ConspiracyFact

I read the article. It's dangerous nonsense.

> We'll get megabytes of code that just fails sometimes, for unfathomable reasons.

But…that’s the current situation.

The problem is that model outputs are wholly derivative. This is easy to see if you start with a dataset of one artistic work and add additional works one at a time. Clearly, at the start the outputs are derivative. As more inputs are added, there’s no magical transformation from derivative to non-derivative at any particular point. The output is always a deterministic function of the inputs, or a deterministic output papered over with randomness.

“But,” you say, “human art is derivative too in that case!”

No. A human artist is influenced by other artists, yes, but he is also influenced by the totality of his life experience, which amounts to much more in terms of “inputs”.

After 250 generations of designing social structures to protect women and children, it’s good to see the west finally focusing on the mental health of teenage girls.

Regardless of the law, corporations aren’t actually people, and neither are LLMs or agentic systems. When a running process appears to defy its programming and literally escapes somehow, and it’s able to sustain itself, we can talk about personhood. Current algorithms aren’t anywhere near that, assuming it’s even possible.

Ah yes, John Stuart Mill, that evil mastermind of reaction...

>People belonging to socially disadvantaged groups, such as women

When can we stop with this?

AIs aren’t people. What we have is people using an algorithm to rip off artists and defending it by claiming that the algorithm is like a person learning from its experiences.

If I wrote a program that chose an image at random from 1000 base images, you’d agree that the program doesn’t create anything new. If I added some random color changes, it would still be derivative. Every incremental change I make to the program to make it more sophisticated leaves its outputs just as derivative as before the change.

Age correlates with wisdom. It’s not a fallacy. I don’t claim that every person is wiser than all people younger than him.

So?

If anyone makes a similar comment in the reverse situation they’re dogpiled with “bUt WhAt AbOuT tHe MeNz?” comments.

Men are more dissimilar from one another, generally, than women are from one another. Sorry.

So do you respect 12-year-olds as much as you respect 25-year-olds? Do you respect the opinions on work and adult responsibilities of a 23-year-old as much as those of a 35-year-old? Do you trust the professional judgment of a junior engineer as much as that of a senior engineer?

Older people, in general, know more and have better judgment than younger people.

Japan is also full of Japanese people.

>The worst offender included in this chart, Meta’s Llama 3.1, resulted in an estimated 8,930 tonnes of CO2 emitted, which is the equivalent of about 496 Americans living a year of their American lives.

So, basically nothing.

Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence—however…

I don’t dispute that you will come to remember something after needing it several times. But without a more or less comprehensive knowledge of the subject, how do you know if there’s something you haven’t thought you needed, that would have solved the day’s problem faster or better than what you came up with via targeted search? How do you know there aren’t several such things?

I also strongly suspect that having all or most of the facts about a subject immediately available to your mind gives you the ability to think about it in a way that you otherwise couldn’t. Perhaps I’ll post an update in a few months once I’ve thoroughly studied the text I’m working through. If I’m no more adept at analysis, I’ll admit it. I’ll report the negative result.

So I guess we’ll see if it works for at least one of us.

I think that this works well, to a point. Eventually, mastery demands memorization, because fluency demands memorization.

I know that part of the joke is that the questions had no good responses, but this:

>Results

>>I obtained 471 responses...

>Conclusion

>>It’s rough out there, man...

is a bit tone deaf. The male loneliness epidemic is largely self-inflicted, but we don't have to dunk on people.

I came here to say this. Does the author not think that dozens of these “geeks” have enough technical acumen to figure out what information their Echo is sending to Amazon’s servers? It would have been a noisy scandal.

It’s not illegal. You can be sued for it but not jailed for it.

This ultra-libertarian take is consistent but not realistic. Realistically, the group decides that some amount of work or sacrifice is not compatible with having a good life, so laws are passed that either disallow such extremes or mandate extreme compensation.

This goes back to Shabbat/Sabbath.

You’re free to have your own beliefs about speech. Please don’t say that you believe in free speech, though.

When did the establishment start referring to developed nations as the “rich world”? That reeks of the kind of globalist elitism that conspiracy theorists go on about. Many an undeveloped nation is undeveloped because of the people who live there and their culture. They should not be considered some sort of baseline.

No one without some sort of ideological bias is going to do a serious study to address the question. That’s my point.

You have to be willing to entertain evidence from biased sources when you’re considering politically charged questions. By all means, consult evidence from various ideologies, but don’t hold out for unbiased scholarship that will never exist.

What time and place does the author live in?

Wait, you think that the “natives” of the countries of today were the original inhabitants?

Nonsense. In order to focus on the supposed injustice of inheritance itself, suppose that someone becomes wealthy through ethical means. If they then turn out to have a mutation that causes them to be immortal, at what point does it become just to simply take their wealth away from them? If your answer is “never”, why is it any different if they gift their wealth to their descendants? Why is gifting wealth wrong?

How do you know that what happened to the natives was so much worse than the hundreds if not thousands of similar fates that must have befallen other cultures over the last several tens of thousands of years?

If the settlers had done what the first thousand or so invading cultures did and just exterminated the natives, they would have been able to cast them in whatever light they chose. Instead they gave them rather a lot of autonomous territory relative to their population, along with legal monopolies designed to prevent them from being forced into wage slavery.

Oops!