Then why is animal abuse a crime?

If youtube is still pushing racist and alt right content on to people, then they can get fucked. Why should we let some recommender system controlled by a private corporation have this much influence American culture and politics??

What I'm saying is, we don't know what physical or computational characteristics are required for something to be sentient.

Now that I use github copilot, I can work more quickly and learn new frameworks more with less effort. Even its current form, LLMs allow programmers to work more efficiently, and thus can replace jobs. Sure, you still need developers, but fewer of them.

Why is it that these sorts of people who claim that AI is sentient are always trying to get copyright rights? If an AI was truly sentient, I feel like it'd want, like, you know, rights. Not the ability for its owner to profit off of a cool stable diffusion generation that he generated that one time.

Not to mention that you can coerce a language model to say whatever you want, with the right prompts and context. So there's not really a sense in which you can say it has any measurable will. So it's quite weird to claim to speak for one.

While I agree that LLMs probably aren't sentient, "it's just complex vector math" is not a very convincing argument. Why couldn't some complex math which emulates thought be sentient? Furthermore, not being able to change, adapt, or plan may not preclude sentience, as all that is required for sentience is the capability to percieve and feel things.

If you are just getting started, this is a good resource for learning hiragana and katakana.

Past that, I used Anki and Bunpro for learning vocab and grammar. However, an alternative to anki for vocab that's definitely worth checking out is jpdb.io, and Cure Dolly's youtube videos are good for learning grammar.

There are also some decks that people have on anki which have sentences that you can practice on, I hear those are a pretty good way to start reading so that you can work your way to reading books/manga and stuff.

Here's another website that's worth reading through if you're interested in doing immersion learning with japanese.

Personally, I find a lot of Peter Singer's arguments to be pretty questionable. As for some of the ones you've mentioned:

For one, killing humans, no matter how humanely the means, is seen by most to be an act of cruelty. I do not want to be killed in my sleep, so why is it okay to assume that animals would be okay with it? While he is a utilitarian and doesn't believe in rights, killing a sentient being seems to me to have much greater negative utility than the positive utility of the enjoyment of eating a chicken.

Also, farming animals for slaughter will always be destructive towards habitats and native species. Even if broiler chickens were kept alive for their natural lifespan of 3-7 years instead of 8 weeks to alleviate any kind of ethical issue with farming them, there is still an opportunity and environmental cost to farming chickens. We could use that land for to cultivate native species and wildlife, or for growing more nutritious and varied crops for people to eat, yet instead we continue to raze the amazon rainforest to make more land for raising farm animals and growing feed. De-densification of farms would only make the demand for farmland even greater than it already is.

Finally, the de-densification of farms would mean a significant increase in the costs of mear production. We'd be pricing lower income groups out of eating meat, while allowing middle- and upper-class folks to carry on consuming animal products as usual. We should not place the burdens of societal progress on the lower class.

I was under the impression that Starlink satellites are orbiting too low to meaningfully contribute to Kessler syndrome, since their orbital decay time is 5 years. Don't get me wrong, I don't like starlink either, I just don't know of any long term consequences

Sam Altman is a part of it too, as much as he likes to pretend he's not.

Section 3a of the bill is the part that would be used to target LGBTQ content.

Sections 4 talks about adding better parental controls which would give general statistics about what their kids are doing online, without parents being able to see/helicopter in on exaxrlt what their kids were looking at. It also would force sites to give children safe defaults when they create a profile, including the ability to disable personalized recommendations, placing limitations on dark patterns designed to manipulate children to stay on platforms for longer, making their information private by default, and limiting others' ability to find and message them without the consent of children. Notably, these settings would all be optional, but enabled by default for children/users suspected to be children.

I think the regulations described in section 4 would mostly be good things. They're the types of settings that I'd prefer to use on my online accounts, at least. However, the bad outweighs the good here, and the content in section 3a is completely unacceptable.

Funnily enough, I had to read through the bill twice, and only caught on to how bad section 3a was on my second time reading it.

Humans in developed countries are in a position where we can reduce our harm to others. I believe that if you're in a position to be safely and reasonably able to, that you should do your best to reduce the harm you cause. I would argue that reducing harm includes reducing the amount of animals that I eat.

However, none of this really applies to animals. They don't really get the same privileges that humans do in modern society, nor do they have the conscious ability to consider their harm on the world. Furthermore, obligate carnivores don't really have a choice but to eat meat, so they wouldn't be able to safely reduce the harm they cause regardless.

Animals eat food, too. If you eat meat, you're actually creating more demand for crops than you would if you ate the crops directly. Furthermore, migrant workers also work on animal farms, in slaughterhouses, etc. I hear it's not always great.

I guess what I'm saying is, I'm fairly sure that going vegan helps both animals and the children of migrant workers.

One caveat is that I'm assuming you'd eat the same classes of crops that an animal would, namely things like corn and grains. But honestly that sounds about right for most people, vegans included. Many vegans eat a lot of processed shit too lol. (me included)

Edit: I should add that the most commonly suggested vegan diet that I've heard from other vegans is to have rice and lentils as your staple foods. I'm fairly sure those aren't typically harvested by hand, but I could be wrong.

I tried for a while to make those small changes, but I always found it too hard to do, until I finally just decided to cut out all animal products one night, and I never really went back.

I think the difference was how I framed it, mentally. I always saw it as an act of willpower to not eat animal products, like I have to overcome my cravings in the same way I would if I was cutting calories. But quitting animal products altogether allowed me to frame it differently for myself -- instead of telling myself "I shouldn't eat this", I can just say "I don't eat this." Like, it's not on the table as something I have to consider. I don't even have to recognize animal products as food.

Maybe if you cut things out one at a time you could do a similar thing. Though one problem is that it's a series of changes and commitments you have to make, instead of just one thing. I feel like that could be harder, depending on who you are.

The comments responding to you are pretty unnecessarily hostile, but I personally get where you're coming from. I personally think it's best to watch the thing so that you can be best informed, even if it's hard to do. Not even because of veganism being ethical, but because the fear of the unknown is a lot scarier than any documentary could be, IMO. Information is power, and having information (even distressing information) is empowerment.

Also, I loved meat too, but when I went vegan, I never really missed it. I was pretty worried about missing certain foods (one was sushi), but that never really happened to me.

Animals eat plants. If plants are sentient, the animals you eat still eat the plants. If your goal is to reduce suffering, eating animals means more animals eating more plants -- more plants than you could eat yourself. Therefore eating the plants directly would reduce harm.

Did you just criticize.. having a stance on things? Like the whole concept of believing things are true?

Even if you accept the premise that so-called ethically raised meat is ethical, there's just not enough land to farm meat at the scale which people in developed countries demand it, unless it's factory farmed. Ethically farmed, free range animals require much more space than caged up factory farmed animals, and the grass they feed on requires yet more land.

That means that there's a limit on the supply, so I'm pretty sure that if someone tries to solve the whole animal rights issue by buying ethical meat, they'll only push the ethical dilemma on to someone poorer than them (the one who would be priced out, due to the increased demand). That person would then have to be the one to make the decision of whether to go vegan or to buy factory farmed meat.

Admittedly, I could be wrong about this? But I'm pretty sure that increasing land use of meat, whether by regulation or economic demand, would necessarily lead to increased prices, so I don't see how it possibly wouldn't just shift the problem on to the less wealthy.

Describing vegans as making major dietary changes because they "saw one video" is a pretty dishonest interpretation. Rigorously sticking to a vegan diet can be fairly difficult, and requires you to be very aware of exactly what you're eating -- including innocuous seeming things like food dyes and white sugar, which can often be made of animal products. To me, that doesn't read as impulsive, but instead disciplined.

Furthermore, while the decision to switch to going vegan could theoretically sometimes be done on impulse, one still has to make the decision every single day. It's not just a decision you make and it's done, it's one you must always choose to continue to make. A vegan has to decide to continue to be vegan every day, likely while under scrutiny of themself and others.

It's not exactly proof, but this graph seems to support that claim to an extent.

I don't think a recursively self improving AI (a la a singularity) is something that will be made soon, if ever, especially as we push the limits of available computing power. There's no such thing as infinite exponential growth in reality, as there's always an eventual limit to growth.

I think AGI, in some form, could possibly happen relatively soon (like next three decades or so), but I'm not sure it will be of the recursively self improving variety. Especially not the sort that magically solves all of humanity's problems.