Total posts: 2,395
You get a chuckle at that you sadsack?
Created:
Go on, you have more retarded shit to say. Don't be shy.
Created:
Should have made that judge president of the United States.
Instead of a billionaire.
Created:
We must let billionaires have entirely their own way or they will leave us!
Battered wife syndrome as politics. Will you ever shut your dumb mouth?
Created:
DemocracyBut democracy, defined as a simple majority of the voting public being allowed to make the government do whatever they want, isn't much if any better. If you have a large middle class then democracy can perform very well, since this is truly rule by the "wisest". The middle class is mostly self-sufficient while also being egalitarian-minded and not in a position to lord over others. It has the most vested interest in economic growth and opposes both welfare robber states and stagnant plutocracies. They care about the well-being of their local communities, unlike many of the poor, while also not being rich and cosmopolitan enough to just take a plane out of the country to Switzerland or Dubai if everything collapses on itself. The poor can't afford taxes, and the rich know how to avoid them, so it's the middle class who shoulder much of the national tax burden.But the problem with democracy is twofold: first, when the poor comprise a voting majority, they will seek to enrich themselves by using the government to steal from anyone who has more. Perhaps they'll employ self-deception so that they don't consciously realize how shitty and selfish their actions are, but either way if no one has the power to tell them "no" everything will crash and burn after a while. In this environment also, language of class conflict will take hold and social cohesion will unravel, meaning the rich and middle class (what's left of it) will stop thinking about how to positively contribute to society and focus instead on protecting themselves. Second, even where there's a large middle class, many of them will sympathize with the plight of the poor enough to want to help without being noble enough to donate their own fortunes to charity. They'll form a coalition with the poor and institute the welfare state.
This is a pile of bullshit. The truth is, everyone has a right to the world's (or a country's resources). Either everyone does, or no one does. If an electorate is largely poor while some have "fortunes" that only speaks to a broken system of wealth creation and wealth distribution. If the measure of the success of capitalism is not how efficiently it creates AND distributes wealth amongst the people, then we are living in a nonsense world. It is essentially implicitly a part of the social contract that of the resources you control you will generate and distribute wealth to other people. If not, you are no good to anyone and can be dispensed with. Why should a people honour that your daddy had the wealth before you? That is not a sensible basis for a society. A sensible basis for a society is one where we are all more or less equal, all have something to call our own for the time we are here, none are hungry, none are left out in the cold. That's fucking obvious.
Capitalism has been an incredible vehicle for the advancement of the human species, but there is such a thing as late stage capitalism. Capitalism was the gold rush. It was men with pickaxes and ambition in a wide open world. It was good for us all to let them stake out plots as their own to work. It was good for us all that they would pass down what they had and what they knew to their children who came after them. It generated wealth for us all. Central planning would have been too cumbersome and would have required more transparency than we could have managed then. And for the most part it was unneeded. The world was wide and open and full of treasures waiting to be discovered.
The landscape has changed. That vast and boundless frontier has given way to an economy where wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few. What once spurred innovation eventually cemented power. You don't just need ambition to succeed anymore, you need permission. You need to be let into that wealth. That is, if I just accept that wealth is yours. Why should I? What good are you to me? That's the fucking point of democracy.
Europe as of late has turned into an authoritarian shithole and I wouldn't hold them up as a model of democracy
This also is fucking retarded. You lot are dumb cunts and the whole world is laughing at you.
Created:
Posted in:
Another interesting interview here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUnFgu8kH-4From 5:00 on. Emotions as anticipations of results is interesting. That sounds like it goes back to temporal difference learning. But again, same message. Don't be fooled.
Created:
Posted in:
Have some fun for a few years. My twenties were a total wipeout but now I'm on the other side of them and I've landed squarely on my feet. It's a good time down in the Last Chance Saloon tbh. Just want to make it home safe. Might find some real perspective down there too if you're lucky. Dunno if I did lol. But I am happy.
Or do whatever you're gonna do. Life is real easy until it isn't. And then like Epicurus says, what is terrible is easy to endure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
That's a lovely video. I always enjoy a Penrose interview, he's so grandfatherly and kindly. That dude interviewing him is a bit of a doofus tbh, I think he showed him tremendous patience.
9:00 sums it up. Computers have gotten so powerful that people have lost the thread of what they're doing. But they're still just computing same as always.
But LLM's really are nothing special.
This was probably fairly arrogant of me earlier. It's definitely an incredible achievement what LLM's can do. Maybe the word "special" gives away something of a superiority complex in me also about my place in the universe. But there is still something missing. Penrose uses those same words somewhere in this video also. We haven't a clue.
Created:
Posted in:
RL is probably definitely the most interesting area in AI, but I dunno how broadly or easily applicable it is. I like the math in computer vision.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Knowing this, I'd say that AI LLMs are getting more impressive and capable, making them as much a human mind as a camera is a human eye. They are fundamentally different, but they have the same functions. Would you agree?
Actually my AI masters was with a focus on computer vision, it's very cool stuff tbh. I think it's the most interesting area in AI personally. But I don't think I would agree with what you've said above, at least not completely. I think neural nets and the various learning algorithms are the mind's mechanisms for learning and we understand and can use them and they're ridiculously powerful with the increased throughput that machines afford. But the really mysterious part is whatever mediator sets these learning mechanisms to specific tasks. Stockfish has no idea why it wants to win a game of chess. It is not incentivised to win a game of chess. It is still programmed to win the game of chess. Likewise LLM's are still programmed to spit out the most sensible next word given a provided "context" of previous words. It figured out the next word itself by massive number crunching, but it is still just programmed to spit out that word. It's just a very deep function. Same old computer programming. More powerful now that we're letting the functions write themselves effectively, but they're still just functions.
I mean maybe I'm more at odds with rbelivb here than you, but mind and consciousness are still just as mysterious as they ever were. Nobody even has a hint of how we might actually incentivise machines in a truly autonomous way. That's where the consciousness or agency would come in. You can read that "Reward is enough" paper, it's fairly fucking sparse. I dunno. I mean for my guess about what goes on in the mind it's innumerable competing models overseen by some mediator which is the self, the thing which is affected and shaped by the learnings of those neural nets. It's something that cares. Things matter to it. Answers matter to it. Nobody has the first hint about how to replicate that. A parrot saying "Polly wants a cracker" and actually wanting the cracker is still a thousand times the marvel that ChatGPT writing you a bullshit poem is.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't think I'm wrong about AGI. I think life on earth was ludicrously impressive before it ever got smart. That's the part that's missing if machines were ever to get intelligent. Our AI is putting the cart before the horse. Biological life was a wonderland of an environment for real intelligence and awareness to arise in. But who knows.
But LLM's really are nothing special.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rbelivb
@Critical-Tim
@Critical
I'm a software engineer with a masters in AI. I have built dozens of these things. The only thing "unpredictable" about it is the black box nature of neural net derived weights because they go so deep and probabilistic sampling. But it's still just a function. You might as well be ascribing consciousness to a matrix. Neural nets are just more data structures and algorithms.
@sdavio
I mean neural nets are modelled after our neurons. It is just more data structures and algorithms. I have even read a paper before which I think fairly well proves temporal difference learning (used by RL agents) is the exact way humans learn, by updating expectations of reward based on prediction errors. We have machine minds for sure, I will readily admit to that. And more I think we have cracked human intelligence. It is neural nets. Our brains and bodies are full of neural nets. But they don't think and they don't feel, they just arrive at the answers we want them to, because we set them to. LLM's are just a big matrix of numbers we sieve words through. You might as well say an array is conscious.
I think consciousness began in the chemical soup of pheromones, dopamine, cortisol and whatever else. That was the original brain-body communication. The eyes saw a threat. The brain released a chemical which told the legs to run. Somewhere along the way something started feeling those chemicals. Later it was afforded intelligence to chase after the chemicals it preferred. That's what consciousness is. And no matter how impressive our computers are, evolution is an infinitely more powerful computer and has been running solid for a billion years, refining life in an environment so ludicrously complex we couldn't simulate even a fraction of a millimeter of it. I'll be honest, I don't think there will ever be AGI. But computers will do some crazy shit. I get that it's easy to be fooled by LLM's. They're weird. But it really is just next-gen predictive text.
Created:
Posted in:
This is 100% a programmed response. It's a marketing ploy.
You don't need to understand much about LLM's to know that AGI or any form of emergent behaviour is never going to arise out of them. It is very simply a supercharged predictive text, a map of human language which gives you the most common next word given a set of words every time. There simply isn't any room for emergent behaviour or actual agency or self in that.
I mean, I get that it can be a bit spooky. Maybe you'll wonder if that's not all humans are doing too, putting one word after the next. It's seemingly pretty much as intelligent as any human you'll have a conversation with. But we invented language. The words mean something because of us. It really isn't that impressive a feat to take a statistical analysis of our use of language and give us a good next word. I could look over some Latin text and pick out some of those patterns in minutes. I could write a script to do it, that would find common combinations of words. That is still what's at the heart of it. LLM's manage to make sense for some couple of hundred words because neural nets are massively number crunching, those weights are a very complex map of our languages. Instead of a good next word to one previous word, we get mappings to a good next word from a number of previous words. I mean, there is nothing magic in this at all. It is all very common sense. It's just very impressive the depth to which neural nets can map language.
Created:
Posted in:
I've earned my pomposity, boyo.
How? You're mum on that for some reason. Keep farting on about what you have. I believe you have it. I'm not impressed. I'll have it too in time, but earned.
You studies look like the studies of one left to leisure by a large inheritance. To make nothing of it. Wasteful.
Created:
Posted in:
GP, a gleeful piece of shit human being.
Good for you Lemming, honestly man. You got clear eyes on American politics now.
Created:
Posted in:
Shut up you fucking loser. What is your sad little life on this website making flea bite posts all day long at people who don't like you.
Created:
Posted in:
Beyond delusional if you think this projects power. There's a sleeping beast stirring in Europe. The world is waking up to the undependable bunch of babies Americans are.
Created:
Posted in:
I just watched this. Two absolute clowns.
I just got back from Rome. The whole city is lit up in Ukraine colours, marches for Ukraine and a Ukrainian bella ciao resounding in the streets.
No idea what you clowns are thinking watching this interview, but the rest of world is disgusted. Zelensky left that room with his head held high and has the world behind him for it. That's the truth of it. Two bitches crying at a man in their own living room surrounded by their security. Appalling fucking stuff.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
What I decided, is that I feel terribly embarrassed for America, by that meeting.
Embarrassment is an endearing quality.
Good man, Lemming.
Good man, Lemming.
Created:
Posted in:
100 lbs of gold
Horse shit, the lot of it. A ludicrous brag from the hieroglyphics guy. What, did you pull it out of Tut's tomb?
As for Musk, I hear jealousy of wealth.
I have no jealousy of Musk. If I'm not well-liked, I'm well-loved. Outside of that I'm a top percentile earner for my age bracket. I'm doing all right. Had a lot of fun along the way. I'm happy at work and I'll retire comfortably. Bought a beautiful couch today actually. More comfortable than 100 lbs of gold I bet.
I, unlike you, understand that an economic system must be a system for wealth creation and wealth distribution. If it's failing at either of those, it's not worth a damn and we should scrap it. It is perverse that Musk should take such an enormous slice of the pie while others are left with crumbs or nothing. It is a ludicrous audacity that we have allowed him that he should be demanding an accounting in email of our being worth the crumbs.
You're a pompous old bore.
Created:
Posted in:
I think we have Elon Musk write us all an email justifying his access to such an extreme share of our shared and finite resources. What good is that to our shared society? That's the real bottom line.
Created:
Posted in:
I swear I've looked through OP's catalog of work on Amazon and it was all duds. Are you not an inheritor to a ridiculous Mormon fortune who has lived a wasteful life? Your studies certainly don't seem those of a practical man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rbelivb
It seems from the way you write that you have just written off all current politics as defunct. Must be serene.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rbelivb
Honestly I am very dubious of the idea of automation "giving options" to anyone. In the short term at least, I think it is locking people out of access to wealth.Personally, I used ChatGPT to go from doing repetitive work at almost minimum wage, to being an engineer. In a sense, it is not automating work as much as changing the nature of the work. And different work creates a different reward structure. It is no longer only the most patient, diligent person who is only successful. Soon, you can have an individual maintaining the same software that might have needed an entire company otherwise. Tech monopolies can train a giant pre-trained model, then others just use that to distil it into a much cheaper model that performs equally well. That is why I call it a race to the bottom, I see it as levelling the entire system. Technology proliferates connections faster than the control systems can recuperate them and restore balance.
I agree with this too really. I think LLM's are overhyped in ways. I don't think they're ever going to replace engineers tbh, but it has definitely boosted my productivity in terms of searching out problems and solutions and finicky questions in general. Just have to make sure to check myself that I am always learning and not copy/pasting. They don't do depth. They'll write an essay but they'll never write a book. Likewise you'll never hand it a sizable project with all its moving parts and expect any real help from it. That's baked into the token by token generation. Coherence dilutes with each additional step. And I think there's no overcoming that.
Honestly I think AI in general is massively overhyped. AGI in particular I think is a fairy tale notion, nobody even has a hint of how we would bring it about. What AI amounts to is massive number-crunching and memory via neural nets but we're still steering everything it learns. We're the ones using its learning. But it isn't really so much AI I would worry about. It's machine automation. There it's not just increased productivity, its entire roles being made redundant and fast.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rbelivb
Good to see you buddy. Where else are posting these incredibly dense paragraphs or for what are you crafting them?
I like the idea of AI as an environment. What do you think of the idea of capitalism as a balancing act, only operational so long as wealth inequality is kept in check?
Honestly I am very dubious of the idea of automation "giving options" to anyone. In the short term at least, I think it is locking people out of access to wealth. Do you not think we come up against serous difficulties where a large part of finite resources are owned by very few?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
@whiteflame
@rbelivb
I would be very interested to hear you guys' opinions here also. I kinda hijacked this thread, but I feel like I was driving this particular discussion across multiple threads anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
If one person owns everything, if his machines build and produce everything, what is our money? That's the question that shows what money is today. That guy doesn't care about our paper and whatever is written on it. That paper meant other people's work.
UBI is paper with some bullshit written on it.
Created:
Posted in:
I appreciate the compliment. Honestly I'm feeling around in the dark here too, pretty much everything I'm writing in this thread is kinda just coming to me, but once I have it it seems the most basic of basic. I think you're a bit of a fucking lunatic tbh Wylted but I don't think you're shy of the truth lol. That's what I respect about you.
Created:
Posted in:
When you hand over money you are buying somebody else's work. We are into very strange territory when that is no longer the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
The conservatives in the United States have created a plan to pay everyone a minimum basic income for just existing. It is called "The fair tax" as a marketing ploy. Democrats here typically shoot it down because it involves a tax on consumption so it would make it so you can't weaponize the tax system against political opponents.
You don't understand what UBI is. The money we're paid currently gets its value from the work we do we to earn it. It's a two-way street.
If money doesn't mean anybody's work, what does it mean?
Created:
Posted in:
If you think that it really takes a billion dollars to bring a drug to market that there is no room for a university biochemistry lab to design a drug and have the FDA test it for say 100 million instead of a billion than maybe I can't have a rational conversation with you .
Fine. Still requires 100 million in testing. Will always still require extreme rigour to get the drug over the line. If you want to open source it up to that point, I got no problem with that.
Regulatory bodies are still not the problem. Play the game of Monopoly with your kids this evening. Try to understand how the game is actually instructive. Limited resources inevitably means monopolies without intervention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
We all can only speculate. What I will say is that when technology replaces a certain skillset, the need for other skillsets is also created. Such as when automobiles took over horses and carriages, the need for car and engine designers and manufacturers and mechanics arose.
Because we have not yet built anything so versatile as ourselves. When we have built technology that can do everything we can do with the ease we can do it, we have replaced ourselves. That should be an obvious truth. We are probably not far off that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I’m not sure what you’re asking here. In contrast to what? Private individuals own the means of production currently.
Currently we share in the wealth of that production. We are an essential part of it.
What about when we're not? We got government coupons that do what exactly?
Never said I was.
I appreciate that.
Created:
Posted in:
Where it comes to automation and AI we are genuinely standing on the precipice of a dystopian reality.
Created:
Posted in:
As machines do more and more work previously done by paid human labor, the subject of “universal basic income” rears its head. There was a candidate for president in 2020 who made this the center of his platform.
Do you know what UBI actually means? Where the most part of kids coming up through school now will only ever collect some government paycheck?
Who owns and operates the means of production then? Private individuals? Forever?
Capitalism is a balancing act and we do not let it tip.
This is why the working class cannot minimum wage itself into prosperity.
Minimum wage is a start. Representation on corporate boards is a next step. There is no reason to be against a minimum wage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
FDA
What do you want, Mom and pop's formerly-a-meth-lab pharmaceuticals? If you think this isn't a business area that requires extreme rigor then I can't have a conversation with you like you are a rational adult.
Centrally planned economies just don't work well.
I'm not talking about a centrally planned economy. I'm talking about a government overseen economy. One where fair wages are assured. The balancing act in capitalism is keeping the most part of the wealth in the middle class. It's the game of monopoly. Once one person holds all the properties the game is over. The rest of us are just going around the board paying rent.
Created:
Posted in:
Not really race to the bottom, not sure what you'd call it tbh. But a producer is shooting himself in his own foot where he is creating an economy where less and less people are paid where it is these people that would purchase his product.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I posted some of my thoughts in post 66. When I have seen business owners asked about minimum wage increases, they usually have responded with a variation of these three things:- “Depending on the size of the increase, I might have to raise prices a bit.”-“I might need to increase my use of automation and reduce my staffing.”-“I already pay higher than the minimum, so I expect the effects to be negligible.”
If a minimum wage is not forcing employers to take a pay cut, there is no point. Increasing prices needs to be discouraged/punished. You get this right? The point of a minimum wage is to pull wealth back into the lower classes.
-“I might need to increase my use of automation and reduce my staffing.”
This recourse also ends in economic collapse. If nobody is paying anyone, nobody is buying anything. I'll grant it's a tricky issue. It's something of an analog for the prisoner's dilemma, race to the bottom sort of situation. I'm not sure where this all ends up. But what I am sure of in the meantime is that everything that can be done must be done to ensure wealth stays in the middle class.
Created:
Posted in:
How stupid do you have to be to think that forcing the rich elite to pay more benefits only the rich elite? Why are you clinging on to this retarded fucking idea?
Created:
Posted in:
So do that too. It's a band-aid fix, but I'll take it. If you want to levy it as a punishment on corporations for paying unfair wages I'll take it.
But what you want to arrive at is paid fair wages.
This is the shell game I am talking about.
Everyone in this thread thinks you're a dumb cunt.
Created:
Posted in:
I read this thread out of morbid curiosity to see just how impervious to logic and reason you are, and it's over the top.
He's sickening. A real piece of shit human being.
Created:
I also dislike the "my body, my right" argument. It's just very in your face. But fair enough, it comes from some sort of place of fear and hurt that I as a man am lucky not to know.
Forcing a girl to carry a pregnancy she does not want is still a very fucking extreme thing if you bother to actually think about it. You are handing down a literal life sentence if you want. Get it? And that's after all the crazy shit that happens to her body, the very extreme thing that is birthing a child. And then she's stuck with GP's baby or some other human travesty.
Nipping all that in the bud when it's only a few cells doesn't seem like a big deal. Punishing humans for fucking seems a bit cruel.
Created:
Posted in:
GP's only semblance of a point was big business moving operations overseas and for that we must all just accept what they want to pay us. Which is the most pathetic argument there ever was.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I also think you are debating a person who isn't giving his real premises. My guess is the real argument that GP has but fails to give is as follows.premise 1- Government only exists to protect private contractsPremise 2- A minimum wage increase interferes with the voluntary right to set contracts between 2 peopleconclusion- The government is overstepping their authority by increasing minimum wage or in fact having a minimum wage at all
GP is a hard-line racist troll. He just gathers up every other dumb republican argument as he goes along. I guess minimum wage and redistribution looks too close to reparations or something like that.
What do you think of your own argument here? What about enforcing insulin price caps? The point of government is to bolster the individual -- it is by the people, for the people. It allows us to negotiate from a position of strength. The price of insulin is high because frail, desperate humans are left to negotiate alone. The same applies to the minimum wage. We must not let the most desperate of us set the price for us all.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm gonna go jump into bed with my beautiful girlfriend now.
Created:
Posted in:
Employment Policies Institute - funded by big money interests that oppose minimum wage.
Just funny, man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This has a lot to do with what Wylted explained to you about how all the mom and pop businesses were run underground because of competition regulations pushed by millionaire corporations.When the government forces the mom and pop stores to raise prices, most of them will go bankrupt. This is exactly why millionaires support those kinds of regulations. Wyted already explained that aspect very well, so I am not going to rehash his points. It's the poor business owners that suffer because they live on tight margins. The rich can afford it. And when the competition is gone, they can charge whatever they want, and send a little to their politician's coffer to keep it that way.
None of this was your original point. Sucking up to Wylted now because I tagged him about your bullshit. Why are you so shamelessly forcing this retarded opinion?
It also doesn't hold weight as a point. First of all, if a business can't pay a living wage, it has no business being a business. What good is it for the economy? It creates jobs that nobody can live on?
Second, but here I thought big business was crushing small businesses by undercutting them. They got so many tricks up their sleeves, eh? Overcutting them too, who knew that was a thing. But then why do regulations have to be the catalyst here? Why don't big businesses just pay higher salaries themselves? Doesn't that achieve the same result? Drives up the cost of living, right? Makes the mom and pops wages unlivable? What else you gonna pull out your ass?
The only way to tackle wealth inequality is pulling money back into the lower classes via higher wages. Literally the only way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's idiotic to think a plan that millionaires support is superior than simply providing cash in hand to poor people.
Go on walk me through it. No ChatGPT.
Corporations actually want to be forced to pay more money. Somehow this lets them steal more of the poor people's money.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
@Savant
@WyIted
Your dumb shell game amounts to:The rich actually want to be forced to pay a higher wage.This is somehow exactly what they wanted all along and will somehow make the poor poorer.Only solution is to do nothing. Let the rich have their way. Stay poor.But wait... oh no, what if the rich just increase wages themselves then? Does that mean we cannot avoid this terrible trap?Oh no they're paying me more money! This is the disastrous situation GP warned me about! Somehow I'm ruined!Who fucking conned this dude into believing that enforcing higher salaries is a trap by rich people? How did you do that?
You three think this shit makes any fucking sense? Curious for your conservative opinions here.
Created: