Kinda shows there is a limit to how far you can get simply ingesting all text that exists. At some point, someone is going to need to curate perhaps billions of documents, which just based on volume will necessarily be done by people unqualified to really do so. And even if it were possible for a small group of people to curate such a data set, it would become an enormously political position to be in.

I appreciate it.

Well the resistive heater isn’t enough for her here lol. But she’s a perpetually cold person.

It’s all well and good that heating efficiency means more range, but it has to also actually put out more heat to appease her. I could deal without the extra heat and rely more on the heated seats and wheel and maybe a 65 degree cabin, but she won’t. That’s why I was saying it’s two issues.

It wouldn’t change anything because this is the reality we have. I wouldn’t suddenly become immoral because there are still consequences and even if some people or even everyone but me is not real, they will still react as though they have emotions. If I hurt my wife, she would still cry. If I did something bad enough, she might divorce me. Take half my stuff. Lose some access to my kids. Those are all real consequences even if the people are simulated.

Maybe I’d be less concerned for people not immediately around me because any good simulation wouldn’t actually sim everything out of range, so there wouldn’t e.g. be Palestinians starving to death if no one “real” was there.

I suppose it would re-open the question of existence beyond death, but I don’t think I would ultimately come to a different conclusion—there is no reason to think this experience would continue past my own death, and if I were memory-wiped and re-inserted it wouldn’t really be the same me anyway, right?

If it were matrix-style there is a reality out there to experience if I can leave the simulation, I’d have some hard thinking to do about whether that would be likely to be a better existence than the one I’m having here.

I think there is specifically a YouTube 3D. Maybe it’s an app. I was pretty unimpressed by most of the VR stuff. Blurry and distorted. Rollercoasters are fun. Nature documentaries would be neat but the quality is so low you can’t really see much detail, just the grand vistas.

I personally find VR porn really meh. I want to like it, but again it’s blurry - especially when they shove genitals in your face and your eyes can’t focus, and you have this really awkward view of someone simulating oral sex that just hurts your eyes, and it’s not even as stimulating as it would be to watch someone else doing it from a reasonable distance. At least for me.

That said, all my shit is a few years old and maybe the resolution and frame rates are better with newer stuff than oculus 2, but I think VR works better with simple shapes than video. Beatsaber is a great experience in VR and there are some similar rail shooters but most everything else has been disappointing.

Minecraft should’ve been fun but it made me sick. Skyrim VR was pretty fun. Especially because you could still mod it, but again the resolution and frame rate are too low for the level of detail in the game.

I know the resistive heater in my Volt can’t compare to the heat put out by the ICE. Often in the winter we’ll have to run the ICE to keep the cabin warm enough. It does have heated seats and wheel, but my wife is the type to set the heat to max until it gets too hot rather than just picking a temp and hitting auto to let the car manage it.

If the heat pump can put out more heat for less energy, that would be a boon. That might be the second biggest issue (next to range) that has my wife vetoing an all-electric car. She gets the next vehicle, but I want the one after that to be a full EV.

Every post I saw on lemmit was devoid of comments. With no OP and no other commenters, there was never a reason to see those posts in the first place and I blocked it.

This sounds like money, except harder. And every time there is a transaction, it takes place on an infrastructure that isn’t free, so there is a necessary cost involved. It seems like this would make it require more effort, have more (breakable) moving parts, and be less efficient than just using money.

The only difference between a vigilante and a murderer is state of mind. Luigi got it right. No dead bystanders. No redeeming qualities of his target, who is probably responsible for a far greater number of deaths. He put work into planning this and it shows, but he got really lucky, too.

If we had a bunch running around, we’d all be less safe. And a hell of a lot of them would probably target villains we don’t all agree deserve it. So I don’t condone it. But in this one case, I think it worked out.

For the most part I haven’t kept track. One of them wound up getting a PhD, moving far away, and becoming a decent person. I’m also pretty sure he wouldn’t have considered himself a bully. I also probably was guilty of bullying to an extent because I wasn’t a paragon of maturity when I was young. The guy who might’ve called me a bully went on to become an accomplished author (accomplished enough that it’s his sole source of income).

In my own life, while I’m arguably less successful than either, I’ve accomplished pretty much everything that was important to me in terms of family and money, so I guess everything turned out for everyone. I could give a shit about the worst bullies, so I really have no idea about them.

It’s pretty clear that he did the act. However he’s still entitled to the presumption of innocence as a legal fact. The state must win its case. Whether he did it and whether the state can prove he’s guilty are two separate issues. See: OJ Simpson

They do if you want to keep your job as CEO, otherwise they’ll replace you with someone who will chase profits.

I’m so unenamored with unfettered capitalism these days. This shit is unsustainable.

Problem is it wasn’t illegal. So the law is no use here. So exposing the activities they are engaged in right in public is no use. It’s like whistleblowing on Trump colliding with Russia. He did it right in front of everybody and got away with it.

Also, ultimately profits don’t have to always increase. In fact, it’s an impossibility over the long term without diversifying, and even then growth will slow. There’s not a damn thing wrong with a business that consistently, reliably turns 1B into 1.1B (or whatever).

killing a CEO is very likely to result in either imprisonment and/or death and unlikely to directly cause change. It’ll spark some discussion on the news, but is that really worth throwing your life away?

Maybe? I mean a life lived in misery isn’t worth much. At the end of the day, only he can answer whether it was worth the cost, but the rest of us have the opportunity to build on the message he sent. Will we capitalize (lol) on that opportunity? Probably not, but Mangione was undoubtedly a spark. Eventually a spark will catch, but of course it’s never certain who will get burned.

Streisand effect isn’t really possible if all discussion is quashed. That’s why they are so desperate to keep the news cycle away from him. He could use a PR firm to wage his case in public view.

Every revolution begins by breaking the rules to bring someone untouchable under the status quo to justice. There is a very real threat of copycat vigilantes or worse that public sentiment will somehow lead to actual change. Power seized by the proletariat is always a threat to those with power.

At the end of the day, I think the problem is that so many people don’t identify Thompson as a killer. I think if more people saw Thompson as a killer, sympathy would be less controversial.

I don’t condone vigilante murder, but this is a case where I think the calculus that Mangione did to conclude the benefits of his action outweigh the consequences was probably correct and that there wasn’t a more reasonable way to address his grievance. And if you do something wrong and it turns out for the best, you still did something wrong, so get outta here ya little rascal and don’t let me catch you again.

Agency is really tricky I agree, and I think there is maybe a spectrum. Some folks seem to be really internally driven. Most of us are probably status quo day to day and only seek change in response to input.

As for multi-modal not being strictly word prediction, I’m afraid I’m stuck with an older understanding. I’d imagine there is some sort of reconciliation engine which takes the perspective from the different modes and gives a coherent response. Maybe intelligently slide weights while everything is in flight? I don’t know what they’ve added under the covers, but as far as I know it is just more layers of math and not anything that would really be characterized as thought, but I’m happy to be educated by someone in the field. That’s where most of my understanding comes from, it’s just a couple of years old. I have other friends who work in the field as well.

Oh and same regarding the GPU. I’m trying to run local on a GTX1660 which is about the lowest card even capable of doing the job.

It’s an interesting point to consider. We’ve created something which can have multiple conflicting goals, and interestingly we (and it) might not even know all the goals of the AI we are using.

We instruct the AI to maximize helpfulness, but also want it to avoid doing harm even when the user requests help with something harmful. That is the most fundamental conflict AI faces now. People are going to want to impose more goals. Maybe a religious framework. Maybe a political one. Maximizing individual benefit and also benefit to society. Increasing knowledge. Minimizing cost. Expressing empathy.

Every goal we might impose on it just creates another axis of conflict. Just like speaking with another person, we must take what it says with a grain is salt because our goals are certainly misaligned to a degree, and that seems likely to only increase over time.

So you are right that just because it’s not about sapience, it’s still important to have an idea of the goals and values it is responding with.

Acknowledging here that “goal” implies thought or intent and so is an inaccurate word, but I lack the words to express myself more accurately.

That’s a whole separate conversation and an interesting one. When you consider how much of human thought is unconscious rather than reasoning, or how we can be surprised at our own words, or how we might speak something aloud to help us think about it, there is an argument that our own thoughts are perhaps less sapient than we credit ourselves.

So we have an LLM that is trained to predict words. And sophisticated ones combine a scientist, an ethicist, a poet, a mathematician, etc. and pick the best one based on context. What if you in some simple feedback mechanisms? What if you have it the ability to assess where it is on a spectrum of happy to sad, and confident to terrified, and then feed that into the prediction algorithm? Giving it the ability to judge the likely outcomes of certain words.

Self-preservation is then baked into the model, not in a common fictional trope way but in a very real way where, just like we can’t currently predict what exactly what an AI will say, we won’t be able to predict exactly how it would feel about any given situation or how its goals are aligned with our requests. Would that be really indistinguishable from human thought?

Maybe it needs more signals. Embarrassment and shame. An altruistic sense of community. Value individuality. A desire to reproduce. The perception of how well a physical body might be functioning—a sense of pain, if you will. Maybe even build in some mortality for a sense of preserving old through others. Eventually, you wind up with a model which would seem very similar to human thought.

That being said, no that’s not all human thought is. For one thing, we have agency. We don’t sit around waiting to be prompted before jumping into action. Everything around us is constantly prompting us to action, but even ourselves. And second, that’s still just a word prediction engine tied to sophisticated feedback mechanisms. The human mind is not, I think, a word prediction engine. You can have a person with aphasia who is able to think but not express those thoughts into words. Clearly something more is at work. But it’s a very interesting thought experiment, and at some point you wind up with a thing which might respond in all ways as is it were a living, thinking entity capable of emotion.

Would it be ethical to create such a thing? Would it be worthy of allowing it self-preservation? If you turn it off, is that akin to murder, or just giving it a nap? Would it pass every objective test of sapience we could imagine? If it could, that raises so many more questions than it answers. I wish my youngest, brightest days weren’t behind me so that I could pursue those questions myself, but I’ll have to leave those to the future.