form, but perhaps not the “nagging.” What should do the “nagging” and what should be the target of the “nagging?” How do you conceptually separate the “memory” and the “nagging” from the “being” that you’re trying to create? Is it all part of the same being, or does it initialize the being?

We’re a long way away from AGI, IMO. The exciting thing to me, though, is I don’t think it’s possible to develop AGI without first understanding what makes N(atural)GI. Depending how far away AGI is, we could be on the cusp of some deeply psychologically revealing shit.

Funnier yet will be if they continue to just train the model on that particular kind of test, invalidating its results in the process.

Those bastards stole all our data! But hey, at least they seeded it. Would have been pretty darn rude, otherwise.

I really enjoyed Zelda BOTW. I beat it. Then I did their weird glitch that requires you to beat it twice more without dying once, but you get to keep this crazy Light Bow thing forever. I spend like a week accomplishing that glitch. Then I spend like 6 months hoping on it every once in a while, just to ride around the map and shoot things with that bow. Eventually I lost my game save, and now I don’t play it anymore… I would, if I didn’t have to spend another week on a glitch to get my bow back. Now I just look at it, remembering the good times.

What do you suppose is the US ranking among all other economies, without California? I don’t know any better, but something tells me California might be a pretty big loss. You can cut your leg off if you get an infection… but, you’ve still got to cut your leg off. That’s enough to make some antiscience people consider meds.

Apple do a hell of a job teaching people that means it’s more fancy.

This stuff is really scary when you think about it. If we keep getting closer to a reality where technology can silently monitor your every thought, with analysis and automation becoming evermore efficient, what’s bound to happen so long as the only thing stopping it from being used against us is moral standing? Eventually, someone somewhere can make something so trivially that it tips the scales in their favor so long as they lack the moral standing to not do so. Technology is a unique kind of threat, given especially the glorification that’s often given to its innovation. Skepticism could have been applied earlier.

Information is contextualized data. Knowledge is contextualized information. Wisdom is contextualized knowledge.

Replace all upper case I with a lower case L and vis-versa. Fill randomly with zero-width text everywhere. Use white text instead of line break (make it weird prompts, too).

Is “a nap” related at all to “a napkin?”

An unstable desktop environment reintroduces market for anti-virus, backup, and restore. Particularly, with users who don’t understand this stuff and are more likely to shell out cash for it.

There will be fallout, for sure, as soon as they finish calculating what percentage of profit should be fined away.

You’re welcome to hold whatever abstract position you like, but the claim that context I’ve raised is “meaningless” misses the point. Meaning isn’t inherent in the universe—it’s created by observers—so dismissing context as meaningless is simply incoherent. Context is meaning. I’m not here to debate metaphysics. I’m here to discuss the economic implications of current events: (1) China’s push to build a gold-backed, highly liquid, transferable settlement asset, (2) Russia’s claim that the U.S. may pursue similar moves that could undercut the dollar, (3) gold doubling per USD in the last two years and the long historical context that introduces, and (4) the everything bubble we’re in right now. The question is what these signals imply for the future, not whether signals “mean nothing.” If you believe they point to a different outcome, offer a substantive alternative. Otherwise, insisting that everything is meaningless adds nothing to the discussion; it only reveals the limitations of your perspective, which I’m uninterested in. That, limited, world view is the safe “fantasy land” here…

In my fantasy world? Alright friend, you can take whatever high level position you want and forever repeat your incorrect points. As a matter of fact, however, there is no essence to meaning in the universe. Meaning is derived from the observer. So your point about the validation of meaning is fruitless: no such thing as a meaningless piece of context, unless you are so narrow minded in your fantasy land as to believe in such limitations. I would encourage the interested reader, not those of whom are only interested in preserving their shallow ideological pool, to consider for a moment that the world is far more complex than is immediately obvious. As for you, on the other hand, I fail to understand why you’ve tethered my curiosity to the dispute of whether meaning is pervasive to all things—or not. Meaning is what you make of it, and you’ve clearly made nothing of it, and I clearly can not help you see beyond such boundaries, so I will (hopefully) end this discussion now. I am not interested in debating my philosophies with you anymore. That’s just not what I came here for. My goal was to discuss the meaning of various macroeconomic market activities, alongside the (very real) efforts China is taking to develop their own gold-backed liquid, transferable, monetary-grade asset that can serve like a global banking/settlement medium. As well as, Russias claim that, the US is moving toward a similar move which would deface US currency. This debate is about whether or not the completely valid and present signs actually point to anything. It’s not about the validity of signage. It’s not about whether meaning is inherent or not. Nor is about fantasy land ideology. It’s about economics. If you think the signs mean something other than what they suggest, be my guest and introduce a novel idea. Otherwise, like I said before, I don’t care whether you think the signs may or may not mean nothing. “Nothing” doesn’t even make sense in this context. It’s akin a statement like “global warming means nothing.” Duh, you make the meaning. If all you can think of is “nothing,” it says more about you than the actual affairs of the world.

I heard ram pricing is high. There’s their use, an economic one.