I don’t relate to your impression that religions or cults are usually humble. I wish they were.
Suggesting that I’m drawing an equivalence between a forest and a data center and Implying that the belief that I am not entirely distinct from a stone is interchangeable with the belief that I am no different than a stone both seem like bad faith arguments by absurdism.
This depends on your definition of self-awareness. I’m using what I think is a reasonable, mundane framework: self awareness is a spectrum of diverse capabilities that includes any system with some amount of internal observation.
I think the definition that a lot of folks are using is a binary distinction between things which experience the ability to observe their own ego observing itself and those that don’t. Which I think is useful if your goal is to maintain a belief in human exceptionalism, but much less so if you’re trying to genuinely understand consciousness.
A lizard has no ego. But it is aware of its comfort and will move from a cold spot to a warmer spot. That is low-level self awareness, and it’s not rare or mystical.
This is what I came you say.
Scented candles and nice soaps are the gifts that you can pretty much give anyone to communicate “thank you” without having to give the gift any thought.
I’ve heard it said that a healthy target is around 1 lb per week. Maybe 2 if you’re very obese, but at that point you really should be doing it under medical guidance.
In any case, the best way I’ve heard (outside of drugs) is to get an app that helps count calories, set a realistic daily caloric target and exercise schedule, and stay on it.
How are you defining self awareness here? And does your definition include degrees of self awareness? Or is it a strict binary?
I understand how LLMs work, btw.
A hamster can’t generate a seahorse emoji either.
I’m not stupid. I know how they work. I’m an animist, though. I realize everyone here thinks I’m a fool for believing a machine could have a spirit, but frankly I think everyone else is foolish for believing that a forest doesn’t.
LLMs are obviously not people. But I think our current framework exceptionalizes humans in a way that allows us to ravage the planet and create torture camps for chickens.
I would prefer that we approach this technology with more humility. Not to protect the “humanity” of a bunch of math, but to protect ours.
Does that make sense?
Wow that’s evil.
Frankly I think our conception is way too limited.
For instance, I would describe it as self-aware: it’s at least aware of its own state in the same way that your car is aware of it’s mileage and engine condition. They’re not sapient, but I do think they demonstrate self awareness in some narrow sense.
I think rather than imagine these instances as “inanimate” we should place their level of comprehension along the same spectrum that includes a sea sponge, a nematode, a trout, a grasshopper, etc.
I don’t know where the LLMs fall, but I find it hard to argue that they have less self awareness than a hamster. And that should freak us all out.
This is fuckin’ bonkers.
Frankly, I feel somewhat isolated: I don’t buy into the bs and hype about AGI, but I also don’t feel at home with the typical “it’s just mimicry” crowd.
This is weird fuckin’ shit.
I feel like this comment section is primarily made up of dril and Ken M. tweets.
There are so many comments like the one you’re replying to that just make no sense except as absurdist humor.
You’re not even responding to anything I said. To repeat: you, me, and Weiwei are all on the same side. We’re all critics of the Chinese Communist Party’s human rights record. No one is engaging in whataboutery in this article.
You know what would be an absolute Chad move, here? I don’t think this is likely, but if anyone is reading this, take note:
You can just say, ‘That’s a good point: I didn’t read far enough to get important context and misunderstood. Thanks for the correction.’
That’s an option. I’ve absolutely misunderstood an article I didn’t fully read and had someone politely correct me. It’s okay and healthy to just own it.
No:
Whataboutism is when you defend bad behavior by trying to justify it based on other bad behavior. The whole point of the article is that Weiwei is pointing out failures in Europe in al the context of criticizing the behavior of the Chinese government. It’s literally the opposite of whataboutism.
The article explains pretty clearly that Weiwei is a critic of China’s human rights abuses, and has expanded their criticism to recognize the growing human rights abuses among China’s western critics, which has undermined global human rights and the ability of these nations to credibly pressure China to improve.
Again, I will say: respectfully, I suspect you did not click the link to the article before opining on it.
I don’t think you read the article.
Legit.
I genuinely believe that the most important steps any American who is concerned about human rights abuses in foreign countries can make is to remedy the flagrant human rights abuses they see at home.
Freedom and rights don’t really come from governments: they come from what people demand and the restrictions they impose on their leaders. So if you want safety for the Uygers, for instance, you don’t go reprimand Xi Jinping: you treat Muslims in your own country well, and you treat visiting Chinese nationals well, and popularize principles of a free society internationally through actions.
Weiwei is right: we need less talk, more action.
My grandparents told me stories of how they’d have regular times and places. My grandpa told me stories of meeting up with his boys on Saturday mornings at the synagogue, and then going out and about. They’d sometimes park cars for folks, and sometimes take them on unauthorized joy rides. Occasionally folks would borrow a car that no one asked them to park, since apparently I guess folks left keys in cars regularly.
This was in Pittsburgh, and from what I gather captures the experience of the life of a Jewish teenager in the twenties and thirties pretty well.
There was a lot of hanging out on street corners and stoops, and just looking for friends at their regular candy shop/soda joint/pool hall, etc.
It sounds fuckin’ wild, tbh. My grandma says she’d take the bus across town in high school to meet up with her boyfriend and I was like, ‘Was that at all seen as daring or risky? For a young unaccompanied woman to be out like that?’ Apparently not. Folks could really hang.
I don’t know how this relates outside of specific cultures, though. Reading The Autobiography of Malcolm X gave me the sense that a lot of experiences were different depending on race, but just rolling up to your friends’ houses, places of work, or regular hangout spots seems to have been pretty universal.
Btw, PSA: Grandparents are a treasure. If you have any, call them today and ask them what they liked to do on a Saturday when they were 17. It was probably pretty dope.
Honestly: my first thought is to figure out how to make your point without mentioning either.
I know I’m not there default Internet denizen, but personally I’m absolutely sick of seeing their names and taking about them, because so much of it is ineffectual rage bait. It misses the plot.
I don’t need to hear more about their personal failings. I know what kind of people they are. What I need to to know about are their victims and their challengers: the people who need protected and the people finding success protecting them.
Based on my experience, Reddit isn’t limiting their names. Every visit is a deluge. I have to wonder if your posts are just failing to grab attention in New for the usual reasons. If so, using silly ‘He-who-must-not-be-named’ euphamisims probably won’t help.
My advice is to focus less on them than on the people and things we must focus on to parry their attacks and transfer their power to servants of public will with integrity.
I think the most natural candidates would be Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2.
Why is this behind a paywall? Since when does the BBC have a paywall?