throwanem

This industry's favored idiot children.

How do you know that there aren't? If you had a "robot software factory" that worked, and you were certain it was a source of not just lifechanging or generational but potentially centenary wealth - well.

There was a time in my life when I too would give such a thing away free, on the idea that those who might do some good with it may make up for the ones who will certainly turn it to great evil. After 30 years' exposure, some consensual, to Bay Area/Silicon Valley "culture," I am no longer so sweetly naïve.

Sure I do. You're almost good enough, at pretending to lousy construction, to have fooled me. Use more words next time; the semiliterate invariably mistake volume for quality.

I say.

So boring you just couldn't help yourself, eh?

But no, I've meant every word I wrote this evening here, just as I do every other word I say or write, ever. Sometimes those words are sarcastic! In such cases there is rarely any doubt.

I didn't say "no one here," though, did I? I said you can't.

You're worried about me actually throwing a drink - 'threatening?' Really. - and I'm taking things too seriously? This is a website!

It is, though, interesting to me that you see someone behave in a way you aren't expecting and don't quite know how to wrap your head around - no blame; it's a relatively common experience in my vicinity, though normal people typically enjoy it much more than those here - and your immediate recourse is to assume it must have been generated by AI. That's interesting indeed, and I greatly appreciate you sharing it.

> "real" AI being much more like a charismatic extroverted socialite

As I said in my opening clause here, I fit that description exactly, and "'real' AI," as my original interlocutor would have it, sounds nothing like me.

The insult arises from the fact that "'real' AI" sounds nothing particularly like anyone, because it isn't any one: if it had eyes there would be nothing happening behind them. This is why it keeps driving people insane: there are cognitive vulnerabilities here which, for most humans, have until a couple of years ago been about as realistic to need to worry about as a literal alien invasion.

To a human, being compared with something which can only pretend to humanity - and that not at all well! - is an insult. It should be an insult, too. Anyone is welcome to try and fail to convince me otherwise.

Not nearly self-aware enough, if you were to go around saying such things to people in person. What a shocking insult, to tell someone their very voice sounds unhuman! I can't say you should never, of course, but I would hope very much you reserve such calumny only for when it has been thoroughly earned.

But of course this is only a website, where there are in any case no drinks of any sort to go flying for any reason, and where such an ill-considered thing to say can receive a more reasoned response like this, instead.

Oh, good grief. Flag my comment, then. Per the HN guidelines that is the preferable action:

> Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.

Of course I disagree with "egregious," did it need saying. After an insult like that, I promise you, no one in my bar would consider I had acted egregiously at all. But I admit it is a surprise to see you violate the site's discussion guidelines, in the very effort to enforce them.

> I might be focused on 1 or 2 things in that very busy and chaotic environment...

...so you hired a professional to do that job for you, instead of risking the wellbeing of everyone nearby. This was the correct decision!

These aren't a kind of bees who build hives, and dead bees dry out on their own for no longer drinking water. Drying them to a specific set humidity removes a confounder.

(Are you a hobby beekeeper, by chance? I notice those pretty reliably fail to attend or care about the existence of any Hymenoptera, save their own invasive livestock.)

It would take a great deal of lawmaking to make phones more worse, for most people, than phone manufacturers and mobile app developers already do. You want to talk about idiosyncratic preferences, really? Here?

> I don't know what this means.

You failed, in this case by hastening to cross the intersection as soon as the light came green, to account for the possibility of another driver's error. If you weren't taught to do that, as I was, then the mistake is not entirely your own. It was still a mistake, which you have already acknowledged would have led you into an accident had your vehicle not rescued you.

> There's more time to react and lower risk of catastrophic results when driving at 35mph.

Not for me. You're the one wearing power armor, remember.

Are none of the images meant to load on mobile? I have to assume not, since without them I can't make sense of the article.

Huh.

I appreciate your thoughtful and detailed response. I'll need to think about it for a while, too. It had not occurred to me to consider the possibility that someone else's FSD might protect me from the general incompetence and unreliability of amateur motor vehicle operators.

(Jumping a light in the dark? Not thinking or learning to navigate by verbal instructions from your satnav or phone, instead of compromising the primary sense you must constantly use to drive without risking manslaughter? I'm sorry, but if this is the standard, I really can't describe it other than it is...to say nothing of your considering safety less important, as you say, in the "inner city" that is my home.)

Real question, then, from someone who only bothers driving when he must and even then in a 2016 model: Why do you use it? What beneficial purpose do you find it to serve?

I'm asking because I feel I must be missing something, inasmuch as to have my hands on the wheel while not controlling the car is an experience with which I'm familiar from skids and crashes, and thinking about it as an aspect of normal operation makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck. (Especially with no obviously described "deadman switch" or vigilance control!)

Sonra kurutun.

Why is that unreasonable to expect? How can someone participate in a discussion of neuroscience without the requisite knowledge?

But, luckily for me, I'm not among those here who have arrogated unto themselves the requirement, with its implicit assumption of the necessary capacity, to explain all or indeed any of this. I'm just here to counsel those who do persist in such insistence, much in the manner of that fellow whose job it used to be to murmur memento mori.

I would be seriously uncomfortable to discover myself making authoritative reference to anything out of a "pop neuroscience" book, unless I had myself validated the claim - at least as far as making sure there is a paper that says what is claimed of it, by whatever failed academic turned mountebank I am reading. (If those guys were comfortable being held to what they say, why did they stop writing for peer reviewers? I'm hardly an academic chauvinist, God knows, but if you want to be safe here in the 2030s, you really need to learn to spot a grifter...)

The tunnel vision you experience during hypovolemia is nothing like the "tunnel of light" reported in NDEs. It's just that you lose your visual field gradually, from periphery to fovea, as your visual cortex loses perfusion. In theory, a well-perfused brain dying for some other reason, such as a sudden complete loss of oxygen supply secondary to circulatory collapse secondary to fine VF or asystole, would retain the ability to "fill in" with something, the way our brains in normal operation cover the many gaps and lacks in our visual perception. (This is part of why I asked the other fellow not to bother me again about this at least until he knows what "ATP" means and why that is relevant here.)

It is strikingly absurd to imagine any of this does or can support a radically materialist conception of the universe. As I said before, materialism is exactly as religious as simulationism - exactly so, inasmuch as I expect to see a "solution" for the "mind-body problem" [1] around the same time as we solve the halting problem or constructively prove P=NP.

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#DuaMinBodPro

It means something to you that I should be, eh? I don't really take a position in the matter, but one can't spend all day reading - though feel free to continue flattering my looks here while I do so, of course! Being called cute is a rare pleasure indeed for me, these decades.

A materialist would argue that nothing you describe rules out malfunction in a brain failing rapidly due to oxygen starvation, and that the commonality of experiences is explicable in terms of common failure modes in effectively identical brain architecture. (Just about everyone's visual cortex works about the same, etc.)

I think it's cute how hardcore materialists believe it is even in theory possible to distinguish their position from ideological simulationism. Maybe in a thousand years. Not now. But phenomenology is the name of the philosophical discipline that you are now struggling to recapitulate.

I don't remember anything like that, but I strongly doubt I was ever in asystole. (I went looking for occurrence rates of spontaneous recovery from that 'flatlined' state, and found only case reports - all nicknaming their subjects "Lazarus...") On the other hand, it sounds like he was a lot better perfused when he lost consciousness than I was by the time I did, so who knows, really?

The article title's grammar is trivially simple, but everything is relative, and English is famously an extremely difficult language for those not privileged to speak and write it from nascence.

The exercise technique of sentence diagramming, though lately unfashionable and always meant more for grade schoolers than nominal adults, if practiced assiduously enough will eventually remedy your difficulty. Here is a good starting resource: https://www.wikihow.com/Diagram-Sentences

You have wholeheartedly defended literacy in this one specific example, on the basis that literacy in general is actually impossible. Now I really have seen everything.

She is describing one of the ways in which that condition manifests.

Welcome to your thirties! Believe me, if you think it's getting interesting now, just wait.

The proper term for those whom the author describes is subliterate.

The author can't really help herself either, sad to say. Losing the Tiktok habit would be a good start. But I get that that is like asking my parents' generation not to smoke cigarettes, or mine not to moralize intolerably.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/subliterate