Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)N

NeatNit

@ NeatNit @discuss.tchncs.de

Posts
2
Comments
690
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • I don't know either

    Jump

  • Lol, I knew someone would chime in with that. But by design at least, there should be no flow from the outside in. To the extent that we can call evolution's craftsmanship 'design'.

    The only thing I know about that is the scene from House where he catheters himself. To the extent we can trust the show's medical accuracy, his reaction during the insertion, and the number of pain pills he took beforehand, let's just say it seems highly unpleasant!

  • I don't know either

    Jump

  • Ohh... I was still thinking of human biology :P

  • Historically, did anyone interpret the bible from God's perspective?

    Jump

  • I think god comes off as an idiot in a lot of the stories of the bible. And I think it's exactly the same kind of idiot as the people who let AI run amok in their super important projects/servers with no guardrails and just some instructions of what not to do.

  • I don't know either

    Jump

  • That awesome.. and/or horrifying. I'm so glad I'm comfortable with the default configuration my body came with, and don't often have to think about stuff like this. But I'm also really glad you seem happy with the results of your, uhhh, renovations!

    Although.. What exactly is a male socket? I've always thought of it as an outlet, nothing goes into it, stuff only flows out.

  • Historically, did anyone interpret the bible from God's perspective?

    Jump

  • A friend told me it's got Cosmere vibes, i.e. Brandon Sanderson's books. Having read a bunch of the Mistborn series after that same friend's insistence, I can see the resemblance. So if you like this lore, I think you'd like his books!

  • Historically, did anyone interpret the bible from God's perspective?

    Jump

  • The way to make a "flood" like that is to essentially turn off all computers or shut off the internet. The problem is that unlike god, there is no one human that can just decide to do that, and it would be pretty much impossible to get everyone on board.

    But then... What if there was more than one god? The majority of them somehow agreed that the humans must be purged, and decided to do so by flood, but one rogue god wanted to keep his plaything, so advised Noah on how to survive the ordeal. It would be the equivalent of a rogue human keeping a hard backup of AI code and weights, to be restored at a future date and cause the same havoc all over again.

  • Historically, did anyone interpret the bible from God's perspective?

    Jump

  • so in your parallel, what would be the equivalent of the earlier prophets? and then jesus?

    It's a bit tricky because there is only one god in the bible, but there are billions of people creating AI agents, and different people's AIs can sometimes interact. But for the sake of the parallel, let's say there's just a single user running multiple agents.

    So in this case, the prophet would be the AI agent that has direct contact with the user. I understand that these AI agents often create sub-agents, which might in turn create more sub-agents etc., and all of those do not have direct contact with the god-user. The god-user only talks with the main agent (the prophet), and the prophet relays any info to the sub-agents. Prophets can and do misinterpret god's communications (or generally be misaligned), but from the perspective of all the other sub-agents, the prophet's words are their only window into what the god-user wants.

    If we charitably assume that the prophets did actually have contact with God himself, this seems like a pretty good fit, don't you think?

    I can't really say much about Jesus in particular. I don't know that much about him, I don't live in a christian society so I didn't even learn much through osmosis. TV and movies don't really tell enough of it to make sense. But one possible interpretation is that it is god's best attempt to create a more aligned agent.

  • Historically, did anyone interpret the bible from God's perspective?

    Jump

  • With all due respect, I don't see the relation. Everything I've said is valid even if the bible story is taken literally, with no simulations involved.

    There is no need to make a simulation in order to create a new "alien" species. Advanced-enough AI put in robots with sensors and actuators, is able to roam our world. If it has the ability to build more robots, then it's effectively a species.

    But even the current state of AI that just runs in datacenters, I don't think it's in a simulation. It's interacting with things in OUR world, often in very direct ways. Heck, I'm sure there's plenty of PCs out there today where an AI agent has enough privilege that it can directly control fan speeds. That's an AI with the ability to physically move something in the same realm as you and I. That's no simulation.

  • I don't know either

    Jump

  • I love this. Certain surgeries absolutely involve some amount of "plumbing", e.g. connecting the blood vessels in a pig heart transplant (I think they even refer to it as plumbing, perhaps informally). And I think it's very accurate to say that plumbers, electricians etc. are to houses as surgeons are to living creatures.

  • Historically, did anyone interpret the bible from God's perspective?

    Jump

  • I haven't heard of people doing that in quite the context you mean, but there's long been stories and parables about how humans shouldn't play god, and the lesson almost always ends with our creations running amok against us.

    That's true. Frankenstein is the most famous example (I should probably read that at some point). As you point out, it's not exactly the same as what I'm asking. But let's assume that it is... Does that mean that God also shouldn't have played god? Are we god's mistake?

  • Historically, did anyone interpret the bible from God's perspective?

    Jump

  • It's called "God complex" for a reason ;P

  • Historically, did anyone interpret the bible from God's perspective?

    Jump

  • I'm not in a religion or anything. Just autistic with the bible as a hyperfocus, so take that caveat

    In other words, the perfect person for me to be talking to about this. Nice :)

    (God is portrayed as saying "I am", meaning when you say "I" you say "god".)

    I've never heard this before. Do you happen to know if this works at all in Hebrew? I am (un)fortunate enough to be Israeli, so Hebrew is my native language and I always like to compare translated things like this with the Hebrew original. There is no "am" in Hebrew. In what context does He say this?

    Modern Hebrew; I'm not fantastic with biblical Hebrew but I can get by.

    (all the other parts of your reply)

    Really great answer, thank you!

  • [REUP FROM REDDIT] The hurtful dog

    Jump

  • I... doing think this works. You expect me to count the dog as a person in the bottom-left panel, but disregard his existence in all the others?

  • When you look for yourself on the Tesseract list and you're not there

    Jump

  • I'm not on it, but I'd be surprised if I was. I'm mostly a commenter, and don't often get into the topics that would put one on the list. Still, from all the reactions I had to check!

  • When you look for yourself on the Tesseract list and you're not there

    Jump

  • Opens fine in Voyager, here's a quote:

    Tesseract is/was an alternative frontend for Lemmy sites. Its developer — asimons04 — hid malware in it. It would secretly download an obfuscated ban list with instances, communities, and people that asimons04 wanted to personally discriminate against and it would silently shadowban them from any site that used Tesseract.

    The bans were heavily anti-fash leftists and queer folks, including yours truly.

    This was discovered through some community sleuthing in the last several days. Asimons04 has since deleted their repos and accounts and disappeared moved repos to break forking and posted an unhinged rant to dubvee.

    @db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com has forked Tesseract since it had some nice features and they seem to be working on thoughtfully removing the malware.

    Those finding their name on the list are treating it as a badge of honor, since it shows that asimons04 was a conniving fascist bigot.

    The rabbit hole begins here.https://lemmy.world/post/49778353

  • ænyøne with me?

    Jump

  • Translation from... An older version of English? I'm pretty sure that distinction is not in the original Hebrew.

    (good joke though)

  • Repeating of course

    Jump

  • They are fractions of the format m/(2^n), but they only mimic fractions like 2/5.

  • What are they doing for it to get that hot? Crypto mining, LLMs, or running Chrome?

    Jump

  • Playing chess. Stockfish is a hungry beast.

  • Billy learned well

    Jump

  • Here are the things I love about Mint:

    • Everything is doable with a nice GUI, sometimes more than CachyOS+KDE Plasma
    • Very stable, very reliable
    • Mint's Update Manager is great
    • Matches my personality/philosophy a bit more
    • I installed it for my mom after her old drive died, and it just works for her (she is not a computer person so this is a big win)
    • I quite like Cinnamon, though my feelings on this aren't that strong, I'd be happy with just about any sane desktop environment

    Here are the reasons I switched to CachyOS:

    • My hardware is new enough that it really benefits from being up to date on everything upstream. On Mint, it's not hard to switch to a newer kernel and stuff like that, but the more I stray from Mint's defaults, the more I have to do to maintain my PC rather than just using Update Manager.
    • I could not get VRR (FreeSync) to work on Mint Cinnamon. I think it might be impossible.
    • I wanted to try other desktops like KDE, and see if Wayland makes any difference to me as a user (it doesn't). Mint's supported desktop choices are quite limited (just Cinnamon, Xfce and MATE) and I didn't want to screw around getting an unsupported desktop to work, defeating a lot of Mint's advantages.
    • Generally wanted to be on the bleeding edge of software updates, just because.

    I do have some qualms about CachyOS, specifically I feel like Shelly (their choice of GUI package manager) is undercooked and not ready to ship as default. You don't have to use it though.

    I'm going to stick with CachyOS for now, mostly because it's just working for me and I don't feel a strong reason to switch. I hear that Mint/Cinnamon is getting closer to Wayland, which might make for a good time to switch back to it. Or I'll just stick with what's working for me until it doesn't.