|
Political Whores posted:What exactly is an excellent technical understanding of fairy tales? Well see if you put atoms together in this way, it looks like a gear! Therefore it will work as a gear and there are no nanoscale effects re: van der waals forces, thermal jitteriness, etc. that will be an issue. Next stop, universal replicators!
|
# ¿ Nov 23, 2014 05:22 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 08:39 |
|
Mieville sums it up rather nicely, I think: China Mieville posted:Libertarianism is not a ruling-class theory. It may be indulged, certainly, for the useful ideas it can throw up, and its prophets have at times influenced dominant ideologies–witness the cack-handed depredations of the “Chicago Boys” in Chile after Allende’s bloody overthrow. But untempered by the realpolitik of Reaganism and Thatcherism, the anti-statism of “pure” libertarianism is worse than useless to the ruling class. Or actually, perhaps the neoreactionaries are better described as this sort of libertarian: Kim Stanley Robinson posted:Even if you want no state, or a minimal state, then you have to argue point by point. Especially since the minimalists want to keep the economic and police system that keeps them privileged. That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
|
# ¿ Dec 18, 2014 08:52 |
|
It's weird how they imagine that "intelligence" can be essentially an unbounded process (which is the only way you can invoke "sufficiently advanced AI" to solve every conceivable problem). We know nothing about intelligence beyond our own, so why do they think that they can say anything meaningful about it?
|
# ¿ Aug 7, 2015 17:32 |
|
"You see, you can always tell a goon because they have this particular behaviour. Also, have you noticed how all toupees look bad?"
|
# ¿ Oct 26, 2017 15:44 |
|
Just gonna leave this here.
|
# ¿ Dec 3, 2017 23:38 |
|
It's not often I see a burn powerful enough I actually say "OH" out loud, but this one did it.
|
# ¿ Dec 24, 2017 16:34 |
|
Somfin posted:Getting a job in the actual industry of computers and getting my hands dirty with actual code broke a bunch of old myths I had about how code and coding worked. The first one being any concept of "goes FOOM." Computers and programs have to deal with very physical limits on how powerful/fast/optimised they can actually get and the bottlenecks that exist for concepts like 'long term memory' or 'recall' are so massive that you just end up laughing at the idea of simulating a living, breathing human. One notes that Microsoft and Google (and almost certainly others as well) have had, for quite some time now, AI systems that help write new AI systems. And while the output frequently is more optimized than what a human could design on their own, if there's been an "intelligence explosion" it's been kept remarkably quiet. Now, I don't think it's impossible that the technology might eventually exist (on a timeline that probably does not include the lifespan of Yud [and almost certainly does not include the lifespan of Kurzweil, for that matter]) to have fully conscious "superhuman" AI or brain scanning/emulation or whatever, but the whole premise that goes "any system that is X amount intelligent should be able to design a system that is 2X amount intelligent" is based on nothing but wishful thinking and a fundamental misinterpretation of the implications of Moore's Law for intelligence. Thinking faster is not the same as being smarter; if you start out dumb but your brain doubles in operations per second... you're now just being dumb twice as fast.
|
# ¿ Apr 24, 2018 12:39 |
|
What does that even - ... does he think Twitter is a Platonic Form? I'm so confused.
|
# ¿ May 17, 2018 18:55 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 08:39 |
|
Resurrecting this thread because this is a p good video about the perils and pitfalls of naming "rationality" as your guiding principle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtg9tQ4mqLc
|
# ¿ Nov 2, 2018 16:33 |