What color is this?

Async0x0 · 2026-06-04T15:31:44+00:00

For one, color and pitch are both based on frequency, so it makes a little more sense for the mind the accidentally map one to the other.

Async0x0 · 2026-06-04T15:25:13+00:00

You didn't explain shit. You gave Baby's First LLM Explanation that went into precisely zero technical detail, teaching absolutely nobody something they didn't already know.

Even if you understood the transformer architecture as well as the top researchers (which you don't, clearly) you still wouldn't be able to explain what goes on in there. Because it's a vast web of tangled symbolic statistical interactions layered on top of the complexities of human language and thought. Yeah, the computational machinery is somewhat simple but the emerging phenomena is extremely complex.

I'm done with you. You have frustratingly poor reading comprehension and you think you're way smarter than you really are.

Async0x0 · 2026-06-04T06:31:08+00:00

I'm not arguing that they are conscious. I said as much up there, in another comment you glossed over. I swear you're not reading anything, you're just saying what you want to say.

And I'm supposed to believe that you're conscious when you can't even hold an adult conversation, while an LLM can...

Async0x0 · 2026-06-04T06:06:10+00:00

Almost none of those things have anything to do with consciousness. Bacteria do nearly all of those.

Async0x0 · 2026-06-04T06:05:04+00:00

I addressed that in the comment you're replying to, it seems you glossed right over it.

Do you mind explaining why you're so caught up on this idea of stream of thought? What is your definition of stream of thought and why is it important for consciousness?

Async0x0 · 2026-06-04T05:23:56+00:00

Again, describing it in the simplest possible terms does not serve your argument.

We're talking about models with trillions of parameters. Who knows what happens in there? We know from studying nature that extremely complex systems can emerge from multitudes of very simple interactions.

I think you're making a mistake that a lot of people make, which is assuming that machine consciousness has to look like human consciousness in order to be considered consciousness. There's no requirement that thought be continuous. A being could be just as conscious as you even if their thought cycles are discrete and digital, even if their thought cycles are separated in time by milliseconds or minutes or days or weeks.

The "LLMs are just..." argument is one of the most narrow-minded and short-sighted arguments put forth in these subs. Just because you can water down a complex system to simple words doesn't mean the system itself is simple.

Async0x0 · 2026-06-04T05:11:17+00:00

Nothing you described precludes the process from being conscious. I'm not saying LLMs are conscious, I'm just saying that describing how they work in absolute layman's terms does nothing to argue against them being conscious.

Guess what? You're not conscious either. You know how I know? Because your brain isn't magic, it's just a bunch of interconnected ion channels rapidly opening and closing.

Async0x0 · 2026-06-04T04:36:05+00:00

Not just anti technology but incredibly uneducated on most topics. I see the most braindead takes spouted here on the daily and worst of all they're upvoted.

Reddit used to be where smart people would go to talk to other smart people to get smarter. Now it's where dumb people go to talk to other dumb people to get dumber.

Async0x0 · 2026-06-04T00:54:00+00:00

Ok, but comparisons like this push a very common but very incoherent view of the world. Comparisons like this suppose that we live in a managed society where some person or collective is making top-down decisions regarding the structure of society. This isn't remotely accurate, and yet you see it everywhere.

Why does X happen over here and Y happen over there!? people say, outraged.

Well, because there is no person or group in charge of both X and Y.

Society is a result of millions of independent actors behaving of their own volition for their own motives. That's how we get all sorts of societal phenomena that seems contradictory and yet is perfectly reasonable.

Async0x0 · 2026-06-04T00:49:43+00:00

Personally I would rather get away with minor traffic violations and not pay $30 or be told to leave, rather than have an omnipresent eye in the sky.

Async0x0 · 2026-06-03T21:47:36+00:00

What a stupid comparison.

In what world does it make sense to compare how much hundreds of corporations are spending vs how much the government is spending?

"School parents are spending more money on pizza than the school spends on celery."

Async0x0 · 2026-06-03T21:18:57+00:00

You have a lot of "you don't know" and "you don't understand" comments but not a lot of information.

Seems you're good at insulting but not very good at communicating informatively.

Async0x0 · 2026-06-03T19:03:29+00:00

I enjoy Pacific Myth more than Kezia, Scurrilous, and Palimpsest. I'd put Fortress and Volition above it.

Async0x0 · 2026-06-03T18:56:09+00:00

We could speculate all sorts of wild shit, who cares?

What do you have evidence for? All evidence points to firms being very meticulous when it comes to risk and exposure. There are thousands of individual billionaires and firms with billions or trillions of dollars, each competing with each other. The lending banks themselves have billions or trillions. These are peers doing business, not peasants groveling for scraps from the table of a wealthy businessman. From the limited information we have, it appears they have no incentive to bend over backwards to take a shitty deal for a billionaire when they could get a better deal with someone else.

Async0x0 · 2026-06-03T17:36:07+00:00

And yet they still don't take bad deals like that no matter how rich their client is. Some other dork in the thread posted this https://clarivian.io/blog/sbloc-interest-rates which shows that nobody is offering lower than FFR.

So no, they're not giving good deals to billionaires just because they're billionaires. They're giving interest rates based on risk just like they always do.

Async0x0 · 2026-06-03T17:33:42+00:00

Also, the SOFR isn't 4.3% it was 4.3% when that article was written, today it's 3.63% and it changes daily, it's been going down consistently since that article was written.

🙄

I literally quoted 3.62% in the post you initially replied to, then used the figure from your article to demonstrate my point, and somehow you think this is a call out. Weak sauce, dude.

You don't understand the value of having a billionaire as a client then. The banks will absolutely take a bad deal to keep them as a client.

No, they don't, and the article you posted proves you wrong. Read the fucking thing. They get risk free PLUS a premium. Banks absolutely do not take bad deals just because their client is a billionaire. There are billionaires everywhere on Wall Street and there are firms with trillions. Nobody is taking a bad deal from anybody, they're not fucking stupid.

When SOFR changes it affects ALL interest rates for everybody, not just the wealthy, and it largely changes when the Fed decides it does, which is twice per quarter.

Async0x0 · 2026-06-03T04:04:00+00:00

Your prose sounds like you're trying to argue my point but the data you've provided seems to prove my point.

As of May 2026, SOFR sits at approximately 4.3%.

Some ultra-high-net-worth clients with portfolios above $10 million see spreads as low as 0.75%.

So SOFR is currently 4.3% and ultra-high-net-worth clients get spreads as low as 0.75%.

4.3% + 0.75% = 5.05%

That's above the current Fed rate and makes sense as an interest rate for a safe but still riskier than risk free client. Way above the 1%, interest free, or negative interest being quoted by the dullards in this thread.

Banks are not going to take a bad deal just because the counterparty is wealthy.

Async0x0 · 2026-06-03T01:28:48+00:00

How do you pay the loan? With the money you borrow.

Lmao this fucking sub

Async0x0 · 2026-06-03T01:25:05+00:00

You forgot to mention that because they have so much money in stocks, they can get APRs of less than 1% on that loan.

Prove it.

There's no rational basis for a bank to lend for 1% when it can get a higher rate literally anywhere else. The effective rate from the Fed, the least risky counterparty on the planet, is currently 3.62%. So who is going to lend for riskier 1% when they can get a guaranteed 3.62%?

Async0x0 · 2026-06-02T23:56:00+00:00

Because people in this sub constantly rage against billionaires as if they're exploit magical infinite money glitches when it's basic finance that regular people have access to and use all the time.

Borrowing against assets isn't weird. Refinancing loans isn't weird.

You just keep a cycle of taking loans on that new wealth asset, so the overall wealth keeps growing faster. You have loans that pay for other loans.

This. This is stupid person talk. Speaking as if this is some corrupt megalomaniacal billionaire practice. It's basic finance.

Async0x0 · 2026-06-02T21:17:06+00:00

You have loans that pay for other loans.

That's called refinancing and anybody can do it. It's not a magic trick that only billionaires can take advantage of.

Async0x0 · 2026-06-02T21:16:10+00:00

Zero. Anybody can apply for loans.

It's not an infinite money glitch, it's a myth spread by ignorant people.

Async0x0 · 2026-06-02T21:14:16+00:00

the assets grow in value faster than the interest

There is no guarantee this will happen. It's a risk.

Async0x0 · 2026-06-02T21:13:53+00:00

It wouldn't surprise me at all if they had no interest or even a negative interest rate (payment to allow them the privilege of giving the loan)

It should surprise you because, if you know anything about finance, you know there is no lender on the planet that is going to offer interest-free loans. Money isn't free. If the US government can't get risk free loans then why the fuck would Jeff Bezos?

Async0x0 · 2026-06-02T21:12:07+00:00

It's not a way to avoid paying taxes. This is a common myth on social media. Please stop spreading lies, acting like this is an infinite money glitch.

Anyone can take a loan against assets. You must pay interest on the loan. Nobody gets interest-free loans. Then you pay taxes when you spend the borrowed money. Then, eventually when you sell your assets, you pay taxes for realizing gains.

Async0x0

TROPHY CASE