It’s not globally uniform. India is getting completely fucked, meanwhile most of the US just has to wait and see why happens to Florida this year.

Wealthy defense contractors would say otherwise, I’ll have you know.

Nice that you can still access the Lemmy API regardless. I didn’t know they had WiFi in the Bermuda hellscape.

It can’t, I thought. I was asking like, “Sovereignty can be shared?” Not like “Sovereignty can be shared?!”

deleted by creator

Good job.

Not on US soil. There’s still a perception that those are safe investments.

Not even that. The threat of a missile was enough to close the strait of Hormuz. They didn’t need to blow up every ship… Targeting a single ship, alongside an announcement that more is to come, would have been enough. It’s the risk that has the lasting effect, and I think it could only take a single well-motivated person to reproduce those results with data centers.

There are VERY powerful actors

God, I fucking hate this timeline. You know you’re talking about Zuckerberg in that way, right? It’s disgusting that he ought fit such an eery description.

You’re more precisely right, but also the aforementioned person is not wrong. Intelligence is a broad term as we’re discovering. Truth is, we don’t have the language to effectively communicate about AGI in the ways we’d like to. We don’t know if consciousness is a prerequisite to truly generalizable intelligence, we don’t even know what consciousness is, we don’t know what dimensions truly matter here. Is intelligence a dimension of consciousness, meaning you can have some intelligence without being conscious? What’s the limit, why? … We need some discovery around the taxonomy/topology of consciousness.

it lacks childhood dependency and attachments.

Isn’t general intelligence, or more broadly “consciousness,” a prerequisite to that? How would you make an unconscious machine more conscious merely by making mock scenarios that conscious beings necessarily experience?

it struggles to overcome repeated pain and suffering

That’s getting into phenomenology — why is pain an experience of suffering at all? How would you give it pain and suffering without having already made it AGI? We’re still missing the <current-form> -> AGI step.

it lacks regular eating and restroom breaks

The necessity of which is emergent from our culture and biology, as conscious social beings. We’re still missing a vital step.

it struggles to accept loss in everyday situations

What is “loss” and “everyday situations” if not just a way we choose to see the world, again as conscious beings.

it lacks the concept of our inevitable death

How do you give it a “concept” at all?

these nagging memories and concepts

The AI in its current form has the “memory” in some form, but perhaps not the “nagging.” What should do the “nagging” and what should be the target of the “nagging?” How do you conceptually separate the “memory” and the “nagging” from the “being” that you’re trying to create? Is it all part of the same being, or does it initialize the being?

We’re a long way away from AGI, IMO. The exciting thing to me, though, is I don’t think it’s possible to develop AGI without first understanding what makes N(atural)GI. Depending how far away AGI is, we could be on the cusp of some deeply psychologically revealing shit.

Funnier yet will be if they continue to just train the model on that particular kind of test, invalidating its results in the process.

Elon Musty did that online pledge thing not long ago, where you agreed to talk to someone about voting or something… I can’t really recall. But I learned about it because CardsAgainstHumanity set up a Reddit post telling everyone to sign it saying you’ll tell CardsAgainstHumanity to vote. CAH said they’ll sue Musk when it all ends, ensuring he pays. I filled it out like 14 times just to be a troll. 6 months later, kid you not, I had the same number of checks come in the mail. Each check individually accounting for a single signature.

If it’s not social media, then my undergrad professor needs to fix my test scores. Because I incorrectly assumed it was not, almost a decade ago.

They don’t call you quick_snail for nothing.

That data is still valuable. Best case scenario would be that we invalidate all of it before its natural expiration date. That’s probably closer to impossible than any sense of practical, but certainly not unachievable by a rightly motivated party. It could start with finally replacing the social security system as some weird form of identity password.

Would love if someone brought the infrasound argument to the table.

https://youtu.be/_bP80DEAbuo

If the argument were that it poses a health and safety risk to people, it might eventually be possible to regulate them similarly to oil fields.

I know someone who is non reenlistable because they got drunk and did a bit of surprise cocaine the day before a surprise piss test. Wonder if they’ll ease the cocaine restriction too.

Because I’ve certainly met people who take their religion very lightly, yet absolutely will use it as an excuse for special treatment at every opportunity.

It’s anecdotal. It really shouldn’t matter, though. If the terms were agreed to when the contract was signed, you adhere to those terms or get kicked out. We don’t disagree about this.

When they don’t get the job after refusing to follow hygiene protocol, shake hands with certain demographic groups or perform job duties, they sue their employer for discrimination. They demand the job…

There’s your problem. It shouldn’t matter. If someone makes a listing that requires “abortions” as part of the job description, they should damn well be able to deny anyone unfit for the role — to include anyone whose reason is religious. It’s as simple as it’s ever been. Can’t do the job, don’t get the job.

… and demand that the job description be changed to fit their personal preferences.

That’s odd, because one could just say “I can’t change the job description without changing the role I am hiring, and I only need that role.” Or rather, “we are hiring a general surgeon for a role that can assist in the abortion workload. If we change the description, we no longer need the role.” That’s the fight we ought be fighting.

Your argument comes across to me like you’re saying that you’d prefer to force people to not adhere to their religion, which comes across as very disrespectful in my opinion. Reinforcing my perspective, I’ve read you liken religion to a “choice” as though that fact has any bearing whatsoever on making it an insignificant factor. It does not.

A less absurd example might be somebody with the delusion (a.k.a strongly held personal belief) that their value as a man depends entirely on their beard, that they might as well kill themselves if they were unable to have one.

I would agree, if we’re talking about “delusions” in good faith here. For some reason, however, I think you’re referring to Muslim practice as delusional. So to be clear, yeah, a faith to the Muslim god which forbids shaving is respectable and not delusional. A random personal delusion, sure, we’re on the same page about that. “Delusion” and “faith” aren’t the same thing. To insist otherwise is just arrogant, shallow, and yes “delusional” in its own right.

If I were to say I had a “duty” to my own atheist sense of beard honor or whatever, that’d fly out the window.

Yeah, obviously. That would fly out the window because you aren’t even coming to the table in good faith. Is your best argument seriously “if I had a duty to my atheistic nonbelief in higher order?” I’m sorry, friend, but I don’t sympathize with that. If you had a religious faith that was held in good faith, it ought be respected even by people with opposing views — no “flying out the window” as your argument suggests. We’re literally debating the premise that these should be respected, to include yours.

We have similar problems with nurses of certain religions in my country, refusing to do their job (for instance related to abortion) and endangering patients citing religion.

I go back to my first point that there are better ways to solve the problem. If religion can discriminate against healthcare, it should be healthcare who discriminates against religion instead… I agree with you there, but in a different way. Don’t hire people who will refuse to do the job. Ask them if they can meet the job duties, just like is already common with “can you stand for more than an hour at a time” and “can you lift 20lbs.” Here, we should be asking questions like, “do any religious beliefs prevent you from fulfilling these job functions…”

It really should be as simple as can you do the job or not. If not, they shouldn’t have the job. Wouldn’t you agree with that? It’s not like we’re saying they’re banned from the profession of their choice. They can’t do what they refuse to do, so we aren’t shutting any doors that weren’t shut anyway. Religious folk can still have positions that don’t put their religion at odds with others.