|
Zaphod42 posted:
I mean people still debate the idea of agency in philosophy if you believe in free will quote:Opponents of the standard conception argue, however, that an agent’s power to initiate action cannot be reduced to the capacity to act intentionally and for reasons. They argue that the exercise of agency may be entirely spontaneous, in the sense that an agent may initiate an action for no reason and without prior intent. On this view, reasons and intentions may have a strong and even a decisive influence on how an agent acts. But agency has its source in the power to initiate, and the exercise of this power cannot be reduced to the agent’s being moved by reasons or intentions. This is an alternative conception of agency (Ginet 1990; O’Connor 2000; Lowe 2008; see also McCann 1998; for critical discussion see Mele 2003: 38–51, 71–76; Clarke 2003: 17–24). Proponents of this alternative conception reject the standard theory and they reject, more generally, any account of agency in terms of causal relations between agent-involving states and events. According to some, the initiation of action consists in irreducible agent-causation, others appeal to uncaused mental acts of the will. From the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:39 |
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:Just to address the question of why Manhattan doesn’t deal with the ray gun. Nothing. The problem isn't that Dr. Manhattan was hit by the ray gun, it's that they filmed it really poorly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
I am now at the point where if I see the words "free will" or "agency", my eyes glaze over and I skip to the next post.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 20:49
|
|
|
just another posted:Nothing. The problem isn't that Dr. Manhattan was hit by the ray gun, it's that they filmed it really poorly. How
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
MelancholyMark posted:I mean people still debate the idea of agency in philosophy if you believe in free will Absolutely, but that isn't just "lol agency is the same thing as free will duh" its way more complicated and nuanced and still makes a distinction between the two, it just finds one is fundamental to the other.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:It’s not supposed to be a smart choice, it’s supposed to convey what I wrote in my post. Characters in fiction don’t behave 100% rationally all the time and I feel like people get really hung up on that. The point is that Manhattan is not actually this foreign unknowable entity, he’s a human being. His arc in this show is that he found a new reason to reconnect with humanity. The tendency for us as regular human beings is to assume that with the gift of foresight, it would be much easier to take a rational approach to decisions because you know what the results would be. So if you know for a fact that looking at Angela at that particular moment would get you killed, why do it? Is looking into her eyes for that one instant worth never being able to look into her eyes again? It's a choice that makes no sense, even within the context of irrational human beings. The only way it works is if the outcome is immutable, and that's the way Dr. Manhattan describes it. It happens that way because that's the only way it can happen. That's it, there's no choice involved, either rational or irrational.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:The only way it works is if the outcome is immutable, and that's the way Dr. Manhattan describes it. It happens that way because that's the only way it can happen. That's it, there's no choice involved, either rational or irrational. Exactly. Jon Bois says in one of his videos, "The lesson I've chosen to learn here is that, if you play poker, the secret is just to do whatever you want... The way you end up playing is the only way you could possibly have ever played. This hand is just the next stop on a train that has been running for four billion years ever since life bubbled out of a simmering puddle of acid. You could stick a thermometer in the puddle, give it a read, and know whether 4 billion years later, you'd run into a queen." And as a super-determinist that's how I view life and why Manhattan makes perfect sense to me  This is all just a series of steps resolving themselves in the only way they can, but that doesn't mean we don't make choices as part of those steps being calculated.Bois is too drat smart for a sports writer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:The tendency for us as regular human beings is to assume that with the gift of foresight, it would be much easier to take a rational approach to decisions because you know what the results would be. So if you know for a fact that looking at Angela at that particular moment would get you killed, why do it? Is looking into her eyes for that one instant worth never being able to look into her eyes again? It's a choice that makes no sense, even within the context of irrational human beings. Not quite, the way that he’s consistently been portrayed is that he has choices, but those choices have the same limitations on them as any other human. He can’t (or doesn’t I suppose, but we don’t know) make choices based on future information. The outcome has the appearance of being immutable because he has foreknowledge of it, but that outcome was still dictated by whatever choice he made in that moment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:I believe you can make choices even if you don't have a soul. I believe that those choices, devoid of a soul, are calculated by your brain and physics and you would always make the same decision Yes, I understand your belief. quote:E: your stance of "you need to chill, because its not okay to rib people, and I would never do that, but sometimes I have to do that" isn't consistent and is in fact hypocritical. I give up. I'm not being mean when I say this. I'm really not. But you're just completely misunderstanding me and once again I'm back to believing your entire posting career is an act or a bit. I just don't believe you're this bad at the internet. On the chance that you're not acting, I want you to understand that my perception of your intention is that you're worked up, not chill, and need to step back and take a deep breath. I would like you to understand that this may not be my problem, that it is possible your words come off wildly different than your intent. I see in you a lot of bad internet habits that I have struggled with myself. I hope one day you are better able to reflect on them and change. Have a good day.  Edit: I apologize to everyone for this!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:Not quite, the way that he’s consistently been portrayed is that he has choices, but those choices have the same limitations on them as any other human. He can’t (or doesn’t I suppose, but we don’t know) make choices based on future information. The outcome has the appearance of being immutable because he has foreknowledge of it, but that outcome was still dictated by whatever choice he made in that moment. I don't think those are conflicting. Its not just the appearance of being immutable, it is. Immutable doesn't mean you can't set something, it means once set, it can't be changed. Each decision in Jon's life he makes, and then is set in stone forever. Each decision was a choice, but then becomes immutable when viewed in the great scale of time. Each always was and always will be, but that doesn't mean he didn't choose. That's the big tricky idea to wrap your head around, the distinction, the room between. precision posted:I give up. I'm not being mean when I say this. I'm really not. But you're just completely misunderstanding me and once again I'm back to believing your entire posting career is an act or a bit. I just don't believe you're this bad at the internet. Read this post back to yourself and realize I could say the exact same thing to you, and then think about that for awhile. You have a good day too buddy, I'll be here if you wanna try to meet in the middle some day. Zaphod42 fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Dec 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:Not quite, the way that he’s consistently been portrayed is that he has choices, but those choices have the same limitations on them as any other human. He can’t (or doesn’t I suppose, but we don’t know) make choices based on future information. The outcome has the appearance of being immutable because he has foreknowledge of it, but that outcome was still dictated by whatever choice he made in that moment. The definition of "choice" is different for Manhattan vs. the way regular humans understand it. To Manhattan, a "choice" is just a moment in time where humans perceive two different paths, but he knows that perception is not accurate. Manhattan understands that making a "choice" is just an illusion and that really what's happening is that the human mind is fooling itself into believing that things could've gone a different way. "Choice" implies that there are multiple possible outcomes, and that is not the case here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
just another posted:It's the White Power symbol that 4chan meme'd into existence months ago: https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/okay-hand-gesture It's close, but it's not the same. I'm wondering why; like you say, there are existing gestures they could use. Also, think of Manhattan like this: of course he has a choice. But he also happens to know what choice he makes, at times that, by our perception of time, are 'before' he actually makes the choice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:The definition of "choice" is different for Manhattan vs. the way regular humans understand it. To Manhattan, a "choice" is just a moment in time where humans perceive two different paths, but he knows that perception is not accurate. Manhattan understands that making a "choice" is just an illusion and that really what's happening is that the human mind is fooling itself into believing that things could've gone a different way. Choice means you have options available to you, not that you will choose different things. Free will means that you make different choices given the same circumstances and choices. Although its a semantic argument, so if you wanna call that choice we can go forward with that definition too. The important thing is the ideas not what we call them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:I don't think those are conflicting. Its not just the appearance of being immutable, it is. Immutable doesn't mean you can't set something, it means once set, it can't be changed. Each decision in Jon's life he makes, and then is set in stone forever. Each decision was a choice, but then becomes immutable when viewed in the great scale of time. Each always was and always will be, but that doesn't mean he didn't choose. That's the big tricky idea to wrap your head around, the distinction, the room between. Yeah, that’s what I’m saying. I think the previous poster was trying to say that choice doesn’t exist in this scenario, I’m arguing it still does. I think using the word immutable isn’t right anyway, things are “mutable” based on the choices we make. The future isn’t set until you take action based on your choice. But yeah after you make that choice you can’t un-make that choice, and neither can Jon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Choice means you have options available to you, not that you will choose different things. Free will means that you make different choices given the same circumstances and choices. A meaningless distinction yea, because what's the point of a choice if you are limited to just one path? The other paths are illusions, so is it really a choice?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:Yeah, that’s what I’m saying. I think the previous poster was trying to say that choice doesn’t exist in this scenario, I’m arguing it still does. I think using the word immutable isn’t right anyway, things are “mutable” based on the choices we make. The future isn’t set until you take action based on your choice. But yeah after you make that choice you can’t un-make that choice, and neither can Jon. Normally you'd be right there, but it all gets trickier because Jon can see the future and not just the past like we can. So to Jon's existence, all of time is immutable. I think the term is being correctly used there, at least I totally got what he meant and it does seem to be accurate to how the show is built.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:A meaningless distinction yea, because what's the point of a choice if you are limited to just one path? The other paths are illusions, so is it really a choice? Well, the example I keep going back to is computers, because we all agree computers don't have souls, but computers are capable of making choices. Would you say that computers can't make choices? According to that alternative definition, that's reasonable. But according to the definition I was going with, computers can make a "choice". What do you call that if not a choice? Options? So then computers can "pick options" but they can't "make choices" ? Again, the words we use don't matter, its the ideas we're really trying to communicate here. Just wanna be on the same page, not mocking you or anything; philosophy is confusing enough! Also note you have to consider not just simple programs made by human creation, but also neural networks which are self-learning by adjusting variables and running tests. Those machines "learn" in the classic sense, and they "make choices", and their choices improve over time based on training. But they have no souls. Zaphod42 fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Dec 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
Lube Man could've chosen not to spray himself down and slide around everywhere like a loving boss but he had no free will and has always been sliding and not sliding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Well, the example I keep going back to is computers, because we all agree computers don't have souls, but computers are capable of making choices. In the context of Watchmen and Dr. Manhattan, no I don't think that computers are making any choices in the same way that none of us are. The outcomes are set in stone, the appearance of choices is a false reality caused by our own flawed perception of time. And computers are designed by humans and adhere to the laws of space/time just like we do. I don't see a lack of a soul as relevant. Just to be clear, I don't really think that's how it works, but that's how it works according to Manhattan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Normally you'd be right there, but it all gets trickier because Jon can see the future and not just the past like we can. So to Jon's existence, all of time is immutable. I think the term is being correctly used there, at least I totally got what he meant and it does seem to be accurate to how the show is built. I view it sort of the inverse way. I think Jon’s perspective is the skewed one. Yeah his perspective gives the appearance that things are all set in stone, but he’s seeing reality as though it were a story playing out and he’s looking at all the pages splayed out on a table at once. The events of the story were still influenced by choice, and what he’s seeing is just the way things happened. So, to Jon, things are “immutable” because he can’t rewrite those pages. However if any of the people in the story had made a different choice, the story would have turned out differently. That’s kind of the point of the Mars chapter in the comic. He is in awe that events and choices played out the way they did to produce Laurie, because it could have happened an infinite number of different ways had any one thing been changed. If he saw the universe as purely deterministic this revelation would have had no impact.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:I view it sort of the inverse way. I think Jon’s perspective is the skewed one. Yeah his perspective gives the appearance that things are all set in stone, but he’s seeing reality as though it were a story playing out and he’s looking at all the pages splayed out on a table at once. The events of the story were still influenced by choice, and what he’s seeing is just the way things happened. So, to Jon, things are “immutable” because he can’t rewrite those pages. However if any of the people in the story had made a different choice, the story would have turned out differently. That’s kind of the point of the Mars chapter in the comic. He is in awe that events and choices played out the way they did to produce Laurie, because it could have happened an infinite number of different ways had any one thing been changed. If he saw the universe as purely deterministic this revelation would have had no impact. The element you're not accounting for is Jon himself. He is in the story, and theoretically if you're right that choices can be made and can change outcomes, Jon should be able to insert himself into that and change things. Now, maybe he's just an rear end in a top hat and he chooses not to change anything, and I suppose that's somewhat supported by the way he acts sometimes, but I think it's a pretty big leap to make. Re: the Mars scene with Laurie, I don't see it that way. Jon is in awe of what the universe did in creating the miracle that is Laurie, and it is he himself that never really looked at it very closely to notice how amazing it was. He had grown bored of the human race and this is a new discovery that sparks his interest and gets him engaged again. Doesn't mean it could've happened any other way. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Dec 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
TheCenturion posted:It's close, but it's not the same. I'm wondering why; like you say, there are existing gestures they could use. “Cyclops” is a KKK rank and if I had to come up with a sign for it, it's probably be something like that. The OK sign wouldn’t work by itself, I don't think, because most people who aren’t terminally online know how it was coopted by the alt right. It's possible they were inspired by that but modified that, but also not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:16
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:I view it sort of the inverse way. I think Jon’s perspective is the skewed one. Yeah his perspective gives the appearance that things are all set in stone, but he’s seeing reality as though it were a story playing out and he’s looking at all the pages splayed out on a table at once. The events of the story were still influenced by choice, and what he’s seeing is just the way things happened. So, to Jon, things are “immutable” because he can’t rewrite those pages. However if any of the people in the story had made a different choice, the story would have turned out differently. That’s kind of the point of the Mars chapter in the comic. He is in awe that events and choices played out the way they did to produce Laurie, because it could have happened an infinite number of different ways had any one thing been changed. If he saw the universe as purely deterministic this revelation would have had no impact. That's always true though. Consider a book, the story is immutable. I can start reading the last page first, but that doesn't mean the characters in the story didn't have choices in the story, or that if they had made different choices that they'd end up with a different ending. But since pen has already been put to paper, the story is written, they can't change it anymore. The choices have all been made. But  we're all on the same page here, so it doesn't really even matter if we want to use the same terms or not. Its literally a semantic argument at that point Basebf555 posted:In the context of Watchmen and Dr. Manhattan, no I don't think that computers are making any choices in the same way that none of us are. The outcomes are set in stone, the appearance of choices is a false reality caused by our own flawed perception of time. And computers are designed by humans and adhere to the laws of space/time just like we do. I don't see a lack of a soul as relevant. Yeah, as long as you put humans and computers on the same level then that's consistent and how I view things too, so we only disagree on the definition of the word "choice" which doesn't really matter. And yeah, how the real world works is a whole other can of worms. And we started talking about that a bit which muddied the waters on Watchmen's physics/philosophy/religion, but then art imitating life and inspiring thoughts and feelings about life is like, the whole point of art, man? Or something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:17
|
|
|
Has anyone brought up how Lady Trieu’s ability to edit memories with film-like quality calls into question how everything Angela saw while on Nostalgia could have been fabricated...?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:The element you're not accounting for is Jon himself. He is in the story, and theoretically if you're right that choices can be made and can change outcomes, Jon should be able to insert himself into that and change things. Jon is consistently portrayed in the comics and show as someone who can merely observe the future and past at once but is constrained by the same limitations on choice as any other person. Like you said it’s possible that he’s just been choosing all this time not to alter anything but I agree that’s a leap and not the right reading.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:20
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Well, the example I keep going back to is computers, because we all agree computers don't have souls, but computers are capable of making choices.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
TheCenturion posted:At no point has my computer ever 'chosen' to do something. It's been instructed to perform various actions, which involves an awful lot of math, but my computer doesn't just suddenly boot up Word and write a sonnet one day. I come home to 1,000 printouts of Oyster smiling every day. I never told my computer to do that
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
TheCenturion posted:At no point has my computer ever 'chosen' to do something. It's been instructed to perform various actions, which involves an awful lot of math, but my computer doesn't just suddenly boot up Word and write a sonnet one day. It doesn't boot up on its own because when its off its incapable of doing anything. Just like when a human is dead they will never spontaneously come back to life. But a neural network machine can change its options and learn over time. You may only use your computer like a calculator, but you need to recognize that computers that make decisions definitely exist. If your argument is that even if it makes choices, it does so through science and physics, then how does your brain work?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:Jon is consistently portrayed in the comics and show as someone who can merely observe the future and past at once but is constrained by the same limitations on choice as any other person. Like you said it’s possible that he’s just been choosing all this time not to alter anything but I agree that’s a leap and not the right reading. But to go back to the post that I originally responded to, with that ability to observe the future I don't know that you can call any of Jon's choices rational or irrational, they just are. He makes choices completely dispassionately because he knows the outcome is unchangeable. And if the outcome is unchangeable, then what is "choice", really? It becomes a meaningless word.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
Toxic Fart Syndrome posted:Has anyone brought up how Lady Trieu’s ability to edit memories with film-like quality calls into question how everything Angela saw while on Nostalgia could have been fabricated...? The whole Nostalgia thing felt "off" to me, like why they bothered to come up with that specific solution (there's a pill that literally makes you relive memories, even if they're not yours) At the very least, it would imply you could just mix up whatever chemicals you wanted to create specific memories. Or the pills were magic, like Jon's consciousness. I mean, we're already in pretty fruity territory if Jon can have memories without synapses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Just like when a human is dead they will never spontaneously come back to life. But this is exactly what happened to you, and me and everyone, when we woke up today. "You" died when you fell asleep last night. "Imagine going to sleep having never been awake. Now imagine waking up having never been to sleep."
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:25
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:But to go back to the post that I originally responded to, with that ability to observe the future I don't know that you can call any of Jon's choices rational or irrational, they just are. He makes choices completely dispassionately because he knows the outcome is unchangeable. And if the outcome is unchangeable, then what is "choice", really? It becomes a meaningless word. Choice is to have options. You have a choice to go to work or stay home. You being the person you are, you will do one or the other, but another person in the same position would do a different thing. That's choice. Yeah, choice is pretty simple, but that's the idea. It simply represents freedom and the ability to pick from options. That is a choice in the classical sense. precision posted:But this is exactly what happened to you, and me and everyone, when we woke up today. "You" died when you fell asleep last night. Oh you I don't think that's the same thing at all, but that IS of course a real fun subject when it comes to discussions of consciousness.For the purposes of the conversation we were having, the point was that if you're dead you're not capable of getting to a position of making choices. If you're asleep, you still have enough of a process running to bootstrap yourself into being conscious and making decisions again. A computer may have a program sleeping, then wake the program up and make choices again, but if the computer is powered off it is incapable of processing instructions so it can't turn itself back on. (this also gets more complicated if we talk about low-power modes and having the mobo be able to boot itself from certain external signals)
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:But a neural network machine can change its options and learn over time. You may only use your computer like a calculator, but you need to recognize that computers that make decisions definitely exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:29
|
|
God I fucking love Diablo 3 gold, it even paid for this shitty title
|
Basebf555 posted:But to go back to the post that I originally responded to, with that ability to observe the future I don't know that you can call any of Jon's choices rational or irrational, they just are. He makes choices completely dispassionately because he knows the outcome is unchangeable. And if the outcome is unchangeable, then what is "choice", really? It becomes a meaningless word. He makes choices, but he also sees the outcome of those choices. He doesn't have the future knowledge available to make the choice. You're thinking of him as if his life were a Choose Your Own Adventure book, where he can look at a page, skip ahead to the two pages that would result from a choice, decide which one he likes, then go back to the original page and 'choose.' That's not what he does. https://www.angryflower.com/296.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
misguided rage posted:This isn't true and that's not how neural nets work. It absolutely 100% is. I've written my own neural nets and watched them learn. We refer to neural net training as "supervised learning" and "unsupervised learning" and those are canonically the technical terms. I focused on AI in college. Perceptrons and neural nets are even modeled on human neurobiology. What about it isn't accurate? You're gonna have to show your work and make some kind of a stronger argument than "nuh uh" if you think that. How do you think neural nets work? Dude, I took part in an Amazon challenge to train AIs to drive cars around a track, and observed how they improved their pathing as we gave them more training cycles. That's absolutely how they work. Nice Zaphod42 fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Dec 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
I legitimately believe that whatever happens to "me" when I lose consciousness, it is exactly the same thing that will happen when my body dies. I can't personally differentiate between the two, especially since lucid dreaming exists and makes me believe that I'm not "conscious" in regular dreams.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
That said, I'm not trying to get anyone else to believe what I do, nor do I think I'm "right", because I've taken way too much acid
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
precision posted:I legitimately believe that whatever happens to "me" when I lose consciousness, it is exactly the same thing that will happen when my body dies. I can't personally differentiate between the two, especially since lucid dreaming exists and makes me believe that I'm not "conscious" in regular dreams. I can totally understand and even somewhat agree with that stance (have you played SOMA by the way  ) but again, that's kinda tangential to the particular conversation we were having where I mentioned death and not being able to come back to life.Even if you define "me" as your consciousness and not your body/self, and say that "me" dies when you sleep same as when your body dies, that doesn't matter. The point is when you sleep, you will become conscious the next day. That it isn't "me" doesn't matter to the context of that conversation you sniped my comment out of and responded to. The point is SOMEONE exists the next day and that someone gets to make more choices again. A thing goes from being able to make choices, to not, to back to being able to make choices. You wanna say that thing isn't you, sure, fine, completely tangential and changes nothing about that conversation. Similarly, if you were to define a computer as the system of software running in RAM, then when you turn it off, the computer "dies", and when you turn it back on, you create a new computer. If we could resurrect human beings, even if they were a different "me", then yeah you'd have a point, but we can't so this is just a MASSIVE derail to the conversation that was in the middle of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
TheCenturion posted:He makes choices, but he also sees the outcome of those choices. He doesn't have the future knowledge available to make the choice. What? He absolutely has the future knowledge available when he makes choices. He sees all the choices he's ever made in his life all at once. So he can see the choice being made at one moment in time, and the outcome at a different moment in time, all simultaneously. So if he sees that the choice he's about to make results in a bad outcome, why not make a different choice? The answer can only be two options, either he can't or he's lost his humanity to such an extent that he doesn't care to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:39 |
|
|
Lol this idiot thinks neural networks learn. Lol this is absolutely rich. Next he'll tell you the singularity is real and what we should be striving for. Go back to /r/futurism and leave the neural networks to the programmers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2019 21:42
|
|
