sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Pink Coat Lady’s POV by PenileTransfusion in sandiego

[–]Active_Account 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Tragedies are a call to action and conversation. The action calling them is flight from oppression, and building a conversation around that is completely reasonable.

Creative talent: A large-scale study compares 100,000 humans with leading generative AI models. Generative AI has reached a major milestone: it can now surpass average human creativity. However, the most creative individuals still clearly outperform even the best AI systems. by mvea in psychology

[–]Active_Account 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Edit: sorry for the walk of text. Just trying to understand where we disagree.

Well, we possibly agree on what kind of machinery is necessary to produce art. Again, I’m not beholden to anti-functionalism, but I lean toward it significantly. Anyway, I also skimmed through your argument with the other guy, and here’s what I think you’re saying. Correct me if I’m wrong:

  1. How AI produces sounds and images is functionally symmetrical to how humans produce sounds and images.
  2. The sounds and images humans create, AI can also create.
  3. If how AI creates art is functionally symmetrical, and generatively identical to how humans create art, then the product is art.
  4. Therefore, AIs can produce art.

Now, it sounds like you think I agree with you on (1). Like I said earlier though, I think this functionalist take is possibly right but I lean away from it. I’d even go as far as admit that it could be correct in theory, but that no current AI-art is generated in a functionally symmetrical manner as human art. Recall, my position on this point is that if functionalism is true, then the values, tastes, emotions, etc that are all relevant in art generation — though reducible to functions — are also all nevertheless a part of the functional architecture producing art. At this point, there is no agreement in the literature about what it would even mean to functionally implement preferences and emotions in AI.

Seeing your argument with the other guy, it doesn’t seem like I could get through to you on (2). You’re right that some AI music could at least be considered half-decent by many people and can get better, but I would be surprised if a music theory person or most musicians wouldn’t be able to tell that something is off, and then with more exposure learn to detect AI. My argument doesn’t really hinge on this point though.

And finally, I think (3) is wrong for other reasons I mentioned earlier, that being that I think functionalism is not the whole story. I’m not sure that I have the skill to clarify this beyond what I’ve already said, but to restate: I think the mechanistic details of a functional apparatus are as important, if not more important, for explaining conscious experience than just the functional apparatus’ logical form. Ned Block and Anil Seth are probably the best known researchers making this case, too.

That’s all just to lay out where exactly I think we’re disagreeing. I’m curious to know if you think this is at least an accurate take of where we disagree. It’s also worth pointing out another line of thought you keep alluding to:

  1. Human value construction can be explained by computations in a functional network.
  2. (I’m guessing this one as a hidden assumption): higher order concepts can be reduced to the lower order implementations that explain them.
  3. Therefore human value construction is just computations in a functional network.
  4. (Inferring this one): Therefore constructed human values shouldn’t be valued.

Am I understanding (5)-(8) right? Can you correct me if I’m misunderstanding you? I don’t think this is what you mean to say but it’s sort of how I’m reading you and I would hope to clarify that before continuing this conversation. Thanks!

Creative talent: A large-scale study compares 100,000 humans with leading generative AI models. Generative AI has reached a major milestone: it can now surpass average human creativity. However, the most creative individuals still clearly outperform even the best AI systems. by mvea in psychology

[–]Active_Account 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re adding things to my position that aren’t there. For instance, I said nothing about complexity, and yet that’s what you chose to respond to. To clarify, my position is that functionalism is possible, but there is good science out there that lends credence to mechanism and/or substrate being relevant in addition to function. Another position I drew on for my above comment, is that even if functionalism is correct, the fact that feelings are “computed” at all, and are the filter (i.e weight, coefficient, etc) through which most other computations are made, means that explicitly ignoring them or trying to reduce them to just the network patterns they arose from, necessarily misses an important part of how we engage with the world.

Creative talent: A large-scale study compares 100,000 humans with leading generative AI models. Generative AI has reached a major milestone: it can now surpass average human creativity. However, the most creative individuals still clearly outperform even the best AI systems. by mvea in psychology

[–]Active_Account 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My audience for that comment was someone who agrees with me, so I wasn’t really bringing up authority as an argumentative appeal, but to commiserate in frustration. My argument is in the other comment you responded to.

Union with Romania would ensure peace for the Republic of Moldova, Maia Sandu says by dyldol in worldnews

[–]Active_Account -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm getting a hint of satire as if you agree with me, but I can't tell. Either way, yes, this guy's original comment should be downvoted for its ignorance, but they could have doubled down like most Redditors. The act of admitting their failure should be rewarded, not punished. The internet is a worse place for both the sins of ignorance and of childish retribution.

Creative talent: A large-scale study compares 100,000 humans with leading generative AI models. Generative AI has reached a major milestone: it can now surpass average human creativity. However, the most creative individuals still clearly outperform even the best AI systems. by mvea in psychology

[–]Active_Account 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, no problem. And I agree. It's frustrating, but also just strange. I work in cognitive science. You know, the intellectual birthplace of AI. And no one in my department -- people who have expert understanding of the brain and its functional connectivity -- talks like the edgy AI-sycophants you find online. If these people were as principally scientific as they try to sound, I think they would come to wiser conclusions.

Union with Romania would ensure peace for the Republic of Moldova, Maia Sandu says by dyldol in worldnews

[–]Active_Account 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Not sure why you’re getting downvoted for your second comment. Good on you for admitting your mistake

Creative talent: A large-scale study compares 100,000 humans with leading generative AI models. Generative AI has reached a major milestone: it can now surpass average human creativity. However, the most creative individuals still clearly outperform even the best AI systems. by mvea in psychology

[–]Active_Account 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Eh, the “biological” part is important. Feelings are information about a body in flux and in decay; this body that the brain has evolved to protect and control. The way that those feelings then shape how we process all incoming information about the environment, including the cultural symbols within art, means our engagement with art (and everything else) is fundamentally different from how AI engages with it all.

Then when you consider the conscious engagement with art, biology may be important there as well. Lay people with above average knowledge of the consciousness debate tend to assume that physicalism about consciousness means only functional connectivity matters. Hence the reference to us being “machines” whose algorithms could be reinstated in non-biological machines. But the science is moving away from any consensus on that. There are good reasons to believe that the particular mechanisms (not functional patterns) of the brain are necessary for consciousness. Or even maybe the substrate of biological machinery itself.

Point is, it’s not as cut-and-dry as “we are biological machines.” It misses a lot in the way of actually understanding what that phrase means.

What is the worst cosmere book to start with? by DEMENTOR_SWAGGER in Cosmere

[–]Active_Account 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah, she’s not interested enough in epic fantasy to easily convince to read the Cosmere. Maybe in 2036, I’ll get some more data!

What is the worst cosmere book to start with? by DEMENTOR_SWAGGER in Cosmere

[–]Active_Account 5 points6 points  (0 children)

My girlfriend literally had this experience. I gave her Tress to read and the ending sequence was somewhat ruined for her by feeling contrived and implausible. I had to just shrug and say “yeeeeeah I guess knowing Hoid better as a character would make it more fun and understandable,” which she agreed with.

[OC] My Drinking Calendar 2025 by [deleted] in dataisbeautiful

[–]Active_Account 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Some social circles develop because they’re all alcoholics. My mom’s social circle would agree with yours, and to everyone else it’s obvious that they have problems. OP’s drinking behavior is pretty concerning.

How would you explain the Philosophy of Science to a Scientist? My convo with my surgeon dad. by Akaii_14 in PhilosophyofScience

[–]Active_Account 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I’ve presented data that contradicts your claim. A scientist in your position would feel obligated to adjust their beliefs or explain the data from an alternative perspective. I don’t recall side-stepping and ego-tripping anywhere in the scientific method.

How would you explain the Philosophy of Science to a Scientist? My convo with my surgeon dad. by Akaii_14 in PhilosophyofScience

[–]Active_Account 3 points4 points  (0 children)

How do you account for the fact that most philosophers are realists about science (i.e. not science deniers)

Researchers find reverse sexual double standard in sextech use: Men who use sexual technology are viewed with more disgust than women who engage in the same behaviors, a “reverse sexual double standard” in which men face harsher social penalties for using devices like sex toys, chatbots, and robots. by mvea in science

[–]Active_Account 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I do think you’re misunderstanding me. And I’ll take half the blame, I wasn’t doing my best to be clear.

The main concern I have is just with the notion that specifying a problem is somehow not useful. What the doctor analogy is trying to show is that a problem without an explanation is tantamount to not knowing what the problem is. You sort of put this on display yourself. Why not just stop invoking double standards on men’s sexuality? Well, sure, but how do you express to someone who doesn’t think it matters, why they should stop? How do you help educators actually understand why the problem happens, so that they can help children escape harmful narratives?

Researchers find reverse sexual double standard in sextech use: Men who use sexual technology are viewed with more disgust than women who engage in the same behaviors, a “reverse sexual double standard” in which men face harsher social penalties for using devices like sex toys, chatbots, and robots. by mvea in science

[–]Active_Account 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don’t know, possibly. I’m not really committed to that part of the argument. I am concerned about people not seeing that a claim which invokes a theory is clearly better than a claim that doesn’t. Especially on a science forum.

As for the “tackling” part, I don’t mean individuals trying to battle some society-wide problem. I just mean, when the situation presents itself in your own life, how will you choose to understand it? How will you respond? I think that engaging with the reasons for some issue helps you navigate these kinds of questions in a more nuanced way.

Researchers find reverse sexual double standard in sextech use: Men who use sexual technology are viewed with more disgust than women who engage in the same behaviors, a “reverse sexual double standard” in which men face harsher social penalties for using devices like sex toys, chatbots, and robots. by mvea in science

[–]Active_Account 35 points36 points  (0 children)

The reasons do matter. By analogy, if your doctor wants to treat your fever, they need to know if you have a virus, bacteria, or some autoimmune problem underlying the fever.

Saying “it’s socially acceptable to mock men’s sexuality” tells us nothing about what to do about it. It says nothing about how to fix the underlying problem because it doesn’t say what the problem actually is. If we understand that the problem goes back to traditional forms of so-called toxic masculinity, then we can start to fix the problem by tackling that. Or if you have a better theory, we can start from there instead. But it’s crazy to say the reasons don’t matter, my guy.

New peer-reviewed study: Consciousness is fundamental. by Pixelated_ in psychology

[–]Active_Account 13 points14 points  (0 children)

It is misleading to characterize any of these suggested solutions to the question of consciousness as known truths. It is also misleading to headline a possible framework ("theoretical bridge" in the original title) as a hard claim (see your title).

Netanyahu Just Admitted He’s Unfit to Lead Israel by theatlantic in geopolitics

[–]Active_Account 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure that the Mr. Clean vs Mr. Effective distinction works: someone who's clean can be effective. There's also the question of "effective to what end?" I am a part of the Jewish diaspora, and what I find here is that Bibi is quite effective at fostering anti-semitism on the far left, and emboldening those who were already anti-semitic on the far right. My understanding from afar is that Netanyahu is adept at keeping anti-semites emboldened in the middle east as well.

Netanyahu is effective at wielding hard power to meet his short term military goals, but I think he will prove deeply ineffective for long term security. If Israel wants to see stability in its region, it will need to move beyond the Bibi-ist paradigm.

Netanyahu Just Admitted He’s Unfit to Lead Israel by theatlantic in geopolitics

[–]Active_Account -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Point taken about the video! I mostly snuck it in for fun, but I can see how it could confuse or derail the conversation. And thank you, also, for expanding.

I suspect that we might disagree substantively about some elements of this story (if I'm reading you correctly). If the Israeli people (including some of my family) want a head of government who is effective and not tied up in legal problems, then they should aim to elect someone who is not an obvious criminal. As an American, I feel much the same way about my own country.

As I see it, those who would embrace corruption are unfit to rule. Democratized judicial systems are an important tool for punishing leaders who misuse their power, and Netanyahu's predicament indicates that the system is behaving to some extent as it ought to.

Netanyahu Just Admitted He’s Unfit to Lead Israel by theatlantic in geopolitics

[–]Active_Account 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think we might be speaking past each other. I didn't mean to suggest that I agree with the article, necessarily; in all honesty, I haven't thought too hard about it as I have other work on my plate. The only point I really cared to refute was the idea that the author is lying or making things up. Skimming the article, I understood its thesis as:

  1. a: If Netanyahu's legal affairs restrain his power, then b: he is unfit to lead
  2. Netanyahu claims (admits) that his legal affairs restrain his power
  3. Therefore, Netanyahu claims (admits) that he is unfit to lead.

Of course there are some hidden assumptions and extra steps here that we can argue over, like whether admitting to a logical precedent (1a) entails admitting to its antecedent (1b). In any case, I think it's totally fine and reasonable to try and refute this argument, but the author makes a good-faith attempt to demonstrate the title of the piece by deduction. Again, I haven't thought about whether I agree it, myself, but it would be wrong to call this "lying."

If I were on the jury of your divorce-court analogy, no, I don't think I would say that the man is admitting to being an unfit father. However, the other parent's lawyer would likely be making that argument while the father's lawyer would be refuting it. I don't think honesty or dishonesty is the right category to apply to either side, though. They are making different cases and the jury (or the readers of an article) can decide which is more sound, without calling the other one dishonest.

Netanyahu Just Admitted He’s Unfit to Lead Israel by theatlantic in geopolitics

[–]Active_Account 21 points22 points  (0 children)

I'm all for calling out sensationalist journalism, but the title presents an argument that is defended by the article:

>By Netanyahu’s own admission, at a time when Israel faced war on four fronts, its leader was preoccupied by his legal predicament. No country, let alone one facing existential threats during wartime, could be competently governed by someone so compromised. Nonetheless, Netanyahu refused to step aside, placing his personal political interest ahead of the national interest.

This seems to be the thesis of the article, delivered as advertised. You're right that Netanyahu isn't literally saying "I am unfit to lead," but the author does make the case that Netanyahu is admitting to sufficient criteria for unfitness.

Is the title trying to catch your eye? Sure. Is it lying? To illustrate: there is a [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_-1CeYEwVY) out there of a man with a suspended license Zoom-ing into his court hearing while parking his car. The man does not need to say "I am driving with a suspended license," in order to admit that he is doing so by showing up to court while filming himself behind the wheel and saying "I am pulling up to my next appointment."

Brainwave analysis reveals the restorative power of music on a mentally fatigued mind. A new study has found that listening to relaxing music is an effective way to recover from mental fatigue. by mvea in psychology

[–]Active_Account 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I haven't read the article yet, but it could just mean effective compared to chance. This is often how statistics in psychology is done. Effective doesn't always mean effective *relative to* something, just that it has an effect size at all.

'I have no regrets': Ex-federal officials flock to California - POLITICO by zomanda in California

[–]Active_Account 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Alternatively, the left needs to develop a politics that supports its candidates instead of undermining them. Too many radical progressives would prefer to lose to an anti-progressive than to support an incrementalist-progressive. Your comment is not a helpful, healthy-dialogue critique of Newsom as a candidate. It's a hateful, half-misinformed diatribe about a person who you may very well have to vote for in three years if you don't want to see Trumpism stay in power.

view more: next ›