_NoName_

Would this not disqualify any mixed color? We only have receptors for three colors, and if we’re arguing that purple isn’t a color because it’s actually two mixed together, that should also mean colors like orange, yellow, cyan, magenta, atc are also not colors by that definition right?

True, I would say that there’s multiple issues dealing with AI that are more pressing:

• The massive amount of exploitation used to power AI
• The use of AI to distance the creators from the accidents the AI causes
• The danger of mass-proliferation of hazards across the web and globe
• the massive amount of waste created by AI

These aren’t all of them. One thing I’ve noticed, however, is that these aren’t really AI-specific issues - these are all issues caused by automation and lack of regulation. This lack of proactive regulation is also very likely a failing of our currently neoliberal government systems.

I think that is why so many AI hype-mongers draw attention towards A(G)I safety, because they don’t want attention drawn to the actual danger which is automation safety in general.

Alright, I see what you’re saying now. We’re on the same page.

As an additional thing regarding AGI, I think it should be noted that ‘human-level’ and ‘human-like’ are importantly distinct when talking about this topic.

In reality, if an AGI is ever created, it will most likely not be human-like at all. Humans think the way we do out of an evolutionary conditioning for survival, a history an AGI will not be coming from. One example given by Robert Miles is a staple making machine becoming an ASI, where it essentially would exist solely to make as many staples as it could with its hyperintelligence.

We mean to say that this AGI is a ‘human-level’ intelligence in that it can learn to utilize abstractions and tools, be able to function in a large variety of environments without intervention or training, and be able to learn in a realtime fashion.

Obviously, these criteria for any AI shows just how far away we are from achieving anything right now.these concepts are very vague and the arguments for each one’s impossibility or inevitability are equally vague and philosophical. It’s still mostly just stuffy academics arguing with each other.

One statement I agree with, though, comes from the AI safety collective: We don’t know what we’re doing, and we should really sort that out. If any of this is actually possible and we accidentally make an AGI/ASI before having any failsafes or contingencies, it could be very bad.

I am not bait-and-switching here. The switchers were the business-minded grifters which made the term synonymous with LLMs and eventually destroyed its meaning completely.

The definition I gave is from the most popular and widely used CS textbook on AI and has been the meaning used in the field since the early 90s. It’s why videogame NPCs are always called AI, because they fit the conventional CS definition, and were one of the major things it was about the most.

As for your ‘1’, AI is a wide-but-very-specialized field and pertains from everything from robots to text autocomplete. If you want the most out of it, you need to get down into the nitty gritty and really research the field.

On a Seperate note, while AI safety, AGI, and the risk of the intelligence explosion are somewhat related to computer science’s pursuit of AI systems, they are much more philosophical currently, and adhere to much vaguer definitions of AI, Such as Alan Turing’s.

IIRC, within computer science, which is the field most heavily driving AI design and research forward, an ‘intelligent agent’ is essentially defined as any ‘agent’ which takes external stimulai from a collection of sensors in some form of environment, processes that stimulai in a dynamic fashion (one of the criteria IIRC is a branching decision tree based on the stimulai), and then applies that processing to a collection of affectors in the environment.

Yes, this definition is an extremely low bar and includes a massive amount of code, software and scripts. It also includes basic natural intelligences such as worms, ants, amoeba, and even viruses. One example of mechanical AI are some of Theo Jansen’s StrandBeasts

Right on the money. One of the big things with AI safety is “we have no fucking clue how AGI can originate so we are constantly in the dark.” If we ever did create it, we likely would not immediately know it was AGI, and that creation could go very terribly in a number of ways.

What does maintaining continuity of consciousness look like to you? As in you are able to talk to your copy? And continue to live your normal life outside while your digital self lives their digital life?

Or are you saying you want the transition to digital to be seamless, where your digital self remembers laying in a chair, a quick pin-prick, and then they’re in the digital realm?

Keep in mind, we have zero understanding of how you’d get the meat consciousness to transition into the digital consciousness - it’s likely not even possible. The two options for copying are keep both alive or terminate the original somewhere before bringing the digital one online. There’s many ways to do both, but those are the two.

Aren’t emojis pictograms and ideograms but not usually logograms? They’re direct depictions of concepts, not usually direct stand-ins for words like logograms are.

Better examples of logograms in English I think are &, $, %, @,+,=, etc. We actually have a bunch we use all the time.

Specifically they said ‘Kanji’, though, so I think they’re talking more about the actual character structure of :.|:;.

1. What games? That’s a VERY big part of this whole process.
2. What are the laptop specs? The hardware is also a massive part of it.

It’s just an absurd premise.

Researchers are specialists in their fields and have carved out an academic niche. They study a single thing for years at a time before publishing a paper, and the process of studying anything is brutally methodical and likely quite often boring until you maybe discover something. It’s then boring again as you write your paper on your work, regardless of whether it discovered something or not.

All of a sudden, your co-researcher just turns to you and goes “Fuck it. Let’s research something else tonight. Something fun as a treat”.

Well, that’s a small problem compared to being a pile of dust without power armor.

There will be collateral damage. There always is. The idea there wouldn’t be collateral damage is already setting the bar higher than is feasible.

Probably should go join the Thousand Suns Sons. They might set you up with some nice power armor.

I think you mean the hardest Fromsoft game you liked. Go Beat the original armored core and get back to me. you could also give last raven a shot.

Y’all are reading this as feminist? It’s literally an observation by some chicks on twitter, not some kind of feminist rhetoric.

Feminism is currently more preoccupied with dismantling the gender binary entirely, not reinforcing stereotypes like in this twitter post.

I’ve never had a wife, nor a daughter, so I can’t really say much about how forgiving they are. If this doesn’t match your lived experience, stop giving a fuck and move on.

Folks 👨‍🌾

I remember reading The Sniper by Liam O’Flaherty sometime in late middle school, I wanna say.

teacher let us know after that it was about the Irish civil war, and that things similar to the story had actually happened.

Also Freetube has these features.

This issue is solely the fault of capitalism. By removing choice you are forced to by a more premium product, but you’re advertised it by all the supposed benefits: one less external opening on the phone, no more tangled headphones, no more dealing with headphones that only work when the cord is plugged in just right, no more chance of your headphone port going bad.

They skip over the fact that most of these issues are directly problematic because of cost cutting and designed obsolescence (aka engineered lifetimes). The opening is one thing, but headphones tangle in pockets easily because they use such thin flimsy cords. Same thing goes for cords breaking in the lining and only working at certain angles: a more robust cord would be less prone to issues.

On top of this, the entire designs of phones not having repairability in mind is the only reason that a headphone port breaking is a big deal. If they were designed to be disassembled with replacement parts being readily available, it wouldn’t be an issue. They could even make the ports more robust to decrease failure rate.

Got a bad run this time - all idiots. Gotta reroll I guess. Go get the blender back out.