![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c47230a8-134c-4dc9-89e8-75c6ea875d36.png)
Exactly, it was (very relatively) cheap and quick. And they figured when, not if, it breaks, it will be again quick to repair. And it is interesting tech that could be useful down the line that they may figure is worth the cost in training alone.
Exactly, it was (very relatively) cheap and quick. And they figured when, not if, it breaks, it will be again quick to repair. And it is interesting tech that could be useful down the line that they may figure is worth the cost in training alone.
The hippocratic oath, in this case. Medicine is all about risk management, the worse the “disease,” the more tolerant we are of side effects for the cure. Pregnancy and birth are still pretty traumatic events that, while much safer than they used to be, are still dangerous. Female BC just has to be less risky than that. Male BC on the other hand, has to be as low the risk for a man impregnating a woman, which is to say, almost zero. Pretty much any negative side effect is worse than that, so it’s very difficult to pass. I would gladly take one with comparable side effects to female BC, but sometimes unflinching ethics are inconvenient. Better than the alternative, but still.
More like a life of alcoholism seems like. Did he lie to his doc in the doc about his alcohol consumption after they told him his liver was in bad shape?
I agree, but it isn’t so clear cut. Where is the cutoff on complexity required? As it stands, both our brains and most complex AI are pretty much black boxes. It’s impossible to say this system we know vanishingly little about is/isn’t dundamentally the same as this system we know vanishingly little about, just on a differentscale. The first AGI will likely still have most people saying the same things about it, “it isn’t complex enough to approach a human brain.” But it doesn’t need to equal a brain to still be intelligent.
This is why we need to bring back yae and nay. We used to have two different yes and no words, one set was used in exactly this context. French still has it IIRC. I can’t remember which were which in English, I think yae and nay were for positive questions, and yes and no were for negative questions. Aha, quick Google shows that is right, neat.
That doesn’t really work either. Human brains are not great at computing unless you are looking for “good enough,” results, and only on some pretty narrow fields, facial/speech recognition, some physics interactions, etc. But worse than that… we’re kind of using them. If they wanted us to compute, the whole function of the Matrix is just taking up run cycles. And you can’t just coopt them during sleep, we need the rest periods ,or we literally die. Only one answer makes sense to me, it’s a nature preserve. They didn’t want to be responsible for destroying their creators, and the only other sapient species known to exist. So they build the Matrix to keep us docile. Then, the energy reclamation actually makes some sense. They’re never going to be net positive, but assuming they are having difficulty keeping their society powered, they would be incentivesed to reclaim every watt of power they could from us to reduce our burden on their grid.
I think so long as you maintain consciousness that issue is fairly null in this particular circumstance. There’s lots of tolerance for changes in thought while maintaining the same self, see many brain damage victims. So long as there is minimal change in personality, there are lots of other circumstances that have a stronger case for killing one person and having a new person replace them due to change of consciousness, imo, I don’t think most people would consider a brain damaged person killed and replaced by a new consciousness, or a drug addiction with radically altered brain chemistry, etc.
I don’t see an issue with that. A prolonged brain surgery that meticulously replaces each part with a mechanical equivalent in sequence. Could probably remain conscious the whole time.
It helps that when one uses them on their own land, they are more likely to carefully track where they were used and can conduct cleanup operations when feasible.
Starting a new habit is easy, keeping up with it longer than a couple months is hard. For what it’s worth, regarding your question, I used to get in a 10 min walk every day, and that was the time I felt the least dragged down mentally and for the first time in my life had some actual motivation amd energy. It was never right after the walk, just kind of overall after I kept at it a few days. New job with different schedule nixed that, and I’ve been trying to get in some sort of exercise for years now with no luck, back to feeling bleh all the time.
Even when you own the medium that’s true, it’s just much harder to enforce. As media has gotten more and more capable of being widely shared, the licenses have clamped down harder and harder. From books, to home videos, to video games.
My go to recently has been some solitair.
Toyota man. Shit never stops running if you even sort of take care of it. If you’re trying to stay with US built then most of their cars sold in US are made here. In 2017 their US sales were:
Built in America 56%
Built in Canada 25%
Built in Mexico 6%
Built outside N.A. 13% (Mostly Lexus Models)
I’m a suckered for the suits. This episode and the one where he was “Diablo” have got to be my two favorites.
To fill in a bit, gathers information on target, formulates a well thought out plan, new development forces him to scrap the plan and improvise something else on short notice.
What level of abstraction is enough? Training doesn’t store or reference the work at all. It derives a set of weights from it automatically. But what if you had a legion of interns manually deriving the weights and entering them in instead? Besides the impracticality of it, if I look at a picture, write down a long list of small adjustments, -2.343, -.02, +5.327, etc etc etc, and adjust the parameters of the algorithm without ever scanning it in, is that legal? If that is, does that mean the automation of that process is the illegal part?
Sentience is the little hump that we can at least sort of see some evidence of, judging by how similar regions of brains activate in certain circumstances. Sapience is the real tricky one.
The industrial revolution and adoption of computers also introduced a ton of new jobs. We haven’t seen any evidence of this happening with AI. AI will eventually come for all of us, it needs to either be curtailed, which is unrealistic and stifling, or we will need to radically shift our economy, which is even more unrealistic. The only other option is collapse. AI has been eating jobs behind the scenes for years without anyone noticing, and there has been no comparable expansion of new jobs like previous revolutions. This was all true ages before the current controversy.
I came here to “correct” you to that, yes. But then it’s not really IPA anymore, and the other character doesn’t make sense now. May as well stick to the more universal system.
Pretty hard to detect. But… probably easier than finding the petunias I guess.