• 3 Posts
Joined 2Y ago
Cake day: Mar 25, 2021


The percentage of young men who think gender-related violence is not real has doubled in the last four years, it’s over 20% now. Plus a similar share believe feminism is detrimental to society.

Thanks, comrade, I didn’t know about the 16 Days of Activism. There were massive protests on the 25th, I even attended one. The good news is, our current government has responded to public outcry by pushing forward laws to protect women. The bad news is, sexism and anti-feminism is growing at an alarming rate here, so the next government will probably reverse everything… I hate this place.

So, let me summarize…

  • China has strict anti-terrorism laws that deal with e.g. radicalization. They imprison anyone that breaks those laws in specialized prisons.
  • People that happen to live in the same areas make a living by manufacturing and exporting goods, including polysilicon cells.
  • Cutting imports from those areas would increase poverty and thus increase dissent in an already conflicting area; US government obviously decides to do it.
  • Somehow they want me to believe that making those people poorer will change Chinese laws? Or something like that?
  • Now they manage to somehow link it with renewables too, and propose measures that would increase their price. So guess we should rely as much as possible on oil, which benefits the US’ petrodollar system?
  • And yet the article tries to make it sound like those panels are being manufactured by forced labor, by not giving much of an explanation, plus mashing it together with actual forced labor manufacture.

You could think that, just as easily as you could NOT think that. In fact, there’s no reason to discard either option, or any other. For all you know, you could be a tomato that some scientist tricked into believing it exists.

Thus, one doesn’t choose to believe something because it’s possible, but because it’s useful to do so. So we choose to believe the simplest possible hypothesis that explains all the phenomena we care about. “We live in a simulation” is just as plausible as any other idea, but it adds exactly nothing to our understanding of the world around us.

If I find bugs that affect me or want to add features, I can tackle that myself and send them the patches. I’ve already done this to great extent with LibreOffice and Avogadro 2, plus some small contributions to other programs.

The other day I saw a comment making some claim and linking to a CIA report that confirmed it. I thought it would be really cool if we had some sort of repository with sources we find interesting, so here it is!

Yeah, although I’ve realized I enjoy the meal more if I don’t.

Made me laugh, nice. But as I said before, this unhealthy friction between instances is pointless.

At least they have a rule against attacking other users, which we seem to lack…

Cool! It’s nice to have our own meme formats here on Lemmy!

We all love lemmy tho

“A few weeks after we met, we realized that we had to write a joint paper because the combination of our last names, in the usual alphabetical order, is remarkably obscene.”


Fun fact: there’s as of now one opioid (tianeptine) that has been claimed to be non-addictive. Little to no effort seems to be underway to prove or deny it, so time will tell…

As fit the first part, note that you haven’t defined “experiencing life” in the same terms you have defined “looking at a dataset”. You have memories of events that have actually occurred, but whether those events are real or not is a property of reality, not of you.

As I stated before, I agree that LaMDA is not sentient. It “only” tries to give answers that realistically match the prompts given. However, I don’t think that’s a small feat compared to “actual” sentience or that it’s fundamentally different to it. In fact, the parts of our brain that allow us to communicate do something extremely similar to that (if you want an example of human communication patterns more similar to the ones in the LaMDA paper, search “Wenicke-Korsakoff syndrome” on the internet).

So, in my view, state-of-the-art AI lacks many human skills and is probably not sentient, but AI in general has no obstacles to being sentient.

And, regarding the problem I posed, I didn’t mention a copy of you. I mentioned slowly replacing your own neurons with others that work the exact same way. Replacing neural tissue does not make a different you per se, as you’re already replacing every component in your cells continuously, and even some of your neurons die and are replaced.

I’ll give you a philosophical question. Since the behavior of any number of neurons is within the aforementioned computational class, you could, theoretically, replace any number of your own neurons with “virtual” neurons. However, you wouldn’t feel any change, as your overall brain activity would be exactly the same, both in the new neurons and the old ones connected to them. Since you wouldn’t lose sentience even if all neurons but one were replaced, would you lose it when the last “real” neuron dies out?

That implies every living organism is sentient, which is false. Additionally, computers are in the computational class of bounded storage machines, which is the highest class achievable within the laws of physics. Thus, the internal functioning of every physical system (including biological creatures and their thoughts and/or sentience) can be recreated by a sufficiently powerful computer with a suitable programming.

I disagree with a small fraction of what you said. The human brain is also wired to a set of concrete rules, there’s nothing preventing a specially crafted AI from becoming sentient. Now, whether LaMDA is sentient or not is a different issue. I personally think it isn’t, but I wouldn’t bet much on that…