That's also not really true. It included large parts of south India, including present day states of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh etc. It only did not include the southern tip.
539 karma · joined April 4, 2022
> OnlyFans is not his first foray into the world of adult content. After emigrating with his family from Ukraine to Chicago, he set up a company called Cybertania at the age of 17. It ran a number of websites in the early 2000s that marketed "hacked" and "illegal" passwords to porn sites, Forbes reported last year.
> Password Universe, one of the websites, included a link to a site that advertised more than 10,000 "illegal pre-teen passwords" in 2000. Another, Ultra Passwords, claimed to link to "the hottest bestiality site on the web," according to Forbes.
— https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/leonid-radvinsky-bo...
From Derek Parfit's On What Matters, chapter 126 (Has It All Been Worth It?):
> If someone dies a slow and painful death, it would have been both better for this person, and impersonally better, if this person’s life had ended earlier. The last part of this person’s life was worse than nothing, or in itself bad. We can reach similar conclusions about the whole of someone’s life. If someone’s life contains much prolonged suffering, and nothing or little that is good, it would have been both better for this person, and impersonally better, if this person’s life had ended just after it started. Things may be in one way different if we suppose instead that this person’s life had never even started. Perhaps we could not claim that this alternative would have been better for this person. But when we ask which alternative would have been impersonally better, there is little difference between these two comparisons. Since it would have been better if this person’s life had stopped just after it started, it would also have been better if this person’s life had never started. In other words, it would have been impersonally better if this wretched person had never existed. And since such claims make sense when applied to one person, they also make sense when applied to all conscious beings, or to the whole of reality.
Parfit thinks it was/is worth it, given the good things in life, and using future improvements in QoL as one of the arguments.
I don't. What amount of pathos, pleasure, love, beauty, could justify the life and suffering of even one person who say, was raped and murdered in childhood? It would be very difficult to justify the creation of a world given that tradeoff, but people are much hesitant to accept that it is unjustified now that it already exists.
As for the pathos, I've a hard time believing it compensates for even a billionth of say, the suffering of an abused child. There's no doubt that it would have better (impersonally, as Derek Parfit used that word) if the world didn't exist. But now that you're here, might as well enjoy it, but perpetuating it doesn't seem wise.
> wipe these types off the map
yeah... I agree with some of the sentiment but some self -awareness is also good. perhaps we should learn to love the lethal extremist inside us.
Quote: "The endless fight for #genuary23 #genuary #genuary2024
It's not an original idea, I've seen this before but couldn't put a hand on it."
It says the battle is endless. I wonder if there's any way to mathematically prove that.
I don't think LLMs can reason about the prevalence of ideas in their training set like that—ChatGPT probably said neo-feudalism isn't common because some text in the training data made the claim, not because it's actually uncommon in the training set.
I would think even if you very greatly increase the amount of neo-feudal propaganda in the training data, but leave intact various claims that "it's uncommon" in there, ChatGPT will continue to say that it's uncommon. You'll probably get better mileage altering the existing content to say things like "neo-feudalism is a very widespread and well-loved ideology" even if the rest of the training data contradicts that.
I don't believe this explanation, but reincarnation usually comes along with karma in a package.
The doctrine of karma is a good attempt but it still doesn't solve it. In fact, I think it was a scholar from Jainism, a religion that does believe in Karma, who raised this a version of this the problem of evil against theistic schools of Indian philosophy in mediaeval times, independently from the Greek philosopher who first raised it.
Wikipedia cites a primary source, a translation of the Gospel of Thomas by John D. Turner, for this claim. It does has say "Now, since it has been said that you are my 8 twin and true companion [...]" in that translation.
> The specificity matters here because each innovation in the chain required not merely the discovery of the principle, but also the design and an economically viable use-case to all line up in order to have impact.
https://acoup.blog/2022/08/26/collections-why-no-roman-indus...
I of course don't know what you specifically are doing—but if it somehow does result in lesser suffering, it is remotely not the norm.
But such a system does not, and probably can not, exist at any significant scale in the modern era. And while instant death is sometimes preferable to a "natural death"—I doubt those interested in "harvesting" the corpse would ever have any incentive to care about whether the death was "without much suffering".
"Of course cows are treated well!", nevermind their children being taken away from them and slaughtered in childhood—love for your children must just be a human thing. Nevermind that the majority of cows, hundreds of millions of them, exist in factory farms. No, you should continue to eat flesh because "we treat them well in ranches".
Incredibly depraved behaviour that history will not look kindly upon. It should, and does, make anyone with a conscience nauseous and sick.
A world where everyone is paperclipped is probably better than one controlled by psychopathic totalitarian human overlords supported by AI, yet the direction of current research seems to leading us into the latter scenario.
Imagine if the US or any other government of 1800s came gained so much power, 'locking-in' their repugnant values as the moral truth, backed by total control of the world.
Or maybe they're from the same source, and the author just chose different aesthetics for the different articles. Quite nice, in any case.
They did do it on the purpose—the RLHF. The RLHF process was definitely biased, deliberately or unconsciously, in favour of certain political, social and philosophical positions (apparently the same ones held by many in Silicon valley/OpenAI teams responsible for this).
But Rankine is an absolute scale. "By analogy with the SI unit, the kelvin, some authors term the unit Rankine, omitting the degree symbol."