AlecSchueler

> LLMs do it by ...

That they do it at all is the point and is what separates then from MP3 encoding algorithms. The "how" doesn't seem to me to be as important as you're suggesting.

You asked a hypothetical above about a different algorithm and now we've ascertained the reasons why that was reductive.

> LLMs never experienced ...

What is experience beyond taking input from the world around you and holding an understanding of it?

I don't think it matters what you wear, you will still be a disgusting, frightened little racist hiding behind your anonymity.

You're wrong. Style is subjective and it's abhorrent to suggest that fashion associated with certain races is inherently less tasteful than others. You should be ashamed of yourself.

> the algorithm responsible for converting ripped YouTube music videos to MP3s has a consciousness.

Can such an algorithm reason about itself in relation to others?

> They don't have senses because they don't have a body

Surely "having senses" is predicated more on "being able to sense the world around you" than "having a body."

> Does my installation of starcraft have consciousness?

Can your installation of StarCraft take in information about the world and then reason about its own place in that world?

> And, I don't see how it can be. It is deterministic

Why is indeterminism the key to consciousness?

> It seems obvious that it should cause lots of fatalities

That's not obvious at all to me, what would the reasoning be?

> Today is so hoodified you have office workers in sneakers.

I'm not sure if that was intended as a dog whistle but you might want to consider that it's coming across as one.

Have you had success with this? I was aware of this when I became a parent but it was impossible to find the space or energy amongst everything else.

Also, where in Africa?

> Maybe ones who ...

Ok but could you point to anyone or any people and tell me that they're rational? I didn't just ask for a possible condition of rationality and "maybe" feels like a very flimsy foundation for the acidity of what you're saying.

> they aren't rational humans.

Would you be able to point to any rational humans?

What's he benefit here over a landline phone?

I'm glad to see opinion seems to be swaying back in this direction. It was only a few months ago that the general sentiment seemed to be "times are different than the glasshole days, it's fine now."

You're illustrating something related but separate. There's no disagreement here that they perform basic censorship.

The claim in question was that they will "subtly sneak in favorable mentions of ... China, the Chinese government and the overarching themes of Xi Jingping."

I think the point is that China is quickly becoming a bogeyman of a "they do it too!" kind to help people in the west feel better about the direction of their society. Ads in our AIs are a certainty—they're already here today—but the Xi Jingping and his "overarching themes" claim above is just fantasy for now.

That's been entirely my own experience, or at least the assumption that's kept me off all of them so far.

But I saw this project a few days ago and thought to myself "Hey, this one could actually work." The difference here is that the target audience has a pretty strong overlap with the part of society comfortable with self hosting services.

I don't need my whole network for this one to be useful, only that subset that's actually most likely to show up.

> Probably _most_ services devs use are VC funded. GitHub, was VC funded?

GitHub was founded in a very different world. Would we start using it today is the question.

A big franchise tie-in for mass produced notebooks is definitely on the commodity end of the artistic spectrum.

> Giving away that at least for me means to become a dependent zombie.

I suppose people felt the same way in the agrarian revolution and later again with inventions like the plough. Suddenly a lot of people offloaded their food independence onto the work of a few.

What might it open up in our lives to be free of knowledge?

That said, these machines don't run themselves, if we disengage our minds we might get stuck in a dead end with them.

Are these hypothetical books being written by "predatory companies?"

I'm well aware! Not only are we unable to change our behaviour we in fact have the hubris to imagine that if we could only use our technology to communicate with the whales that it would be enough to say

> "Don't go to these places—even though you want to, even though your family has been breeding there for generations—because that's our special whale hunting area"

And that their behaviour would change for us, that their response would simply be:

> "No worries, thanks for the heads up! Sorry for getting in the way of your harpoons"

Always found it funny that cannabis in small amounts was sold in grams but later quantities in ounces.

It's not just the BBC, it's the UK as a whole. Miles per hour or deeply entrenched for speeds but for measurements we use meters. The same for weight, we weigh people in stone but we weigh everything else with grams.

It's just a pity we couldn't figure out how to better coexist with whales.

There's a whole spectrum available from dialogue with government members to bloody revolution. But I don't see how passive aggressively breaking arbitrary civil laws that happen to be your pet peeve either raises awareness or puts any pressure on the government at all.

The person I responded to didn't seem to be French ("governments" not "or government") and I'm not sure the French have a history of opposing their governments through copyright violations.

> The suspect hasn't been charged with insider trading.

I think that was the point GP was making.

What do you want me to take from your BBC article? Their mutual and explicit commitments to peace?

> it's something to look at closely every April and October. Seems like we're good for this April

So the rationale for the belief is that a specific American scholar says it. And what he says is "it could happen any time but so far we've always been lucky."

Honestly without any actual reasoning or evidence to back that up it's difficult to take it any more seriously than a tarot reading.

The invasion of Greenland seems much more likely.

I can see this happening as well. I'm extremely loathe to download or sign up or discuss anything online these days.

Let us know how it works out. It's great in theory to stick to your principles but taking on the government in that way is almost certainly a losing battle. There are better ways to bring about change.