Reminds me of a calendar of nudibranch photos I saw at a dive shop. Due to a typo they were called "colorful sea sluts".
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 731
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 731
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
There used to be at least some fireflies every year where I lived in Brooklyn when I was a kid but now there aren't.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
That's a long exposure, but there really can be that many of them. I was out on a moonless night in upstate New York. An amazing number of stars was visible (I could even see the Milky Way), I was surrounded by fireflies and glowworms, and there were no other sources of light once I turned my flashlight off. It was so dark that I couldn't see my own feet, just lights in all directions.
AI would be a good matchmaker between people who were honest, but I think that doesn't address the main problem with online dating. That problem (at least for heterosexuals) is that there are a lot more men than women participating. I think women don't like online dating because they get harassed by creeps and they're worried that even someone who seems nice will turn out to be a creep in real life. Creeps will be willing to lie to a matchmaking AI because they don't actually care about compatibility and just want the "one weird trick" that gets women to have sex with them.
I think the big challenge now is to create a method of online dating that isn't a miserable experience for most of its users, but if I had a creative solution for that, I'd be rich.
Other than that, AI friends. That's the future.
He's the man the voters chose - if they didn't trust his judgement, they could have chosen someone else. His moral character represents American moral character.
It's fairly straightforward to give a child no opportunity to lie about the things important to the parents, if the parents put in the effort. They can watch the kid come home right after school and sit in the living room doing homework all evening, and the school will tell them his grades and whether or not he's behaving well.
Reminds me of "Ninja parade slips through town unnoticed" from the Onion.
Depends on what you mean by "strict". I think the meme is about the parents who get angry over little things but don't actually pay attention to their kids much - the ones who just assume that their kids would not dare to misbehave. However when I was in high school, I also saw plenty of kids (often immigrants) who had successfully been taught to work pretty much non-stop. I think their parents watched them (or at least their grades) closely enough that they couldn't have gotten away with anything. It seemed to work well - they got straight A's, never got in trouble, and went to prestigious universities. I can't think of a single one I knew who burned out or rebelled (while in high school - I don't know what happened to them afterwards). However, the ones I got to meet were already filtered, with the low- and medium-achievers not admitted to that school.
I think that then we actually agree.
I haven't noticed this behavior coming from scientists particularly frequently - the ones I've talked to generally accept that consciousness is somehow the product of the human brain, the human brain is performing computation and obeys physical law, and therefore every aspect of the human brain, including the currently unknown mechanism that creates consciousness, can in principle be modeled arbitrarily accurately using a computer. They see this as fairly straightforward, but they have no desire to convince the public of it.
This does lead to some counterintuitive results. If you have a digital AI, does a stored copy of it have subjective experience despite the fact that its state is not changing over time? If not, does a series of stored copies representing, losslessly, a series of consecutive states of that AI? If not, does a computer currently in one of those states and awaiting an instruction to either compute the next state or load it from the series of stored copies? If not (or if the answer depends on whether it computes the state or loads it) then is the presence or absence of subjective experience determined by factors outside the simulation, e.g. something supernatural from the perspective of the AI? I don't think such speculation is useful except as entertainment - we simply don't know enough yet to even ask the right questions, let alone answer them.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
This isn't the Cthulhu universe. There isn't some horrible truth ChatGPT can reveal to you which will literally drive you insane. Some people use ChatGPT a lot, some people have psychotic episodes, and there's going to be enough overlap to write sensationalist stories even if there's no causative relationship.
I suppose ChatGPT might be harmful to someone who is already delusional by (after pressure) expressing agreement, but I'm not sure about that because as far as I know, you can't talk a person into or out of psychosis.
Yes, the first step to determining that AI has no capability for cognition is apparently to admit that neither you nor anyone else has any real understanding of what cognition* is or how it can possibly arise from purely mechanistic computation (either with carbon or with silicon).
Given the paramount importance of the human senses and emotion for consciousness to “happen”
Given? Given by what? Fiction in which robots can't comprehend the human concept called "love"?
*Or "sentience" or whatever other term is used to describe the same concept.
Isn't the title misleading? The e-cigarettes have more of these particular toxins but they're still far less toxic overall.
I think posture does have something to do with it, because when I stand up straight and tense my stomach muscles, I look a lot better. I suspect that the problem isn't so much that I have excess fat on my stomach (although I do have some) but rather that my stomach muscles aren't preventing my stomach from bulging out unless I'm deliberately focusing on keeping them tense. I think better posture can be made subconscious (or else why have adults always told children to stand up straight) but I don't think there's a way to keep the muscles tense subconsciously. Or is there?
Speaking of posture, my new office chair has a significant forward curve at my lower back which I find uncomfortable. (I used to sit in an old-timey banker's chair with a back that sloped smoothly backwards.) Is that because my posture is bad? Am I supposed to be sitting in a way that conforms to that curve? I know some people who strap cushions to their car seats in order to add that curve. I find those cushions really uncomfortable too, but are those people actually on to something or are their backs just different from mine?
Here's an incident that is only tangentially related to what we're talking about, but it's one that I found memorable. My grandmother was reading a tabloid newspaper (which she tends to believe) and it apparently had an article about UFOs. She turned to me and told me that, according to the newspaper, space aliens were real and visiting Earth. Then she went about her ordinary business - the thing about the aliens was simply an interesting bit of trivia for her.
I think her reaction was not in fact particularly unusual, but I found it baffling. The arrival of space aliens would be perhaps the most important thing that has ever happened to humanity. The entire future of the species would hang in the balance, and everything would hinge on what the aliens want. I know my grandmother very well but I still don't really understand how she thinks about things like this. The best I can come up with is that she believes in many fantastical things and therefore just one more fantastical thing changes little for her.
This isn't a direct response to what you're describing but I think it's relevant as an illustration of one way how the fantastical can be less important than the mundane for people.
The idea that Trump can start wars as he sees fit is a frightening one, but I'm not sure that in practice Congress is capable of making these decisions (especially with regard to unconventional military actions as opposed to traditional wars). It is simply too dysfunctional an institution, although I suppose institutional paralysis would lead to the outcome that isolationists and pacifists want.
More than every single democrat voting against it?