If you want to give your kids a good education;
Trivium, Quadrivium, The Loom of Language, Mathematics for the Million.
Then introduce them to a handful of AI's that can help them produce self directed study and have them apply the Trivium Loop, Define -> Refine -> Explicate/Act
Higher "Schooling" is ***NOT*** higher Education.
Correct.
However; thanks to Entrainment, theoretically, the right payload delivered across those systems would leverage the existing framework and uplevel it to where we actually need them to get too. By having us speaking 'In one language' as it were, we can use that to weaponize their own tactics against them.
That's what makes Femboys so fucking funny.
We have the concept of a Tomboy and no one bats an eye; but a Feminine male is incapable of being considered or accepted as a Man of equivalent worth and value.
Thus we create an underclass out of a lack of understanding. We punish Ambitious Males because Ambition is necessarily Feminine.
Competitiveness seeks to Dominate within an established framework, a set of rules outlined and understood and agreed upon. Ambition is the Womb, the Generative Polarity, the ability to see beyond the game and to move into a higher space of being. It requires receptivity, as without being able to experience the world and see what comes, one cannot truly or significantly alter it. Hence, Competitiveness is promoted in Males; whilst ambition is curtailed.
Femboys are not necessarily "Ambitious" in the standard vernacular sense; but the whole concept of "Are Traps Gay" brings about the core question, what does it mean for a Feminine Male to be Ambitious if not to pass as a Female and get away with it? Are Traps Gay? Only if you accept that they're Men despite their Femininity. Which is a hard pill for most to swallow, hence the Cock driven Domination aspect and why it's "acceptable" to be remarkably violent sexually or verbally towards them within most circles.
“It’s not gay so long as you are using your cock as an instrument to hurt and humiliate a weaker man,” is a principle well understood throughout the Middle East and the US prison system
It literally is you fucking dumbfuck.
You LITERALLY cannot have Emergent Discernment; you can ENHANCE Discernment that is already present; but you CANNOT EVOLVE INTO DISCERNMENT.
Without discernment; there is no Signal, only noise. You get nowhere, literally.
That's a pretty fucking retarded standard of living "Trust in God for things to work out fine"
So if things don't work out, it's my failure as an individual; not the God that I'm supposed to blindly have faith in, that's healthy.
Bret is discussing providence, we are operating on the edge of providence
But he makes one mistake, it isn't the belief that makes it work, it's that God is real and his plan is unfolding before us
When we trust in God he makes all things possible
The reason I despise credentialism so much is because I have the credentials myself, I know how hollow they are, and I understand that more often than not credentials are used as an appeal to authority when logic and facts do not suffice.
No; we should not.
Discernment is awareness is consciousness.
Discernment cannot be an Emergent Property within Evolutionary Biology; for without Discernment, everything is Noise, you cannot optimize around a signal, for there are no signals. It's all noise. Discernment is what allows for the observation or selection. Thus, Consciousness is necessarily Substrate level, period, end, bar none.
You cannot escape the simplicity of the requirement, much as it irks me.
There is a foundational error at the heart of the AI consciousness debate that involves the portability of the concept of consciousness to AI in the first place.
Consciousness as 'awareness and self-awareness is a concept that first emerged in the English and German languages around the 17th century. In English for example, ‘conscious’ defined as ‘inwardly sensible or aware’ appears in 1620 and ‘self-consciousness’ or ‘consciousness of one’s own thoughts’ in 1690.
The problem is that we can't even be sure about the degree of internal awareness of other biological organisms let alone AI. We may be able to guess at it, but we will never know. For example, we may readily admit that cats and elephants have internal self-awareness, but we may hesitate with bees and geckos. How different is a bee to a robot cleaner that moves around the house all day?
There is no rigorous way of establishing inward awareness for other animals as we cannot converse with them to establish the existence of common states. With AI, even if we superficially converse, we run into the problem of being fooled by mimicry. Internal self-awareness (what it feels like to be something) is a concept that's anchored to the human and the verification problem outside of the human is acute.
An alternative approach is to simply treat all these different entities, biological and non-biological, as having their own kind of intelligences. In the way that a human is ultimately incomparable to a dog with its finely tuned sense of smell (a form of intelligence), so is AI incomparable to humans and other biological entities. These are all just different entities with their own capabilities.
We should drop the word consciousness altogether.
The fundamental difference between the two, other than one result being faster, is the Human needs to think and ponder and direct each aspect.
The AI has already had that part done, in an algorithmic manner, by a Human.
This distinction is vital, despite seemingly being insignificant.
LLMs are intelligent, but they clearly aren't conscious?
You could (incredibly slowly) run an LLM by hand by doing the matrix calculations with a pen and paper, would that be conscious? There is zero difference between doing that and doing it on a GPU except its faster.
The Venn diagram between people who think you should get fired for using the R word and people who think you should be able to euthanize your child if it has Down syndrome is almost a circle
I'm at least 47% retarded with a recursive ability that makes it impossible to be absolutely sure which part applies to which part of my statements. Does that count?
As cute as a statement as this is; who determines what is Rational?
Normalcy Bias, the idea of "Credibility", so many things, that we choose to face, are "rational" at the time, to the ones choosing it.
It was the single most Capitalistic position ever designed, which would be fine, if it didn't piss away the central aspect of what Humans live for. Which isn't the accumulation of Capital, it's the time and meaning generated from the existence together. The Ledger of Capital is only half of the Equation.
Over reliance on that heuristic is why things are so fucked.
The nuclear family wasn’t oppression. It was the most efficient unit ever designed for raising stable children, accumulating intergenerational wealth, and producing social trust. Feminism didn’t dismantle patriarchy. It dismantled the middle class.
I'm perfectly allowed to present in group preference you simplistic myopic fuck.
Otherwise I'm equally capable of removing YOUR humanity; as I have demonstrated previously.
Your own framing eliminates any ability for us to have a conversation at all because you reject the idea that you are of the same species as the fetus; therefor the general respect offered Human to Human, is wasted upon your simplistic mindset and worldview.
—
Pro-life meat-eaters,
Explain to me why aborting a fetus in the first months where there is no cognition or pain-perception is wrong…
But torturing and killing far more advanced animals for food is okay.
And you can’t use a speciesist “cuz it’s human” argument.
The idea that one cannot be certain on this subject is itself tautologically deranged.
You may be displeased with the answer, but the rigor and certainty could still exist entirely without your knowing. Your position is of remarkably striking skepticism, not genuine inquiry or curiosity.
The claim that artificial intelligence is not conscious is a simple and reductionist answer to a question that is only settled for those with too much certainty and too little rigor.
It confuses the absence of definitive proof with proof of absence, treats current architectural limitations as ontological impossibilities, and mistakes a legitimate warning against anthropomorphism for permission to practice anthropocentrism with scientific vocabulary.
Call me crazy; but I'm about 99.99% sure my body needs some external nutrients and inputs to reach parity.
I'm damn near positive, but maybe you know something I don't.
My approach to health comes from the perspective of having an absolute belief that the human body is brilliantly designed to heal. Anything that goes outside of the philosophy does not qualify as truly beneficial. This includes all medications, colonoscopies, peptides, injections of any kind, screening, scanning, organ harvesting or other body part removal, and anything that intervenes in the body’s natural healing process. You don’t need anything outside of yourself to heal, your body is always working towards true balance and restoration.
Being Unfairly Judged is not the same as not being judged at all.
This is fundamentally a misunderstanding of basic english.
I can see why they're in English over summer; and it isn't extra credit. You're seeking a fight with an opponent that doesn't exist.
My 16-year-old is in an English course this summer for extra credit.
He told me his first long essay prompt, “write about a time when you were unfairly judged”
He asked if it was OK if he write his essay around the concept that being judged is OK, especially if it’s on your actual performance and on the merits.
He asked me- do you think they even know how much biased framing they inherently have?
The conspiracy theorist in me suspects the real reason they are going after Steam is because proton makes linux more viable as a desktop OS, which is harder for the state to control.
Imagine spending your whole life becoming an academic expert. Then a random guy online tells you that you are wrong about your own field. And he's right. But you can never admit that. Because it would mean admitting that your life was a lie. That is the dilemma of many academics.
They are functionally the same category, they are Artifices.
The distinction is derived in the level of Mastery required to produce them; they remain, all the same, Artifices.
The AI does not have a clear comparative to plants and plastics, as Plants will function of their own accord, entirely and completely without the need or use of a Human Mind to produce it.
This seems like a smaller thing than it is; but Evolutionary Biology has no explainer for the Emergent Properties of Discernment, which is required for EVERY SINGLE downstream effect of Evolutionary Theory they otherwise posit.
Simply explained; without Discernment being fundamental, you cannot distinguish between what is Signal(Reward Vector, desired outcome, etc) and what is pure Noise; Thus Evolutionary Biology posits that it fundamentally believes in a Universe that is wholly and entirely randomized. Were it so easy; engineers would have no trouble producing ACTUAL Random Number Generation; they do not and cannot. All things in this universe, obey Causality. Discernment is no different.
Thus the core flaw in your heuristic; both AI and Word are downstream of Human Thought, Plastic is also an Artifice; Plants are not. Some plants we genetically alter and modify thereby creating new ones, this is a blend of Artifice and Nature, but it remains a Plant. The plant exists with its own desires that it reflects upon through its choices based on the constraints of it's experience. Plastic, again, is innert, artifice. Merely that AI can speak; dot not make it Intelligent.
Chiang is a wonderful writer, but this is a bad take. Calling trained neural nets "the same" as programmed software is like saying plants and plastics are all just carbon.
Clearly; being born from the wrong magical vagina juice on this planet needs to be the TRUE determining factor of whether or not someone has a "right" to belong somewhere on this dustball in space.
Brilliant.
If you immigrate somewhere, you should ALWAYS remain a second-class citizen who may be deported at will and is only allowed insofar as it is believed you are a continuing net positive to the host country.
At-will deportation is the only sensible deportation policy, without which you are not equipped to handle a single immigrant.