I don't need to think Biden doesn't suck to admit it's optimal to vote for him.
I don't want Mr Beast to have twitter, because he just might run it competently. I want the bird to die.
Idk why people are down voting you; you're not advocating for voting 3rd party but rather for moving towards a system where we can do so safely.
Not "by my definitions" by the simple fact that we can't test for it. Technically, no one knows if any other individual has internal experiences or not. I know for a fact that my sensorium provides me data, and if I assume that data is at all accurate, I can be reasonably confident that other entities that look and behave similarly to me exist. However, I can't verify that any of them have internal experiences the way I do. Sure, it's reasonable to expect that, so we can just add that to the pile of assumptions we've been working with so far without much issue. What about other animals, like dogs? They have the same computational substrate, and the same mechanism for making those computations. I think it's reasonable to say animals probably have internal experiences, but I've met multiple people who insist they somehow know they don't, and so animal abuse is a myth. Now if we assume animals have internal experiences, what about nematodes? Nematode brains are simple enough that you can run them on a computer. If animals have internal experiences, does that include nematodes, and if so does that mean the simulated Nematode brain has internal experiences? If a computer's subroutine can have internal experiences, what about the computer?
Do you now understand why and what I'm saying? Where's the line drawn? As far as I can tell, the only honest answer is to admit ignorance.
I'm sorry, yes; I misunderstood. I've played with the idea of global governments, and I'm still not entirely sure if they're a good idea or not. I've been leaning towards "no" recently, but I find them appealing on an aesthetic level.
You're making the implicit assumption that an entity that lacks memory necessarily does not have any internal experience, which is not something that we can know or test for. Furthermore, there's no law of the universe that states that something created by humans cannot have an internal experience; we have no way of knowing whether something we create has an internal experience or not.
You can think of LLMs like a hyper advanced auto correct.
Yes; this is functionally what LLMs are, but the scope of the discussion extends beyond LLMs, and doesn't address my core complaint about how these arguments are being conducted. Generally though maybe not universally, if a core premise of your argument is "x works differently than humans" your argument won't be valid. I'm not currently making a claim of substance, I'm critiquing a tactic being used and pointing out that it among other things relies on a bad foundation.
If you want to know another way to make the argument, consider focusing on the practical implications of how current and future technologies given current and hypothetical ways of structuring society. For example: the fact that generative AI (being a novel form of automation) making images will lead to the displacement of Artists, the fact that art is being used without consent to train these models which are then being used for profit, etc.
As someone who has sometimes been accused of being an AI cultist, I agree that it's being pursued far too recklessly, but the people who I argue with don't usually give very good arguments about it. Specifically, I kept getting people who argue from the assumption that AI "aren't real minds" and trying to draw moral reasons not to use it based on that. This fails for two reasons: 1. We cannot know if AI have internal experiences and 2. A tool being sapient would have more complicated moral dynamics than the alternative. I don't know how much this helps you, but if you didn't know before, you know now.
Edit:y'all're seriously downvoting me for pointing out that a question is unanswerable when it's been known to be such for centuries. Read a fucking philosophy book ffs.
That's about as clean as greasy sludge.
I think the lionizing of accelerationism at the end isn't great, but aside from that, it looks good.
China don't have thought crimes challenge.
Why do you even want those things?
I'm a mathematician. 88 is a number. You think letting them have an entire number isn't damaging?
Show us where the deity touched you.
Degenerate, 88, 14, the Roman salute, multiple names, the fascista, shaven heads, lighting motifs, runic symbols.
That's just what I came up with off the top of my head. The other person is right, and I say we should reclaim every symbol because those fuckers shouldn't be allowed to call anything their own or have anything to ralley around or identify each other with. The only symbol I'm aware of that the made was the black sun which is itself simply the ss symbol repeated around a circle, which itself is an appropriated rune.
Reclaim every symbol.
No, but I've argued with enough people IRL to know that my opinion isn't exactly common. Most people who agree with me are my fellow transhumanists.
At first I thought this was an aquarium and lifting the bar would drain it. I was trying to figure out how they could be so stupid as to leave something like that open to the public. The lesson is to get up and out of bed before you start doomscrolling.
"Every previous president would have ended it by now."
"Biden literally couldn't do worse."
