_NoName_

Eh, if you have the money, it’s probably fine.

My current weird things:

• Switched from my normal time zone to UTC on all my clocks.
• Chose to study Esperanto instead of a more practical language because of its past of hopefulness
• Plan on switching to a 13-month calendar in the future (is going to require modifying the opensource calendar I use to allow the change)
• Switched to barefoot shoes not for health but the diminished cost in materials.
• changed my keyboard to a dactyl manuform for the hell of it.
• changed my keyboard scheme to Dvorak now.
• changed my videogame control scheme from wasd to dcxf to accommodate the keyboard (in Dvorak that’s exku).

We’re all alittle eccentric. Some of us more than others.

“Skibidi Toilet” is all the cube says.

You’ll be stopped by an over-controlling Wikipedia editor with seniority over you, who will revert any changes you make.

Y’all are judgy removed for going after phlubba so much. Just stop wasting your energy and move on.

They’re havin their fun. It’s only an issue if you genuinely want to know what they’ve got to say, which it sounds like you don’t.

Yes. But also: Blessica Blimpson.

Or probably your slave labor in the private prison system.

We don’t need a blockchain for that.

Having multiple servers which store file checksums would have much less overhead, would be easily repeatable and appendable, with no need for unnecessary computational labor. Linux mint currently uses the checksum process for verifying that an ISO downloaded is not altered in any way, and it can work for any file (preferably not humongous files).

Strive for K.I.S.S. whenever possible.

Not the implication. Mosquitoes are a blight upon humanity too.

Edit: Woops, wrong thing. Mosquitoes are the carriers, the bacteria/viruses are causing the blights, the diseases are the actual blights. I think you get what I mean.

Level measuring guy from water world moment.

You’re correct, we do. We all assist the operation of this war machine. It may not be in our control, but that does not nullify it. We bloody our hands to live instead of choosing to die, and we are all culpable to an extent for it. Some more than others, though.

People in all societies have to ignore a multitude of moral contradictions in order to live normal lives. That is the manufactured consent all states impose upon their people.

There is a certain case I advocate bear hunting: bears that gain a proclivity for human environments or for humans as prey. It’s rare, though, and can (and should) be handled by wildlife management personnel whenever reasonable.

404 not found lmao

Alright, I see what you’re saying now. We’re on the same page.

As an additional thing regarding AGI, I think it should be noted that ‘human-level’ and ‘human-like’ are importantly distinct when talking about this topic.

In reality, if an AGI is ever created, it will most likely not be human-like at all. Humans think the way we do out of an evolutionary conditioning for survival, a history an AGI will not be coming from. One example given by Robert Miles is a staple making machine becoming an ASI, where it essentially would exist solely to make as many staples as it could with its hyperintelligence.

We mean to say that this AGI is a ‘human-level’ intelligence in that it can learn to utilize abstractions and tools, be able to function in a large variety of environments without intervention or training, and be able to learn in a realtime fashion.

Obviously, these criteria for any AI shows just how far away we are from achieving anything right now.these concepts are very vague and the arguments for each one’s impossibility or inevitability are equally vague and philosophical. It’s still mostly just stuffy academics arguing with each other.

One statement I agree with, though, comes from the AI safety collective: We don’t know what we’re doing, and we should really sort that out. If any of this is actually possible and we accidentally make an AGI/ASI before having any failsafes or contingencies, it could be very bad.

I am not bait-and-switching here. The switchers were the business-minded grifters which made the term synonymous with LLMs and eventually destroyed its meaning completely.

The definition I gave is from the most popular and widely used CS textbook on AI and has been the meaning used in the field since the early 90s. It’s why videogame NPCs are always called AI, because they fit the conventional CS definition, and were one of the major things it was about the most.

As for your ‘1’, AI is a wide-but-very-specialized field and pertains from everything from robots to text autocomplete. If you want the most out of it, you need to get down into the nitty gritty and really research the field.

On a Seperate note, while AI safety, AGI, and the risk of the intelligence explosion are somewhat related to computer science’s pursuit of AI systems, they are much more philosophical currently, and adhere to much vaguer definitions of AI, Such as Alan Turing’s.

IIRC, within computer science, which is the field most heavily driving AI design and research forward, an ‘intelligent agent’ is essentially defined as any ‘agent’ which takes external stimulai from a collection of sensors in some form of environment, processes that stimulai in a dynamic fashion (one of the criteria IIRC is a branching decision tree based on the stimulai), and then applies that processing to a collection of affectors in the environment.

Yes, this definition is an extremely low bar and includes a massive amount of code, software and scripts. It also includes basic natural intelligences such as worms, ants, amoeba, and even viruses. One example of mechanical AI are some of Theo Jansen’s StrandBeasts

Right on the money. One of the big things with AI safety is “we have no fucking clue how AGI can originate so we are constantly in the dark.” If we ever did create it, we likely would not immediately know it was AGI, and that creation could go very terribly in a number of ways.

This convo has gone on for centuries at this point. The Brain in the Jar, the teleportation conundrum, Thesius’ ship, it’s all already been covered over and over. people like you still keep crawling out of the woodwork thinking you know better than every philosopher that already waxed over this problem ad nauseum.

Your ‘continuous self’ is just as worthless as a concept. The idea that your ‘sense of being the same person’ is being held together by being apart of your plumbing just as much of an illusion. It’s worthless.

To elaborate, you are not the brain. You are the observer, the thing which exists as a byproduct of the brain’s processes, perhaps even a process yourself within. There’s also plenty of times when you will lose time other than sleep, like concussions, getting blackout drunk, panic attacks, and after those times you have no memory of making decisions or acting in your own accord, but you were. You, the observer, were absent while the brain kept working. So where were you?

You act as though you’re sure you are still the same observer as the one who went to bed. That is completely unsubstantiated. You may have just been born into your body when you awoke today, and will only have until your body falls back asleep again before you cease to exist, replaced by another process that thinks itself is you, another observer.

And if ‘you’ one day woke up in a digital world, like our own, it’s you’d be none the wiser, because your self is simply a collection of processes and memories. It’s arbitrary. It’s all dust. There’s not some special ‘continuity’ that keeps you alive somehow.

What does maintaining continuity of consciousness look like to you? As in you are able to talk to your copy? And continue to live your normal life outside while your digital self lives their digital life?

Or are you saying you want the transition to digital to be seamless, where your digital self remembers laying in a chair, a quick pin-prick, and then they’re in the digital realm?

Keep in mind, we have zero understanding of how you’d get the meat consciousness to transition into the digital consciousness - it’s likely not even possible. The two options for copying are keep both alive or terminate the original somewhere before bringing the digital one online. There’s many ways to do both, but those are the two.

That continuity of function is arbitrary. In reality it provides people comfort in some idea of a soul but there’s nothing suggesting it actually provides anything to the continuity of consciousness.

Between every loss in time, where you stop forming memories until you wake up again, you have nothing to affirm that your current consciousness is the same as your last waking period’s. The only thing vaguely providing that illusion is your previously-formed memories, which would exist all the same on the digital mind, in theory.