Y’all are judgy removed for going after phlubba so much. Just stop wasting your energy and move on.

They’re havin their fun. It’s only an issue if you genuinely want to know what they’ve got to say, which it sounds like you don’t.

404 not found lmao

That is per capita my guy. They emit more per person, but when you’ve only got 5 families in 10 square miles, getting them to emit less is fuckall in comparison to everyone in a city emitting less.

Roads in rural new England are most often publicly funded, and are connected into a network of roads and are for transit, so rural roads are in fact a public transit network. I get that you mean trains and buses, though.

Rural roads are just expensive, period. Putting electric cars on them would additionally shorten their lifespan, so I fail to see how either public transit or electric cars are supposed to help. Plus, rural folks are not major emitters, so it doesn’t really make much sense to even try to find meaningful emission savings there.

True, I would say that there’s multiple issues dealing with AI that are more pressing:

• The massive amount of exploitation used to power AI
• The use of AI to distance the creators from the accidents the AI causes
• The danger of mass-proliferation of hazards across the web and globe
• the massive amount of waste created by AI

These aren’t all of them. One thing I’ve noticed, however, is that these aren’t really AI-specific issues - these are all issues caused by automation and lack of regulation. This lack of proactive regulation is also very likely a failing of our currently neoliberal government systems.

I think that is why so many AI hype-mongers draw attention towards A(G)I safety, because they don’t want attention drawn to the actual danger which is automation safety in general.

Alright, I see what you’re saying now. We’re on the same page.

As an additional thing regarding AGI, I think it should be noted that ‘human-level’ and ‘human-like’ are importantly distinct when talking about this topic.

In reality, if an AGI is ever created, it will most likely not be human-like at all. Humans think the way we do out of an evolutionary conditioning for survival, a history an AGI will not be coming from. One example given by Robert Miles is a staple making machine becoming an ASI, where it essentially would exist solely to make as many staples as it could with its hyperintelligence.

We mean to say that this AGI is a ‘human-level’ intelligence in that it can learn to utilize abstractions and tools, be able to function in a large variety of environments without intervention or training, and be able to learn in a realtime fashion.

Obviously, these criteria for any AI shows just how far away we are from achieving anything right now.these concepts are very vague and the arguments for each one’s impossibility or inevitability are equally vague and philosophical. It’s still mostly just stuffy academics arguing with each other.

One statement I agree with, though, comes from the AI safety collective: We don’t know what we’re doing, and we should really sort that out. If any of this is actually possible and we accidentally make an AGI/ASI before having any failsafes or contingencies, it could be very bad.

I am not bait-and-switching here. The switchers were the business-minded grifters which made the term synonymous with LLMs and eventually destroyed its meaning completely.

The definition I gave is from the most popular and widely used CS textbook on AI and has been the meaning used in the field since the early 90s. It’s why videogame NPCs are always called AI, because they fit the conventional CS definition, and were one of the major things it was about the most.

As for your ‘1’, AI is a wide-but-very-specialized field and pertains from everything from robots to text autocomplete. If you want the most out of it, you need to get down into the nitty gritty and really research the field.

On a Seperate note, while AI safety, AGI, and the risk of the intelligence explosion are somewhat related to computer science’s pursuit of AI systems, they are much more philosophical currently, and adhere to much vaguer definitions of AI, Such as Alan Turing’s.

IIRC, within computer science, which is the field most heavily driving AI design and research forward, an ‘intelligent agent’ is essentially defined as any ‘agent’ which takes external stimulai from a collection of sensors in some form of environment, processes that stimulai in a dynamic fashion (one of the criteria IIRC is a branching decision tree based on the stimulai), and then applies that processing to a collection of affectors in the environment.

Yes, this definition is an extremely low bar and includes a massive amount of code, software and scripts. It also includes basic natural intelligences such as worms, ants, amoeba, and even viruses. One example of mechanical AI are some of Theo Jansen’s StrandBeasts

Right on the money. One of the big things with AI safety is “we have no fucking clue how AGI can originate so we are constantly in the dark.” If we ever did create it, we likely would not immediately know it was AGI, and that creation could go very terribly in a number of ways.

Aren’t emojis pictograms and ideograms but not usually logograms? They’re direct depictions of concepts, not usually direct stand-ins for words like logograms are.

Better examples of logograms in English I think are &, $, %, @,+,=, etc. We actually have a bunch we use all the time.

Specifically they said ‘Kanji’, though, so I think they’re talking more about the actual character structure of :.|:;.

There will be collateral damage. There always is. The idea there wouldn’t be collateral damage is already setting the bar higher than is feasible.

Folks 👨‍🌾

I’d argue Hanlon’s razor is not a very good heuristic. It ultimately presupposes the user of it is the mental superior in the situation, and does not take into account polarized and ambiguous controversies. It also encourages energy wasting by presupposing the issue lies with mental capacity or education, suggesting that you could educate your opponent out of their stance.

I’d recommend moving towards more energy-conserving practices. Rather than arguing your points directly, it’s better to first understand why the opposition would be taking their current stance and adjust your argument based on what common ground you both share.

Possibly the greatest skill is to just learn when it’s no longer worth your time to argue with them.

What’s a smog?

It not a massive gap like that, but it’s tall enough and far enough away that 99.9% of people who try, fall.

I mean, I think alittle? Not because of the reasons you think, though, and it’s not really ‘your fault’. More of a pitfall that most people fall into.

TLDR: ditch the apps and try to get out into more social situations through clubs and sports. The ‘right one’ will come along when you are more socially able an mm you’ll likely make friends along the way (genuine friends are WAY more important for staying sane).

So, tinder specifically objectifies and compresses you into a blurb and some photos - it basically cans you for mass consumption. When you finally get ‘bought’, you only get a chat box to communicate unless you actually exchange contacts, and the whole thing’s kind of terrible in general because of that. I’ve tried bumble and it’s pretty much a similar thing.

There’s this thing sometimes called the ‘predator/prey relationship model’ by feminists, and dating apps explicitly reinforce this model, with the only minor change being that bumble required the woman to open the interaction. The predator/prey relationship makes it so that in our society, dudes are expected to go out, find a random woman they fancy, and ‘pounce’ them, essentially. Originally, this was quite literal if you have heard some stories of relationships starting in the 40s and 50s where a couple got together because the guy was just constantly unrelenting. This has shifted to being more egalitarian and consensual but still requires the guy to basically peacock to gain the woman’s approval. Once it officially becomes a relationship, the woman is expected to be submissive while the man is expected to be dominant. It’s a pretty old-fashioned relationship style that still affects modern dating today. Some folks even still subscribe to it.

The better model that I think is more natural is to just go out and find new friends and groups I can participate in. This way, anyone you might date sees you in more context. You get more practice being social, which can be helpful in actually getting someone to become attracted to you, at which point they might actually start putting in effort.

I don’t see much problem with this. It’s one thing to advocate for everyone having greater freedoms to form non-heteronormative-style relationships, and an entire other thing to necessarily want that for yourself. That’s what Feminism is about after all, a broadening of accepted lifestyles and freedoms - not necessarily a complete shift to a paradigm that prohibits the previous one. In this kind of case, it just sounds like you are discovering up front that you two are not seeking the same type of relationship, which is good to find out early.

It’s kind of like advocating for a bike lane in your city despite you not biking and having no interest in biking. I don’t think you’re a hypocrite for not using freedoms you advocate for.

My understanding is that infant labiaplasty and other female genital cosmetic surgeries are pretty common as well in western countries. Luckily there is a growing protest to these practices on ethical grounds, since they’re all medically unnecessary surgeries performed on babies that can’t consent to it.

This journal publication seems to put it into perspective decently. It also points out some of the racist hypocrasy surrounding it, like how we classify these actions being done by non-western cultures as ‘mutilation’ which is unlawful, while classifying ones aligned with our own culture as ‘cosmetic’ and still allow them.

I am not following what you mean by “this” when you’re asking about what I’m advocating.

In explicit terms, my understanding is that Leninists and similar ideologies believe that humanity is in its capitalist phase, and that the next phase is communism. That is what I mean when I say that they believe a revolution in the US is good for humanity.

I don’t feel good about the impact of the US being dismantled, nor do I feel good about any western nation being dismantled. I don’t think anyone has a full clue what the US collapsing would cause, but I think it would cause catastophe. I am not advocating dismantling, if that’s what you think.