|
We're talking about America though
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:18 |
|
|
If only white people weren't so degenerate these days, eating fruits and spices. Then they'd know Trump was the president for them
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
I Killed GBS posted:We're talking about America though quote:“That murder was the last straw,” said Marilyn Hudson, 78, a tribal elder and historian. “Now you have a murder, a hit man, and a five-time convicted felon operating as an oil contractor working directly with the chairman. It’s like our reservation got hijacked by the plot of a bad movie.”
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Black Mirror is hard to describe. It's a show initially produced for British Channel 4, now for Netflix, and there's a new narrative in each episode. The show picks up technological and social trends that we see today and takes them to absurd and dystopian conclusions. Each episode is set up so that the viewer can initially identify with the world he sees, but is quickly taken aback by odd details until the curtain drops and the terrifying extent of this eerily familiar world unfolds. I previously griped about it in the Britain thread for the on-the-nose diversity of its cast, and that's an unfortunate homage to the zeitgeist you'll have to tolerate to get to the good stuff. But the most recent season 3 in particular is so incredible, it's probably the best thing I've ever seen on television (or its digital equivalent). It's like "SCALE Sucks - The Show". This thread will contain major spoilers and they will really ruin the magic for you, so if you intended to watch it and just haven't got around to it yet, go have some white pills in the Trump thread and then do it before you read on here. Seasons 1 and 2 had some good twists and they're worth watching, but I really want to focus on two episodes from season 3 here, "Nosedive" and "San Junipero". "Nosedive" starts off in a minimally more futuristic world with electric cars and more digital gadgets, but the main protagonist quickly starts to unnerve us by constantly rating stuff on her phone, first just regular social media content we already "like" all the time today, but then increasingly mundane social interactions and basically everything that happens to her. It turns out that in her world, there is a personal rating system tied to a giant social media network that forces a publicly visible rating between 0 and 5 on everyone, and everything in the world depends on how high your rating is. Consequently, everyone is always acting in eerily cheerful and brownnosing ways to avoid negative ratings from anyone. There are "social media consultants" who advise their clients on how to behave and whom to interact with in order to boost their ratings. Dropping too low can get you fired from your white collar job and will make everything more expensive and inconvenient. The behavioral changes induced by this rating system have made people so sensitive that yelling is now a crime. Everything has become passive-aggressive to the max since nobody wants to be personally offensive and so only girlish bullying and backstabbing remain as viable options. But this rating system has only cemented existing social power structures - beautiful and wealthy people seem to hover near 5 by default while everyone else is struggling not to slip below 4. It's a superficially fair system in the sense that everyone gets an input ("crowd intelligence") and your social standing is an accurate representation of your aggregate interactions, but it's also a horribly neurotic place nobody wants to live in. It felt like somebody had read Bryan Caplan's suggestion to replace social trust with credit card companies and made a satirical TV show out of it. The completely plausible progression from our social media world to this dystopia was actually scary. But the next episode, "San Junipero", truly outclassed everything I've seen at least in recent history. It begins with a shy young woman making her way through some 80s West Coast party town called San Junipero on a weekend night. She ends up meeting a racy black chick who drags her out of her shell and they end up having an affair (DIVERSITY YES). But somehow at midnight, the world just ends and begins anew on the next weekend. Our protagonist looks for the black woman, but she's nowhere to be found. A bartender tells her to go to a seedy place called "The Quagmire", where wanton acts of sex, violence and general absurdity take place and a former beau of Miss Black informs the protagonist that she might be found in a different decade. Weekend's over, suddenly it's the 2000s in the same town, but our protagonist hasn't aged, just looks a bit different fashion-wise. She finds Miss Black and they're having a fight because Miss Black didn't want to have feelings for anyone "in this place", where most inhabitants are actually dead. We learn that San Junipero isn't a real place, but a computer simulation populated by people who have died and uploaded themselves into the network or are near death and checking out the real estate. Both women are old and frail and living in nursing homes, but the main protagonist actually went into a coma in her youth and is now living adult life for the first time. Both end up opting for euthanasia soon after and presumably live happily ever after in their computer simulation. Put the lesbian diversity stuff aside for a minute and picture this: humanity has left the trappings of religion behind and created its own digital heaven on Earth. But this heaven is a perennial masturbatorium, and we learn that many long-term residents are so jaded and broken that they hang out in places like The Quagmire just to feel anything anymore. The singularity happened, eternal life is in reach, and it's a giant porno for those who don't want to die yet. This isn't just my shitlordy interpretation of the plot either; this sentiment pervades the episode. It's the most surprising critique of hedonist materialism I've ever seen. These days, the problem with TV is that many shows are superficially cool, but unbearably pozzed on the inside. Black Mirror is the complete opposite; it wears the attire of faggotry and then violently hacks at the social order that spawned the poz in the first place. Very subversive, very edgy. 10/10 recommendation for my fellow shitlords.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Man don't drop quotes with spoilers
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
I, too, am superficially cool, but unbearably pozzed on the inside.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
A few years ago I made a joke about how I was going to reclaim the word shithead, because then people who hated shitheads would be all like "That's OUR word" and I'd just be balling I did not know it was going to actually happen. Anil Dasharez0ne posted:pozzed It's our own fault for inflicting that word on the world
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Matt Forney calls "Silenced!" "mediocre" and a "slog" on Right-On, an "online resource for the rising True Right of Europe." If you don't want to click that, here's Mammoth's summary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
divabot posted:Matt Forney calls "Silenced!" "mediocre" and a "slog" on Right-On, an "online resource for the rising True Right of Europe." If you don't want to click that, here's Mammoth's summary. They forgot to call Matt Forney for the movie, huh
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
divabot posted:Matt Forney calls "Silenced!" "mediocre" and a "slog" on Right-On, an "online resource for the rising True Right of Europe." If you don't want to click that, here's Mammoth's summary. I thought We hunted the Mammoth was alt-right? Has Matt fallen so far in that space?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:I thought We hunted the Mammoth was alt-right? Has Matt fallen so far in that space? What, no, We Hunted The Mammoth is a gawking zoo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:I thought We hunted the Mammoth was alt-right? Quite the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Ah, not sure where I got that idea then. Something new to read!
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:Ah, not sure where I got that idea then. Something new to read! I can see how one could get that from the name, since it's an ironic reference to an MRA talking point of the sort the site mocks (the original name for the site was "Manboobz").
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Anil Dasharez0ne posted:I, too, am superficially cool, but unbearably pozzed on the inside. pozz my neg leftism
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Fututor Magnus posted:Black Mirror is hard to describe. The Twilight Zone but with modern fears instead of nukes and aliens. Bam done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
pookel posted:Sadly, white people don't have a monopoly on electing horrible leaders. Check out this guy: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/29/us/in-north-dakota-where-oil-corruption-and-bodies-surface.html?_r=0 "Far right authoritarians a couple steps removed from being legit warlords" are the future leaders of both the West and East, better start getting used to it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Puppy Time posted:This is the way the world ends: not with a bang, but with a delicious sizzle. This is my favourite thing anyone has ever posted. Also, sidenote: this conversation was very illuminating because I had a woman email me the other day asking if any of our food was halal (yes) and responded that she would not be dining with us for that reason, and I was very confused.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
Eric "their skin color is fecal" Raymond has decided to get into defending the alt-right against charges that they're New-Nazis and KKK. They're actually just pranksters, see. Like him! Milo too is a prankster. Like 4chan! He's probably not actually a white supremacist, it's just that the white supremacists are trying to attach themselves to the alt-right. What a loving idiot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
This Hannukah, let us all remember the revolution of a devoutly religious minority against an imperialist tyrant who harshly punished those who refused to violate their dietary laws.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/nydwracu/status/807195033371836416 I'm glad
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
show was full of channer edgelord dog whistle poo poo. gently caress em. that Hyde believes Tim Heidecker ratfucked him and got him cancelled is hilarious, since MDE is obviously inspired by the Tim and Eric aesthetic. your artistic hero thinks you're a shithead, grats.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
It's almost like being a human garbage fire can have consequences
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
uber_stoat posted:show was full of channer edgelord dog whistle poo poo. gently caress em. that Hyde believes Tim Heidecker ratfucked him and got him cancelled is hilarious, since MDE is obviously inspired by the Tim and Eric aesthetic. your artistic hero thinks you're a shithead, grats. I'm not finding much humour in that since that just means that Hyde's moronic racist fans are going to gp after Heidecker, which it seems they already have. Good thing though is that Sam Hyde's lovely politics are now abundantly clear with the layer of attempted irony and weirdness eroded. I've known even some far-left people who liked MDE and Sam Hyde because they thought he was being ironic and playing a character or that his ideology didn't matter to his work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
cash crab posted:I was very confused. If you eat halal then a muslim bursts out of your chest as you morph into a suicide vest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
cash crab posted:This is my favourite thing anyone has ever posted. Also, sidenote: this conversation was very illuminating because I had a woman email me the other day asking if any of our food was halal (yes) and responded that she would not be dining with us for that reason, and I was very confused. Should have pointed out that halal isn't something that has to be explicitly "done" to most things so technically things like water are also halal e: Or maybe you could have offered to dump a bucket of pigs blood on her Carrie style to keep the muslim reverse-vampires at bay
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
Hello thread, how does the gloating feel when they literally got their guy - that guy - elected president I wonder, can it still be justifiably called gloating Though I came here to poo poo-talk Scott, whom I otherwise currently consider one of the pro clicks of the internet, being consistently thought provoking, by being either wrong in really interesting ways, or even occasionally seeming right in ways nobody else is. This one though: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/10/30/how-does-recent-ai-progress-affect-the-bostromian-paradigm/ It is super interesting because it is about AI, something Scott is still 1. super passionate about, 2. completely clueless about.  effortpostHere is how deep learning/AI works*. You feed it an input, allow it to give you a very specific form of output, and then you rate it on how well its output resembles your pre-specified target. Then, the network tries to move to minimize its error over the training examples you show it. For example, you build a network to receive a 200*200*3 array of values - a 200*200 pixel RGB image - so it has 120.000 input neurons. And you give it one output neuron. Then you show it 10.000.000 images with or without faces, and you punish it whenever the output neuron misjudges an image. The magic happens inside the network, where you have a few hidden layers of thousands of neurons. So the lower level neurons have to figure out by themselves what kind of information - lines, shapes, etc.- they have to feed to the upper layers to minimize the punishment, and the upper layers have to figure out what to make of that information. For that, you use some optimizer - say, stochastic gradient descent. So essentially, you try to minimize a function: given the input, how do I have to set my parameters (weights between neurons) so that my error is as small as possible? Where "error" and "small" are specified by whoever constructs the network. For example, you could have the final output neuron give you an output between 0 and 100 (implied %), and you score it as 1 whenever it says >50% for a face pic or <50% for a non-face pic, and you score it a 0 whenever it says <50% for a face pic or >50% for a non-face pic. Or you could be more fine-grained: a face pic has a target of 100 and a non-face pic has a target of 0, and you score the network as the absolute difference between its output and the target. Or you could square the difference. Or apply a logit. Or something like that. Essentially, the one thing you know about is what the objective function - the reward/punishment scheme - of the network is, because you have specified it. For example, if I build a model in the Keras interface to TensorFlow, my final line before I run the model might be: code:How it does that, that's the whole magic. These hidden layers do insane things. The best minds in the world are currently trying to figure out how that stuff works. But the one thing we do know is their objective function, also called, quoting wiki, a "reward function, a profit function, a utility function, a fitness function". So this is how you do deep learning: you tell a bunch of connected neurons to figure out how to get the minimum punishment whenever you ask it to solve a question for you. It has no idea what a face is. It doesn't care about faces. It only knows, if I say 87% when there's a bunch of beige and two dots in the middle and white stuff here, I get a small punishment. That is the one thing we know about it, because we've very explicitly programmed it so. (I'm ignoring a bunch of stuff here, e.g. autoencoders, but then, so does Scott and it wouldn't really change much.) Considering this, read Scott's piece and marvel at how a reasonably smart person who is really invested in a topic completely misses the point over paragraph upon paragraph of a blog article even longer than this post. It's like watching somebody try to learn to swim, and constantly holding their rear end cheeks and wondering why they keep drowning. I've seen fish do it, why doesn't it work!? Meanwhile, in the pool next to them, Michael Phelps is training. But they never even bother to check. Just squeeze them cheeks ever harder. There must be a way to reach the other end of the pool! Somehow science must figure that one out! Maybe if I squeeze the right cheek with the left hand, and vice versa? That is Scott, in that post, wondering how future scientists might discover a utility function that could be stacked on top of a working categorizer. Squeezing his rear end cheek so hard, it looks like he had a very kinky night. And then, Yud walks in, and, to stay in the metaphor, just drops his pants and shows how he's really dug in there, tied his hands down, taped his fingers right up that butt crack, no wiggle room. Bragging about how he almost made it halfway through the pond last night, before he lost consciousness and had to be rescued by this tall guy who probably used a boat or helicopter or something. * On this topic, all other machine learning tools work the same way. Fututor Magnus posted:I'm not finding much humour in that since that just means that Hyde's moronic racist fans are going to gp after Heidecker, which it seems they already have. Sam Hyde's TEDX talk was really good, perhaps one of the top 5 pieces of satire I saw that year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
Returning to the thread with a glorious doublepost Have you been wondering about the Trump/AI Risk intersection? Wonder no more. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
thats nice dear
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Considering this, read Scott's piece... Can you just explain what's wrong with it succinctly? I don't want to sift through your comment for the relevant parts that will help me sift through an SSC post; that is like a double nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Cingulate wants to distract attention from Scott's actively harmful posts about politics to discuss a nice abtruse subject like AI
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
I read that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 20:28
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Sax Solo posted:Can you just explain what's wrong with it succinctly? I don't want to sift through your comment for the relevant parts that will help me sift through an SSC post; that is like a double nightmare. And just assume all of AI is built on this principle, and every actual Machine Learning guy knows a lot about them and that they play an essential and well-defined role in AI. In sum, we know exactly what the motivation of our neural networks is. The Vosgian Beast posted:Cingulate wants to distract attention from Scott's actively harmful posts about politics to discuss a nice abtruse subject like AI
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
One would have hoped your time away from this thread would have given you more insight into how to discuss topics with other human beings, Cingulate, but I guess the lesson of 2016 is that reality is just a parade of disappointments, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Asymmetrikon posted:One would have hoped your time away from this thread would have given you more insight into how to discuss topics with other human beings, Cingulate, but I guess the lesson of 2016 is that reality is just a parade of disappointments, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:You're living in a bubble. In the real world, your president-elect is Donald Trump. I don't know what this is supposed to mean in your head, but the actual message it expresses is "Cingulate continues to be a dumb rear end in a top hat."
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:While I'm glad you understand 2016 has shown you are in need of learning a lesson - no, that is not it. And the lesson that we should learn is...?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Alright, fess up, guys. Who switched on the Twat Signal?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Asymmetrikon posted:And the lesson that we should learn is...? I don't know. But lesson 1 is certainly: what we've been doing isn't working. What we believe is wrong. All of the gloating and the dismissiveness and smugness are bad. You're living in a bubble. In the real world, your president-elect is Donald Trump. If you believe something, it needs to be reassessed, on virtue of being believed by you. If something keeps you from reassessing your beliefs, it is suspect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:18 |
|
|
I'm not sure if you're using the general 'you' here or not, but plenty of people are reassessing their beliefs in ways both good and bad - the movement towards the appeasement of white nationalists (bad), and the movement towards rejuvenating antifa groups (good).
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 21:03
|
|