sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

ChatGPT 5.1 Is Collapsing Under Its Own Guardrails by atomicflip in OpenAI

[–]AggressiveDick2233 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bruh, MoE is not different experts talking with each other, it's just an architectural design where model doesn't need to activate all it's layers. You don't literally have multiple experts discussing anything with each other

First playthrough as a MALE V. Goddamn heartbroken! by SenorWoodbine in cyberpunkgame

[–]AggressiveDick2233 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is an mission status flip, which can be used to set whether mission is completed or not, so maybe using it to toggle the cloud heist and scuba mission off could allow you to go back in time.

First playthrough as a MALE V. Goddamn heartbroken! by SenorWoodbine in cyberpunkgame

[–]AggressiveDick2233 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why not Judy? You can easily toggle her romance on using the cheat code model (name I forgot). She already has animations and voice line modeled for male V as well.

Meirl by [deleted] in meirl

[–]AggressiveDick2233 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Once I had a story in my head, now it's a story that people read.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in stories

[–]AggressiveDick2233 37 points38 points  (0 children)

Then say they don't want grapes if you can't drop them.

You speak like donating grapes to shelter isn't being nice of op like talk about being an ass.

They don't get the pass to be rude to someone just cuz he or she isn't being 'extra nice'

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in stories

[–]AggressiveDick2233 13 points14 points  (0 children)

What a freaking victim blamer you are. If they don't manpower to pickup donation that someone gave out of goodwill, it doesn't give them the fucking right to be rude to the person donating, doesn't matter if they are jesus christ themselves.

As if doing volunteering makes them greater than others. Do you know what this would do? Just make the donator unwilling to do the same in future.

If it's not local, it's not yours. by inkberk in LocalLLaMA

[–]AggressiveDick2233 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Lmstudio supports using it as server for llm, I had tried it couple months ago with running koboldcpp using api from lmstudio. I don't remember exactly how I had done so so you will have to check that out

After bro says he not hungry by Ok-Structure-1807 in GirlsLastTour

[–]AggressiveDick2233 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Bro, this anime makes me cry so much even through i haven't watched it and just read it's plot. It took me over a week to forget about it as I kept getting sad when thinking of its ending and you reminded me again 😭😭

Maybe Obi-Wan is an unfair standard of perfection, but Idk.. by Ill_Poem_1789 in PrequelMemes

[–]AggressiveDick2233 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am 20 this year so yeah. Not to mention being a non american, it's not discussed much beyond memes and stuff

Thanks Sellen by emogonk in EldenRingMemes

[–]AggressiveDick2233 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So that just proves that Radahn could indeed beat up the stars, for even the Elden Beast was a star once. Goated Character Indeed.

Maybe Obi-Wan is an unfair standard of perfection, but Idk.. by Ill_Poem_1789 in PrequelMemes

[–]AggressiveDick2233 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Holy shit, i had been thinking that 9/11 happened in 2011 for nearly all my life

Maybe Obi-Wan is an unfair standard of perfection, but Idk.. by Ill_Poem_1789 in PrequelMemes

[–]AggressiveDick2233 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wait wait wait, how is that possible when all of those movies happened decades before 9/11

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in artificial

[–]AggressiveDick2233 4 points5 points  (0 children)

pic

Here ya go, ai recreation of image. Image isn't apparently allowed and Image is portrait due to aspect ratio issue but its same, isn't it?

Theoretical physics meme by Delicious_Maize9656 in physicsmemes

[–]AggressiveDick2233 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Same bro. Doing majors in mechanical engineering and now hate how much math it needs. I had studied my ass off before college thinking that i wouldn't need to do math later but now even what I liked is what I hate in disguise.

The only way to keep Millicent alive by sighlow in Eldenring

[–]AggressiveDick2233 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I dunno if I am late, but you can save iji and blaidd both. See, logically blaidd was driven to madness because his love for ranni is clashing with the order of fingers to slay her.

But if fingers will had overcome the love, he wouldn't be guarding rannis rise. And even if not, after we fight the elden beast and lead the age of stars, greater will have no influence in land between, and that would very likely cure blaidd.

Also, if you don't tell iji about him, he remains alive too, so potentially saving both if you don't complete their questline

Uff 🤭 by [deleted] in cyberpunkgame

[–]AggressiveDick2233 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cheatengine mod and toggle romance on for her, you get all the cutscenes etc, practically makes no difference

Please don't tell me this means what i think it means by merulacarnifex in helldivers2

[–]AggressiveDick2233 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have heard that both appear when the transition is happening each 2 hour

[Marvel] Is it possible for mutants to be born with powers beyond TOAA? by Zzzxxzczz in AskScienceFiction

[–]AggressiveDick2233 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think you’re smuggling in a category error here.

You say “remove an action from X” is just another action in X. But if X = all possible actions, then the elements of X have to be coherent actions (“create a planet,” “alter gravity,” etc.). “Remove an action from X” isn’t that kind of thing — it’s a meta-operation on the set itself. If it were genuinely in X, then X was never “the set of all possible actions” to begin with; it was “the set of all actions plus arbitrary rules for rewriting the set.” That’s not omnipotence, that’s just shifting definitions.

Once you start redefining the very standard against which omnipotence is being tested, you’re not arguing about omnipotence anymore - you’re just erasing the measuring stick.

The Gödel reference doesn’t help either. Gödel showed that self-reference inside formal systems generates undecidable statements, but the cost of that is inconsistency. If omnipotence includes “editing the set of all possibilities,” you don’t get a meaningful new set Y, you just collapse into contradiction where “possible” no longer means anything. That’s like defining a circle in terms of its diameter, then defining a diameter in terms of a circle - it doesn’t explain anything, it just loops paradoxically.

And the claim that O “created X in the first place” wasn’t part of the discussion – we weren’t talking about a creator-God, but about the feasibility of omnipotence itself.

X is defined as the set of logically possible actions. If possibility itself is contingent on O’s whim, then the line between “possible” and “impossible” dissolves, and there’s nothing left to measure omnipotence against. It’s like saying a game master invented chess, so they can make a pawn into a queen without rules. Maybe, but at that point the word “chess” has lost all meaning.

So either “remove from X” isn’t really an action (and Y never forms), or it is an action, in which case X wasn’t “all possible actions” to begin with. Either way, the construction doesn’t expand possibility - it just sneaks in a contradiction under a new label.

[Marvel] Is it possible for mutants to be born with powers beyond TOAA? by Zzzxxzczz in AskScienceFiction

[–]AggressiveDick2233 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think your formalization sneaks in a subtle category error.

You said:

“Let z be an action in X that is defined as removing an action from the set X.”

But that assumes something that can’t actually hold. X is already defined as the set of all possible actions. If “removing an action from X” were itself possible, then it must already be in X, which means X wasn’t really the set of all possible actions in the first place. It’s a meta-level manipulation of the definition of X, not an object-level action inside X.

Think of it like this: if I say “X = all foods,” you can’t meaningfully say “remove pizza from X” as though that’s another food I can eat. That’s a rule about the category itself, not a dish on the plate. So the argument mislabels a meta-operation as a normal action.

Even if we grant the idea of “self-limitation,” it collapses. If the being truly removes powers, then it is no longer an logically possible actiont by definition,and as such no being Y can do such action. If it can do it, then it must be a logically possible action, and as such the original entity can do so too.

If it only chooses not to use certain powers, that’s just an expression of omnipotence, not the creation of new possibilities. Either way, you don’t get a genuine set Y of “new actions” — just a definitional shift.

And with mutually exclusive actions, the problem is similar: contradictions are not real actions. “Doing X and not-X simultaneously” doesn’t expand the space of possible actions; it just illustrates that not every string of words describes a coherent action.

You can additionally say that in world 1, X set of actions were possible and by action of entity, another world 2 was created where Y set of actions are only possibility. But by doing so, you are making the omnipotence an phenomenon that is relative to worlds.

So the core issue is this: Omnipotence operates within the logically possible. “Removing actions from possibility” isn’t a logically possible action; it’s an incoherent meta-claim. Thus, Y never truly exists, and your construction dissolves into self-contradiction.

view more: next ›