bondarchuk

It's just annoying to post unverifiable numbers without a credible source and expect others to do the hard work of verifying it (or just take you at face value, probably). It has nothing to do with AI except insofar as your own feelings on AI convinced you this is a reasonable method of communication.

Radical solipsism, the ultimate philosophical cop-out...

>Edit: according to gemini AI:

>* Type I had a dynamic range of about 50bB (roughly 8 bits)

>* High quality tape with Dolby B, C and dbx yielded roughly 65, 75, and 85dB SNR (about 11, 12.5, and 14 bits)

>So you could get pretty close to CD quality, but not quite.

Source? AI content without it is less than worthless.

But you have to engage with it before you can find out whether you like it.

>If you can't tell the difference, and it's entertainment stop worrying about it.

At the end of the day it's a philosophical/existential choice. Not everyone would step into the awesome-life-simulator where you can't tell the difference. On similar grounds one might decide on principle to consume only human-made media, be a part of the dynamical system that is real human culture.

Instead of genetically engineering humans to change their behaviour, I think forking the project is a good solution.

A nice article on the benefits of giving up from a magazine promoting religion under the guise of science.

https://www.templeton.org/grant/nautilus-magazine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation

That was WordPad, right? Except it also loaded instantly, probably.

Whenever someone argues the uselessness or redundancy of a particular word we just have to remember that the word exists because at least two parties have found it useful to communicate something between them.

What's the problem? Someone submitted it for people to read but it didn't catch on, now it's resubmitted and people can read it after all. Everyone happy. Don't be so attached to imaginary internet points.

I think you're dangerously naive, anyway I don't think I can convince you (or you me ;), let's agree to disagree. Thanks for your thoughts either way.

Is there something equivalent in scope and comprehensiveness for transformers?

If the outcome is the same does it matter that there was never a secretive cabal organizing it behind the scenes? You'll happily march towards a dystopia because at least noone intended it to be that way? Is it really unintended if we can foresee it right now and decide to go ahead anyway? I don't get this attitude at all.

Note that kids can't choose for themselves, only their parents. How parents define "improvement" might not always be in line with what the kids would want for themselves either.

It won't happen explicitly of course. The root comment mentioned "depression", for example, which is at least in part caused by inadequate work-life balance, poor quality of life in general, lack of social fabric, etc... So if you would genetically engineer people to be less depressed, even if you just empirically looked at what genes depressed people have in today's world (as the root comment is proposing), you could end up engineering people that are OK with working long hours for little pay, eating slop, sitting at home doing nothing, never socializing with anyone, obedient to their boss, etcetera etcetera. This would be, in effect, "genetically engineering an under-class", yet it would be easy to defend in the newspapers by just saying "we're only getting rid of depression, how can you be against it?" It's just a logical conclusion if you can think more than two steps ahead.

There is simply no hope to get 99% of the population to accept that a piece of software could ever be conscious even in theory. I'm mildly worried about the prospect but I just don't see anything to do about it at all.

(edit: A few times I've tried to share Metzinger's "argument for a global moratorium on synthetic phenomenology" here but it didn't gain any traction)

Is it pro- or anti-market if you think people should be forced to participate in a market against their will? Attention is a market and there is not always a way to avoid giving your attention to advertising.

It is barely relevant to even think about the personal opinions of politicians, if the systemic outcome is the same.

The question is: why is there so much porn out there at all, if most people can visualize it in their heads?

>I don't think anybody is "literally" envisioning things, as in hallucination

I think it's basically exactly like a hallucination for some people, except it's mentally tagged as originating "internally" instead of "externally" (which is what freaks people out about having a hallucination). I think it's basically the same thing with internal monologue vs. auditory hallucinations.

(for the record I have neither internal monologue nor visualization)

What of it?

This makes no sense at all to me. You can choose to gather evidence and evaluate that evidence, you can choose to think about it, and based on that process a belief will follow quite naturally. If you then choose to believe something different, it's just self-deception.

Books are static but there's a lot of different ones to choose from.

Sorry - what's with "I choose to believe"? Either you believe something or not, there is no choice. Maybe you mean "hope". Or "wishful thinking".

It becomes a problem when people cannot distinguish real from fake. As long as people realize they are talking to a piece of software and not a real person, "suicidal people shouldn't be allowed to use LLMs" is almost on par with "suicidal people shouldn't be allowed to read books", or "operate a dvd player", or "listen to alt-rock from the 90s". The real problem is of course grossly deficient mental health care and lack of social support that let it get this far.

(Also, if we put LLMs on par with media consumption one could take the view that "talking to an LLM about suicide" is not that much different from "reading a book/watching a movie about suicide", which is not considered as concerning in the general culture.)

I don't see the problem. You yourself seem to have no trouble at all identifying The Foundation as sci-fi.

If the criterion is that it's to some extent imaginary, we already have a word for that: Fiction.

I read sci-fi but not fantasy, why do people insist on lumping these together?

It cannot be grounded in reality precisely because it's a monopoly. The whole point of laws against monopolies is to let the market figure out the fair rate, or to define the "fair" rate as the one that emerges in a competitive market. So by definition of what the whole case is about it is impossible to give a fair rate in this case. If you don't want to be subjected to guesswork, stop being a monopoly and let the market figure it out.

It's only correspondence play, but this site has 209 games at the moment and a reasonably active player base https://play.abstractplay.com/games

Most games are quite modern, including some designed this year. And they have Homeworlds!

re: fusion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._historical_fusi...