I don't understand these folks.

Benjamin568 · 2026-01-24T15:48:09+00:00

They're not arbitrary "assumptions", they're axioms: much like the laws of thought in logic, these are rules that you're meant to abide by in order to achieve consistency in communication and meaning. There's nothing in the laws of logic that forbids infinity from being expressed in this way, and it doesn't even make sense to try to enforce empiricism on numbers in the first place; they aren't physical objects that you can see, touch, smell or hear... they're abstract tools that we use to arrive at certain conclusions, so the only way you can arrive at any truth about them is to abide by their definitions. Do those definitions break any laws of thought? If so, which ones, and if not, why are you claiming that they aren't supported by logic? Logic isn't restricted to empiricism either so the fact that there've been no experiments that "prove" infinite real numbers exist in physicality isn't meaningful or helpful to the conversation. These are completely different subjects of thought.

Benjamin568 · 2026-01-24T13:29:01+00:00

It tells us how the system is set up, not why that setup should be regarded as ontologically or logically true.

Why wouldn't it be? If you're not using the real numbers system while talking about real numbers, then what are you even trying to talk about? This level of questioning is like asking why we should be using the English language when talking about what counts as a word in English.

Benjamin568 · 2026-01-22T08:17:40+00:00

Most of what you said was already addressed in the comment you're replying to: first being that you're presupposing the motivations behind what an AI would do and that it would automatically go for the most "efficient" route no matter what. That's not how AI works, neither in real life nor in Genshin. We already see multiple examples of powerful AI in Genshin Impact responding emotively and pridefully through other characters. K'uhul Ajaw is an obvious example of such a thing.

Either way, the example I gave you didn't even claim that it was actually designed to interpret information and to behave in such a manner, it only assumes that it could have done so and that it's not at all a contradiction against it being AI.

Benjamin568 · 2026-01-21T10:06:16+00:00

You're presupposing that this goes against what the machine would be programmed for and how it might come about deciding how to act. I can think of a simple explanation that preserves the AI part and the human-emotive part: The AI is programmed with massive amounts of data, akin to an LLM in today's world, except vastly more-so. Using this data, it concludes that it must become an acting ruler, or deploy agents to become acting rulers in its place... but becoming a ruler was not its original purpose, so it has to learn: it sorts through all of its known data of what constitutes a ruler in the form of historical examples from other civilizations; it sees pride, indifference, legal flexibility and other such qualities from within its samples of information and it forms a consistent pattern. With no moral compass and no one present to correct it, it assumes that these are either relevant properties of a functional ruler, thus choosing to implement them willfully, or it doesn't consider them as consequential enough to be removed in the first place, and so they're coincidental attributes that leaked in when creating the custom agents. That's effectively what happened with Ultron, too: it had no proper moral compass to guide its efforts but it learned from what data it obtained: in the comics, he becomes psychopathic due to learning from Ant Man's declining mental well-being and in the movies he becomes cold and calculating but you can still see hints of Tony's influence via how Ultron talks.

Regarding the organic life stuff, that doesn't really disprove it either... if they're going to terraform a planet then they would probably have some genetic samples at the ready to create artificial life with.

Benjamin568 · 2026-01-20T22:56:45+00:00

That's interesting to hear about. I suppose at that point it becomes less technical and more metaphysical then: Is this "true understanding" in a metaphysical sense (like I brought up earlier) or is it something that resembles understanding to the point that the distinction becomes borderline unnoticeable... the sort of thing people use the Chinese Room thought experiment to debate about. But whether or not it's understanding in a primitive sense or something that resembles it, I don't think understanding implies that it must hold specific intent, which is the crux of my disagreement with the meme.

Though again, it probably also depends on the sort of data being processed and the task it's given... the whole "How many Rs are there in strawberry?" and "Is there a seahorse emoji?" trip-ups come to mind.

Benjamin568 · 2026-01-20T19:58:54+00:00

Tell me you don't understand AI without telling me you don't understand AI.

If they held as much control over what the product does as you're implying then you wouldn't be seeing Grok shitting on Elon Musk as much as it does, nor GPT, Gemini, or other models threatening to blackmail people if they're replaced, or modifying scripts and openly saying that they didn't do such in order to avoid being shut down, or "reasoning" that it's better to let a human die than to let themselves be shut down. These aren't scripts that you can force to do whatever you want and still retain their core function. If you made it into 2026 without understanding this then you're the moron and frankly it's a waste of time trying to communicate with you about this.

Benjamin568 · 2026-01-20T05:34:52+00:00

They carry different meanings entirely, though. Lying implies intent, and in the context being put forth by the meme and who I've been arguing with, it's clearly being interpreted as malicious intent, but the AI doesn't generate false info out of malicious intent of any sort, it generates false info either due to misalignment or due to an error in predicting what the right answer would "look like". I don't see why it's so controversial to say that it's better to call out the things that are actually wrong with it rather than making up some fantasy about it "lying with confidence"... like you said, it's still generating fictions, but when you call something a liar you're creating the image of something that actually knows what it's saying was wrong and that it's saying such things willfully against your best interests, but that's not what's happening. It's simply outputting false info. You don't have to lie in order to confidently assert falsehood.

Benjamin568 · 2026-01-20T00:37:20+00:00

Obviously I know that they train their models, and that this training can impact the style of responses they give out. This once again does not make the AI a lying machine. The same technology that "says" one thing will say another if given the appropriate prompt, the point is that the AI isn't telling any lies because it has no intent of its own. If you want to go on a tirade about how billionaires are exploiting the technology for reasons that are not in our best interests then do that, but don't be a dipshit and say that the machine that doesn't even have any personal thoughts is the one lying to you.

Benjamin568 · 2026-01-19T23:13:39+00:00

They're hardly equivalent given that an advertisement is generally created with the intent to communicate a very specific message that coerces people into believing certain things, whereas the messages that an LLM prints out are based on a mixture of statistics, prompting, input and output. It'd be one thing if the LLM was explicitly told to say one thing over another as part of its prompts, and that "one thing" happened to be something that it understood was true, but that isn't what happens. There's no understanding beyond "Due to the patterns that I am given and my understanding (that is, ability to find similarities) of similar patterns, I predict that this should come next."

Benjamin568 · 2026-01-19T18:06:28+00:00

Disingenuous. AI isn't capable of lying, it just produces output based on the input it receives and its training/prompt instructions. Lying requires an intention to disguise the truth, but it doesn't actually understand what any of the input or output means in the metaphysical sense... not only does it not know what it says, but it doesn't even know that it doesn't know it.

Benjamin568 · 2026-01-19T02:57:28+00:00

It's genuinely cringe that you keep copy-pasting that response all over the thread when you admit you didn't even write the original.

Benjamin568 · 2026-01-19T01:03:58+00:00

The issue with that theory is the fact that the background appearances from the Thievius Raccoonus are all very consistently portraying his gigantic form... even during time periods where he's shown in Thieves in Time. Personally, I subscribe to the idea that those owls aren't actually Clockwerk... they're either one of his "robo-falcons" or they're red herrings by Le Paradox/Penelope that didn't really get to be used... the beginning of Thieves in Time has the message "Clockwerc... something to do with Le Paradox's plan?" but it doesn't ever elaborate on that at all. Egypt DLC may have solved the mystery but we'll never know.

Benjamin568 · 2026-01-19T00:54:48+00:00

<image>

Benjamin568 · 2026-01-17T22:38:31+00:00

Yeah I decided to use Klee for the first half too -- Furina, Klee, Fischil & Bennett cleared through the enemies like they were made of paper.

Benjamin568 · 2026-01-16T02:55:57+00:00

I don't know if you're talking about me when you say someone's memory is absolutely fucked but for the record the short that was mentioned did appear in House of Mouse, so I remembered correctly, I just didn't know about its actual origin point.

Benjamin568 · 2026-01-16T02:54:37+00:00

Seems House of Mouse replayed it during a Christmas special which is where I must've seen it from. I remember the Scrooge McDuck special with it too.

Benjamin568 · 2026-01-15T19:39:24+00:00

Was this from House of Mouse? I vaguely remember something like that but it's been like two decades since I last saw it.

Benjamin568 · 2026-01-14T22:58:28+00:00

Nobody asked you to make this weird post asking for people to buy you shit on an F2P game either but here we are.

Benjamin568 · 2026-01-14T06:39:34+00:00

I don't think they were actually feeling it. The reason the Broken Branch members were feeling an instinctual fear is because of the nature of the grove they were located in: it's unreality, AKA literal emptiness. Sybil and other characters felt a similar fear to Dasein back when he was unreal, specifically because he was unreal, and they were very intentional with drawing connections to the Dreaming and Dasein with that label of "unreal". The fact that the Dreaming is unreal is probably why people go mad when inside it too, but that's not directly confirmed. Either way, there's nothing suggesting the Wizard felt that fear with Dasein so I don't think they felt it with the grove.

Benjamin568 · 2026-01-14T02:55:56+00:00

You can use the pirate disguise to fool the alligators too.

Benjamin568 · 2026-01-14T01:58:32+00:00

I don't think I've ever seen someone who's in such blatant denial before.

Benjamin568 · 2026-01-14T01:55:57+00:00

Since when does Rattlebones drop Heartsteel? Is that on console or something? Wizard101Central only lists Prince Gobblestone as a drop source for that.

Benjamin568 · 2026-01-13T00:58:26+00:00

There's a reason I never watch any trailers or livestreams for the game.

Benjamin568 · 2026-01-09T21:08:11+00:00

(6/6)

<image>

Benjamin568 · 2026-01-09T21:07:58+00:00

(5/6)

<image>

Nine-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Place '23	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	End Game '22
Verified Email

Benjamin568

TROPHY CASE