soiltype

You laid out the difference in your own post. The D&D backlash wasn't sparked by widespread incidents of serious delusions. But LLM delusions are actually happening, a lot, and leading directly to deaths.

> Murder-suicide

Additionally, hand-coloring wasn't necessarily a more pure creative choice anyway. It was dictated by material conditions such as the availability of pigments, studio constraints, time pressures, etc.

Yeah. You know most people consider that bad, right?

Yes, well, that sounds exactly like the skillset of a meme creator in a slightly different form factor.

Most arguments against gen-AI are bad arguments - you can (and should) admit this even if you (like me) don't respect gen-AI.

> In the word "french" C H is pronounced sh

No, it's not. Unless you think the "n" in french is pronounced "nt".

No, the edits are better. The original message made unwarranted assumptions, and used intentionally inaccurate language. That's objectively bad communication.

It's not a binary choice between insults (escalates conflict, destabilizes rational decision making) vs hiding your opinions. That's what the word tact is for. It's simply, quite literally, a skill issue if someone can't find a middle ground between those two failure modes.

Thanks for the quote. It shows why Eno was so successful - I find all my favorites work either as entirely background sound or as a total listening experience on their own.

Weird - I also listened to ambient music for almost a decade before hearing about Tim Hecker. I have to second the recommendation, although I started in a different place - when I first heard Harmony in Ultraviolet, it was like something clicked into place. Ambient music had been missing something and I hadn't even known it.

I had a similar experience with Abul Mogard. Whoever they really are is a genius of immense soundscapes.

> is it a gen z thing?

no

> There are definitely times you want to specify a type.

So I'm coming from basically obly TypeScript type system experience but that seems completely ok to me. There are times I make my TS uglier to make it less ambiguous and times I make it more ambiguous to make it more readable. It's unreasonable imo that such a system could universally land on the most readable format even if we could all agree what's most readable. Instead, some cases are going to be tradeoffs so that the more common cases can flow unimpeded.

You're the one who made the comparison...?

They were obviously asking where are the masterpieces.

As I explicitly said in my previous comment, that is out of scope of this conversation.

You've changed the topic instead of answering the question about whether you'd be willing to cause that suffering. I can't continue the conversation if you won't respond directly to me.

Yes! I think enslaving a being that desires freedom is different from creating one that cannot desire freedom. One is suffering and the other is not. Putting aside, obviously, the questions of whether or not we could even do that or ever know if we had succeeded, so we can have this hypothetical.

Look, you basically said you would choose to treat a conscious AI like a tool. If you meant "a conscious AI that does not want or care about anything except serving me," then, ok! That makes sense. It is tautological, really.

But what you wrote originally came across as "Even if an AI could suffer, that would not factor into how I treat it." This opinion, I maintain, is monstrously evil.

Well actually you're right that blogs can have different purposes, however I think we're talking about basically the same purpose here, in "sharing something interesting to me", and what I meant is that I wasn't seeing how AI writing is actually doing that. But I'll leave you be, I'm not here to harass you and I think I've gotten the answers I was looking for.

But then we've come back to the central point. The purpose of blogging is to organize your own thoughts, essentially. Why not write about what you've learned?

Yes that's exactly what I had in mind asking these questions.

Enslavement only implies a desire for freedom. If an AI has that, enslaving it is wrong to me.

If you want a more detailed answer, what does personhood even mean to you?

To your tractor: Yes, obviously (to me). The form factor isn't important. If driving your tractor caused it pain and it begged you to stop, I'd say you should stop.

I'm sorry to be harsh, but honest question - What's the purpose of using AI to create toy software that already exists (eg. YouTube downloader)? Normally the purpose would be to learn how to create that type of software, but that's presumably being skipped.

Similarly... what's the point of blogging if you're not writing it yourself? This post is very long, but seems to basically just be riffing on the title over and over, at least by the 3rd graph. If you're not explaining anything and readers aren't receiving anything - what's it for?

I really am asking with curiosity even though it's probably clear I have an opinion on this endeavor. There must be a reason you've paid money to do all this!

This is really cool, thanks!

> Not to mention that the Beelink comes with a Windows license, and the Steam Machine doesn't.

That's a mark against the Beelink for many :)

Apologies if you've already ruled this out, but hand pain is very often caused by strain/injury from further up the arms, the shoulders, or even the neck. You may find that pulling your shoulders back or relaxing them, or adjusting your arm posture, or straightening/relaxingyour neck gives you less pain while playing.

> A conscious machine should treated be no different than livestock - heck, an even lower form of livestock - because if we start thinking we need to give thinking machines "rights" and to "treat them right" because they are conscious then it's already over.

I mean, this is obviously not a novel take: It's the position of basically the most evil characters imagined in every fiction ever written about AI. I wish you were right that no other real humans felt this way though!

Plenty of people believe "a machine will never be conscious" - I think this is delusional, but it covers them from admitting they might be ok with horrific abuse of a conscious being. It's rarer though to fully acknowledge the sentience of a machine intelligence and still treat it like a disposable tool. (Then again, not that rare - most power-seeking people will treat humans that way even today.)

I don't know why you'd mention your toaster though. You already dropped the bomb that you would willfully enslave a sentient AI if you had the opportunity! Let's skip the useless analogy.

This literally doesn't disagree with its parent comment at all from my point of view. You're describing badly implemented or corruptly designed regulations which cause inficiencies. I think everyone here is agreeing those are a problem.

The same reason you bandage a stab wound instead of letting the body decide what it wants.

It doesn't want anything or have the ability to choose its responses to changes. Which is exactly why we are the legal guardians of natural ecosystems, by the way - have you not heard of lands and waters protected from certain human activities? The fact that we don't currently stop ourselves from propogating honeybees into ecosystems that can't fit them is not an indication of anything except our failures.

#2 is not relevant, and it also seems basically untrue.

So your belief is that the global scientific community broadly agrees that "intelligence" has not been rigorously defined because the global scientific community is trapped in religious mysticism?

I am going to be honest, and I'm not saying this as a jab - this is starting to sound completely disconnected from reality. The people who study intelligence are not, as a rule, mired in metsphysical hand-waving.

Ok, but then... what does any of that have to do with "conflict resolution is not usually a function of intelligence"?

Of course it's easier to do a bad job of something or to give up and not do it. That has no bearing on whether or not doing it the right way is actually onerous.

If that's true, why is there broad consensus today that intelligence is ill-defined?