whatever

Bored by permabulls and permabears. Investing is an art.

Investor, analysing the world for fun. Wrong most of the time 🤷‍♂️

[whatever @SomeoneFromTh10]

@rustyynail888 @AssaadRazzouk What short lifecycle? They still have 90% of the starting efficiency after 30 years. Can easily be used 50+ years with minor maintenance.

Then you can recycle 95-97% of the materials.

In contrast you literally burn coal as single-use item and need billions of tons per year!!

[whatever @SomeoneFromTh10]

@osanisinake @redtachyon Same as humans.

[whatever @SomeoneFromTh10]

@Kurtz_991 @Tree23937893 @edodreaming @KobeissiLetter All serious estimates put Russian losses 3-4x higher than Ukrainean.

Attackers always suffer higher casualties than defenders. Also Ukraine has technology advantage thanks to western support

[whatever @SomeoneFromTh10]

@unautrelama @gerardsans @NumerusOpinions @GaryMarcus The prompt is given in the paper and is literally the problem itself, without any additional context or words.

Zero prompt engineering

[whatever @SomeoneFromTh10]

@Phil74725841 @hamids No one stole anything. OpenAI is still non-profit that controls a for-profit. There is nothing illegal about that.

What Elon wanted to do, was in fact, to eliminate the for-profit and integrate it into Tesla. That's much closer to stealing

[whatever @SomeoneFromTh10]

@OrlandoLorenzo @hamids Of course he did. How else would you describe his blackmail towards integraging OpenAI into Tesla, or he will leave?

I am genuinely confused as to what makes Elons plans to turn it into a for-profit structure fully under HIS control any better? It's actually worse

[whatever @SomeoneFromTh10]

@lmldias @Angaisb_ Your definition fits AIs then.

Connected to a game, an AI can do inside the game whatever it wants. Connected to a Robot it can do in real world what it wants.

[whatever @SomeoneFromTh10]

@lmldias @Angaisb_ No, I am just not understanding your point.

If your thoughts and actions are 100% predetermined by your genes, environment and randomness, how can you claim your will to be free?

At what point of the process do "you" become an ingredient?

[whatever @SomeoneFromTh10]

@lmldias @Angaisb_ The difference emerges from randomness, not "you".

Are you saying that what makes you "you" is quantum fluctuations?

That way AI is also random and has the same randomness qualities

[whatever @SomeoneFromTh10]

@lmldias @Angaisb_ Just answer one question:

Using your free will, could you have decided to not write the above post? Could you have written it with even a single different word or character?

I think it's obvious that if the universe would restart 1000 times we will always have the same outcome

[whatever @SomeoneFromTh10]

@lmldias @Angaisb_ You said that free will is bound to "your nature", which is a vague unspecified term.

Unless you can shape your own nature, nothing of your will is free.

It's basically kicking the can down the road

[whatever @SomeoneFromTh10]

@lmldias @Angaisb_ If you want to appeal to quantum physics, at best you end up with a randomized will, not free will. Which makes things even worse

[whatever @SomeoneFromTh10]

@lmldias @Angaisb_ The concept was never about oppression. The fundamental point behind the question was always:

Is there a "you" that is independent from the physical world and could you have ever acted differently from the way you acted?

If the answer is no, then we are no different than AI

[whatever @SomeoneFromTh10]

@lmldias @Angaisb_ When the painting you paint at age of 30 was already pre-determined from the moment you were born, and you could never have painted any different version, was the painting a product of your free will?

[whatever @SomeoneFromTh10]

@lmldias @Angaisb_ The issue is that free-will and determinism are definitional contradictions.

You can either have free will, or you can have determinism. It's not possible to have both.

Example below:

[whatever @SomeoneFromTh10]

@lmldias @Angaisb_ Just to clarify:

Are you claiming that free will can exist in a brain that is fully deterministic?

[whatever @SomeoneFromTh10]

@lmldias @Angaisb_ My entire point is that we humans do the same. What makes you so confident that humans have qualitatively different traits?

If the "soul" emerges via laws of physics, then we don't know if it is qualitatively different from what AIs can process

[whatever @SomeoneFromTh10]

@lmldias @Angaisb_ Thanks for the insults, I guess...

If you think that free will exists, then you believe the soul has a mythical non-determinstic aspect. I reject that claim due to lack of evidence.

It would require a supernatural component of our brains

[whatever @SomeoneFromTh10]

@lmldias @Angaisb_ Okay so now you broadened the concept into something that is very easy for AIs to capture.

Cultural experiences are very present in the training data of AIs. They speed-run through our collective cultural history, which is why they can so accurately reproduce and recombine them

[whatever @SomeoneFromTh10]

@lmldias @Angaisb_ I don't know it exists, but that's beyond the point.

My point is that if it emerges deterministically, then a soul can never be the source for anything. It would just act as an intermediary between experiences (inputs) and artistic outputs.

Just like AI