Ok. That sucks.
It seems like this is kind of a problem in Venezuela, what with both major parties appearing to participate in kidnapping the rival’s leader.
I don’t know quite what to do with this information other than oppose US involvement in Venezuela.
This article is very unclear. Why is the word kidnapped in quotes? Was he not kidnapped? Where is he? Was there a ransom? Why did the government respond by accusing him of violating his parole?
I do not understand what happened.
Ulgggghhhhhh
I try and read news through the lens of what can be done. Times like these offer painfully few answers.
I believe justice will one day come. But its pace is infuriating.
Why is this behind a paywall? Since when does the BBC have a paywall?
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.
That’s silly. This is already a ubiquitous feature in minivans.