voluble @ voluble @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

185

Joined

2 yr. ago

$330m is not nothing. But, with a funding split between a telecom CEO, and a shipping & logistics CEO - person has to wonder what sort of direction & tuning the team might be encouraged to explore. How will they stack up against existing & proven open source non-profits with impressive releases like EleutherAI?

These open source projects are neat, in that they give the average person the opportunity to peek under the hood of an LLM that they'd never be able to run on consumer level hardware. There are some interesting things to find, especially in the dataset snapshots that Eleuther made available.

In general, kind of cool to see France being on the cutting edge of these things. And I think it's worth saluting any project that moves to decentralize power from states and megacorps, who seal wonderful, powerful things in black boxes.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make above.

In this case specifically, the outcome isn't unclear. Let's call the crab's pain one unit of pain. Assume that unit can directly alleviate 20 units of pain across a handful of other beings. The utilitarian ought to prefer avoiding 19 units of net pain, than allowing 19 units of net pain to occur.

I read your initial post to be some sort of utilitarian moral argument, roughly, that less pain is better. Or something like that. That argument, in this case in particular, leads in the opposite direction than I think you want.

For the sake of argument, let's take for granted your statement, that 'suffering should be reduced as much as possible'.

If the discomfort of a single crab can prevent worse discomfort/suffering/death of many other beings, and results in reduced net pain, then the utilitarian line of reasoning seems to be that we might actually be morally obligated to take blood from crabs.

Disclosure - Before you had replied, I edited out the word 'psychotic' above, felt it was unfair.

Cheers, thanks for the thoughtful and reasonable reply. I agree with most of what you say. & it circles something I think about a lot but haven't made much sense of (if there even is sense to make if it), which is, the role of bad feelings in moral decision making.

I think though, the compassion line should be drawn somewhere, sometimes, with moral reason as a guide. To dip into the quagmire of philosophical thought experiments, you know, what if certain humans produced this special clotting factor, and we had to bleed them to get it, and it came with a risk of their mortality? I think reasonable people could agree, that would be an entirely different question to grapple with. So, you know, I would say it does matter, it's not a black & white thing, where either everything is worthy of compassion or nothing is. The circumstance can, should, dictate the moral approach. Eating meat, fighting in wars, there might be a right or wrong that's worth determining there. And knowing that, the moral and the practical are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

And totally, I expect people to have differences when it comes to compassion. Suppose I'm just surprised at the outpouring of love for the gross horseshoe crab, in spite of its real usefulness for global human health. Or at least my understanding of it, which I admit, is not very deep.

I've read good moral arguments for a veganism. I think it's the right thing to do when it comes to diet. For what it's worth, this isn't really a discussion about diet.

It isn't a decision between a lentil burger and a beef burger, this is an animal resource that can assist in saving human lives. There are other clotting factors used in medicine, and that's great, let's use and develop those. But suppose something more lethal and dangerous than COVID comes along, and vaccines need to be produced quickly and globally. I think it would be foolish to wince if we needed to take crab blood to roll out a program that would save human lives.

What I mean when I say moral is, I don't see why it's wrong if a bunch of invertebrates are subjugated, in pain, or die in order to provide something that improves the lives of humans. It's not sad, it's a good thing. "Oh but the crabs get stressed out, and 30% might die", yeah, who cares, they're crabs.

Sure, I'm a human, and I have a particular perspective on these things. But, we are special. Anyone who considers a trolley problem with a crab on one track, and a human on the other and honestly says, "hey it doesn't matter humans aren't special", that's, unappealing. In a purely academic, cosmic, arrangement of particles sense, OK, nothing is special. But in that condition, the suffering of animals isn't even a question worth considering.

The fact that so many accounts in this thread are going out of their way to give weight to the well-being of invertebrates, in a conversation about human well-being, is baffling.

Should we be using existing clotting factors in medical settings that don't rely on the blood of an endangered species that lives in an incredibly volatile habitat? Probably, but crab discomfort is at the very bottom of the list of reasons why.

Ripple effects, sure, I'm with you there, sustainability considerations, which I haven't seen anyone mentioning ITT.

I completely disagree with you about the status of humanity. Is it really your view that the well-being of a crab has equivalent moral status to your own well-being?

Thanks for the link and info.

Not a reply directly to you, but to contrast the dominant view in the thread - what would it matter if even 100% of the crabs died? Sustainability considerations aside - a crab died for my delicious salad, who cares if they die for a life saving vaccine? Who cares if it's painful and disorienting for the crab, it's a crab. As humans, why should we prioritize crab life and well-being over our own?

I agree on the point that minority governments on the whole are a good thing for the country. Parties should be kept in check. I feel like my tax dollars are fairly spent when politicians are obligated to negotiate and develop consensus. All this incessant posturing in the House is a waste of every citizen's time and money. But minority governments also lead to blood-boiling accidental absurdities like the BQ holding the reins on matters of national interest.

I have to say that I'm tired of the fear narrative that gets reeled out around elections in this country. No major party has a view to radically transform Canada. In the grand scheme of things, the three major parties are moderate, and I'm not convinced that any of them are literally dangerous. And so, the bland fruit that grows from the tree of our national politics, while not lethally poisonous, is not necessarily nutritious either.

electoral reform

If only some fresh party leader would make that a key promise of their platform. Surely they would use their majority government to make good on that promise.

Even though I align with the party on most of their platform, I cannot vote for the LPC under any circumstances, due to their history of broken promises, scandals, ethics violations, horrible handle on foreign policy, blatant disregard for demographics that brought them Parliamentary majorities, lack of a constructive, modern vision for the nation, lack of sincerity, the list goes on and on.

In light of all that, what is it about this particular moment that has Liberals getting their knives out? Of all the times to question a leader, why now exactly? Is this a polling thing? Am I out of the loop?

One variable that I think doesn't get looked at seriously is class size and school funding. Ask any North American teacher, and you'll get a grim assessment on the trajectory of schooling since the 90's. When teachers have more students than they can handle, it's no surprise that things get out of hand.

I'd argue that part of the solution is more teachers per student. This enables better relationships between faculty and students, and better opportunities for mentorship. Build more schools, hire more teachers, pay them well, make school a place where teachers want to be, and where kids can thrive.

But reforming the existing system is a hot potato that neither the left nor right wants to hold, so, here we are. The system itself is degraded to the point that it doesn't have the resources to self-correct. We need vision, wisdom, funding, and leadership, to steer things in a new direction. I think that would go a long way in preventing a misguided kid from fermenting the idea that murdering people, or their own classmates, is an answer to their problems.

I don't mean to paint school shootings as simply a rebellion against a malfunctioning system, but, we really need to look at the system and make sure it's serving the students that have no choice but to be there.

“Our plans are competitively sensitive and we do not plan to discuss them publicly before they are launched in our stores,” she added.

Read: we have done nothing so far, and are not actually committing to doing anything in the future.

This is interesting, and I didn't think of it this way.

But, if the only way welfare administration can be streamlined is to give everyone money, I'd feel guilty about taking it. Wouldn't be hard to find a way to spend $2k, sure, but knowing I didn't truly need it to make ends meet, while other people did, & maybe would have been helped even more if they had some of my share? Ach, it wouldn't feel right. It would be cool if the program was opt-out, and people who chose to opt out got a break in some other way, maybe on taxes that go to retirement savings. Maybe that's a horrible idea, I don't know.

Anyway cheers, thanks for explaining, I appreciate it.

I'm an idiot, so please jump in here if I'm getting this wrong.

Per the article, predicted program cost is $88 billion per year. Divide by Canada's adult population of ~33 million, so, ~$2700 per person per year, minus administrative costs and bloat, so, say $2k per year.

Well, I definitely wouldn't turn down a cheque if I qualified for it, and I don't want to come off as complaining about a program that doesn't even exist yet. But, $2k doesn't sound like an amount that any person could function on. That's less than one month's rent almost everywhere in this country. It's like, a 6" subway sandwich per day. Something something middle class, I seem to remember a certain federal party saying during election time. Why not simply lower taxes in a targeted way?

In what way is this amount 'basic'? What's the point of embarking on this whole investigative song & dance over a few extra bucks per day? What actually is the minimum amount necessary to function as an individual in this country? I think I know why the government isn't investigating that question.

I'm not against UBI as a concept. This $88b program, if that number is correct, seems like it's not even worth investigating. Am I crazy?

Turns out, extremely yonic

While sensible, I would argue that it is ill-advised (depending on context). One would instead be better suited to protest for this right, or to build grassroots support with the hope of democratically achieving it.

Sure, but it takes energy to protest & there are only so many hours in a day. If you're fighting for something righteous, alright, maybe it's worth it. But all that work for something that sits on the shelf at cabelas that anybody can buy? Nah.

the rule of law must be respected unless one is absolutely certain that there is no other choice

I disagree with this. There are laws that are unfair, discriminatory, puritanical, fruits of political gamesmanship, legislative overreach, arbitrary coincidences of time & place, restrictive on activities that harm no one, etc. I don't think people oppressed by those laws should have to bear the burden of crusading against them. I don't think disobedience needs to have strings attached.

If the safety we pay for, and the justice we expect isn't provided sufficiently by the state, I think it's sensible to ignore prohibitions of this nature. I don't personally view them as a misfortune - freedom is a practice.

I see your point. On the other hand, chaos is a powerful terror tactic. If you're a dissident, not knowing what angle you could be engaged from is stifling.

Also, people need to eat and drink daily. Poisoning is a horrible threat with multiple daily reminders.

To all the people in this thread saying this was probably an accident:

Imagine you're an operator inside a totalitarian regime, and you want someone assassinated. Maybe this person isn't themself a critical target, your objective is to instill fear in a particular department to increase compliance on a morally abhorrent skunkworks project. You already know everything about this person, of course including details of their personal life and hobbies. Hey they're a mushroom hunter. Mycotoxins are readily available and can be lethal in small, undetectable doses. Not difficult to figure out what happens from there. Everyone who knows Vitaly knows, hey he wouldn't pick and eat a poisonous mushroom. The message is sent to the people who you want to hear it.

In the context of the States, I don't see how any new legislative intervention can deal with the 400 million existing guns in the nation. No country in the history of humanity has had to deal with that. My question is, can it even be dealt with?

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's misplaced cynicism. But, seems to me, the vast existing supply of firearms leads to a permanent condition where, a person who wants to do something bad with a gun, will find access one way or another. I genuinely have no idea how that situation gets fixed. "Do what Japan does" - which I've heard sincerely spoken aloud - is naive and would not be effective there.

I don't live in the States, so it's not my place to navigate the moral issues or make judgements. I just don't understand how new gun control measures patterned on other countries in very different situations of supply could be effective, and properly target shitbags like the murderer in the OP article, in advance of a killing.