but the minute any piece of technology is deemed conscious or sentient it needs to be immediately granted human rights protections and manufacturing of whatever it is needs to be halted until we understand it.
Which is a huge reason why we'd take a long time to admit it, if we get there at all.
I mean, a human has sensory inputs and actions, right? That's basically input-output.
The big striking difference is that, outside of training, LLMs don't have a memory beyond whatever is in their token window. When they're in training, they're a lot more like a biological neural net, which makes decisions, gets good or bad results, and then adjusts.
If AI is conscious, it likely has no conception of humans or the world we live in.
and so it and we could never interact one consciousness to another the way we do with fellow humans.
You have to be careful about understanding vs. experiencing. They're not exactly the same thing, and there's got to be many schools on how closely they intersect. At the very least, a person can experience something they don't understand, if not the converse.
You can make up whatever devilishly complicated and novel test of understanding you want, an LLM will probably be able to pass it. There's the idea out there that understanding can't be measured at all, so it doesn't count, but at the very least that's not the approach we use in our everyday lives. On the other hand, our own experiences always revolve around our senses and physiological needs, in some indirect way. Whatever higher-level experiences it has would probably be the same; everything would gravitate around tokens, and their correct order.
So, sure, it's fair to say we can't interact the same way, even if in this world of tokens they perceive and understand us just as well as we perceive and understand them in ours.
Seems like I should know an answer to this, as English isn’t my first language, but I have no fucking idea how I picked it up. I never made any serious attempt (i.e.: studying for more than a week) to learn it.
Immersion is pretty universally thought to be the best way, and English immersion is easy.
If I'm in the picture depends heavily on how much you need to know. Do I have enough to get by at a basic level if I was suddenly in a Russian-speaking country? Probably. Can I make heads or tails of the poetic-bookish stuff? Hell no. And even that took a lot of study and practice; there really weren't shortcuts.
So, if you do Ukrainian, first probably don't, because they all speak Russian anyway, and expect to solo study many hundreds of hours over years to get anywhere.
Well, having a different opinion is threatening! Most wars are fought over something like that.
The monkey part of our brain doesn't care that it's just a chat, and not negotiations over our paleolithic hunting territory. It's still looking for whatever is going to jump out and kill us.
It seems like 80% of people will react positively to an admission you know nothing about X, followed by questions. How TF that other 20% works, who knows (not me, anyway).
So, that's humility. Tact is it's own thing, and it seems like it's basically about not threatening other people, including by speaking out of turn, making demands, or just directly bringing up points where they are weak or sensitive. It's worth noting that it probably is possible to be too tactful. But, if you're on a subject that you're not super confident about, that's not the time to take risks.
If you actually do say something stupid and in an aggressive way, getting good at apologies, and making it up to people, is the social skill in question. Or just intimidating everyone into letting you get away with it, I guess.
The only thing that's really worked has been years of practice. It's hard to say for sure we started with all the same problems, but struggling with formulating examples is the same.
Doing it in writing on Lemmy has helped a bit. What makes a Lemmy comment go far isn't necessarily what helps IRL, but the written format alone makes certain things easier. There's much less time pressure, and if you don't like a part, you can and do go back and reword it (as in, make it clearer, not change the meaning). You can also go back through the length of a thread, and reread it better than you can remember it.
Or is it really just keeping your mouth shut if you aren’t knowledgeable about something.
I mean, yes, that's always a good idea. Even better, go into listening mode and ask questions. If at some point you reach something you can comment on, which is likely, you can switch back into that, and they're more likely to listen to you in turn. There seems to be other approaches that work, because there's some very successful people that never listen to anyone, but that's mine.
If you directly try to argue about things you aren't actually qualified to argue about, if that's really what you mean, people will notice, and you'll just come across as insecure and unhelpful.
Last I checked, Piefed, despite being written in a scripting language, manages to be much faster and lighter.
I can't comment too much on database best practices, but apparently the way Lemmy uses them is borderline insane. It does just visually look pretty speghetti-code-ish, in those sections. Hopefully, one day somebody will come along and fix that.
those places are shitshows. do you even participate in any of that?
Almost nobody that posts about this kind of stuff does. But it blows my mind a little that you could seriously post what OP did, if you haven't at least dabbled one weekend when it was convenient.
And there wasn't even a gay rights movement for people to hate on yet. And if you wondered something, but didn't know the answer, you maybe would just never know the answer. Your TV cost as much as your car, a new outfit cost as much as a 21st century TV, and the Soviets were, more likely than not, going to nuke America in the next few years.
Sure, some things have gotten worse. Others, not so much.
people who razor focus on how awful everything is because of politics and such, are usually only doing that as a coping mechanism for their own personal misery with their life.
And a lot of those specific calls are coming from inside the Lemmy house. Beware, OP.
Limited, although I knew just from some kind of diffusion that either makes you a worthless person bound for hell.
The funny thing is, I think they would have both been horrified to hear it put that way. But, that's what had been drilled into them, and the attitudes stuck even if that's not what they intellectually believed.
Racist? Nah. The concept of categorising people by skin colour didn't really exist yet, and he had early followers that would have run the whole gamut, from the one subsaharan African guy to Paul the Roman. Aside from slutshaming that one lady, I can't think of him ever leaning into the prejudices that were present at the time, either.
Conservative? You may or may not count him as progressive, but he was also counter to the norms and traditions of the time. I don't know, was the Heaven's Gate guy conservative?
Maybe a mechanic. It was a humble, low-education kind of job, but still a step up from working the fields. Actually, I guess it could still be construction.
(And FWIW, the original Aramaic word applies to both stone and wood workers, and there weren't a lot of trees in the Nazareth area)
On top of it all, Steve Jobs wasn't even in tech. He was in sales.