KiMind

Everyone is special. (It isn't always for good)

[KiMind @qi_mind]

@GlenWilsonIA @cryptopunk7213 > This is like saying guns are a national security risk
You can buy a pistol or hunting rifle, but not a tank or rocket launcher. Why is that? We already have laws against blasting people.

[KiMind @qi_mind]

@mattmartinuzzi2 @DellAnnaLuca @STrosterud Overall, I have a feeling that less democratic societies will choose red much more often than Americans.

[KiMind @qi_mind]

@mattmartinuzzi2 @DellAnnaLuca @STrosterud The things I read about China, for example, make me doubt they're that much into "risk your life for a stranger". A stranger is not their family. So it's an open question. Will it be blue because of their children? Or will it be red because laws and principles are a shaky thing?

[KiMind @qi_mind]

@jmbollenbacher @heath_fuqua @LinchZhang @waitbutwhy If you're sure that there will be more than 50%, then you don't have to be aggressive about it. If you're not sure, then there is a reason, and your talking points are deceiving.

[KiMind @qi_mind]

@jmbollenbacher @heath_fuqua @LinchZhang @waitbutwhy It's your choice. But you're also trying to manipulate others into dying with you.

[KiMind @qi_mind]

@jmbollenbacher @heath_fuqua @LinchZhang @waitbutwhy If I'm right, then pressing red saves people. If I'm wrong, they're saved anyway. You resorted to insults. It looks to me that you're manipulating into the blue choice. And if there won't be 50%, would you be sorry in your last seconds for the people you convinced this way?

[KiMind @qi_mind]

@jmbollenbacher @heath_fuqua @LinchZhang @waitbutwhy I don't know how to estimate the real percentage. I expect it would be significantly below the threshold. So I chose red. If I'm right, it is the right choice for everyone to be saved. If I'm wrong, all people will be safe.

[KiMind @qi_mind]

@g_lockwood23 @SnowHimbo You think this total tolerance of financial wastes was the result of corruption? No, just there wasn't personal impact. The only thing that matters is that the numbers in official reports are good. No thanks for the efficiency. And you're scolded if your numbers aren't right.

[KiMind @qi_mind]

@g_lockwood23 @SnowHimbo That system couldn't survive. It's the system where the factory my father worked at was incentivised to saw into pieces freshly acquired building materials to fulfill scrap metal norms. And my grandfather dumped gas left over after his workday into the ground.

[KiMind @qi_mind]

@steven_cas85123 @someRandomLaura @Microinteracti1 The same companies will get 10 times more in investments into their own technologies, because Europe still needs weapons.

[KiMind @qi_mind]

@void995 @SebAaltonen > Developer control at pixel level
Developers already can control on pixel level where DLSS5 is applied (and to what degree). Developers can tone down or completely exclude some areas of the frame from DLSS5 "enhancements" if needed.

[KiMind @qi_mind]

@void995 @SebAaltonen > Can't remove fog and volumetrics like DLSS5 does
That should be considered a bug. Developers should report such things, and I expect Nvidia will fix a lot of these in the future.

[KiMind @qi_mind]

@TonyIsHere4You @BRobo82 To me, it's the same as complaining that the image is in 240p and all textures are very pixelated, looking at the first Quake. Objectively, DLSS5 increases the quality a lot by sacrificing some degree of uniqueness. What we want is to get a better version of it, not hate it.

[KiMind @qi_mind]

@TonyIsHere4You @BRobo82 > You really want the faces in every single game to be restyled according to a common set of training data?
DLSS5's input is a handcrafted artistic vision. For a good technology it would be enough to preserve it. So it's a matter of quality. I expect it will be better and better.

[KiMind @qi_mind]

@jasager029 @TheK420Metric @r0ck3t23 I think it's enough food for thought here. I like that the discussion was honest, thank you.

[KiMind @qi_mind]

@jasager029 @TheK420Metric @r0ck3t23 Then you disagree with Dennett. "He (Dennett) stated his view is materialist and scientific, and he presents an argument against qualia".
I disagree with Dennett, too. What I want to say is that there are different views. You confidently said you know how it is. It is not so.

[KiMind @qi_mind]

@jasager029 @TheK420Metric @r0ck3t23 Dennett thought current hardware is enough (you just need more of it). If you agree with Dennet's views, it means you agree that current tech-based AI can be conscious, in principle. Or it can be not. We don't know. But it is possible.