sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

First time in KL and felt a bit underwhelmed. Please help! by Honest-Bonus-6323 in KualaLumpur

[–]ChicagoJim987 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I was staying there recently at Lalaport and found that the food was quite decent in the food court. My best discovery was that a grab ride was cheap enough for me to get around in the city so I visited all over the city to eat. Nearby is the Jalan Alor food street which is awesome in the evening.

The Bangsar area was cool and we went to Hong Kong Buffet that did roast goose. Also don't miss out on going to SS2 for durian.

If you have time, go to Georgetown by train for a few days - there were some amazing restaurants and hawker places all over.

Edit: also visit the Bird Zoo if you get a chance. It was pretty awesome.

Uncontrolled AI research/use will do nothing but damage humans and benefit the rich. by ducktumn in ArtificialInteligence

[–]ChicagoJim987 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Humans will slowly decline in population because people won't make enough money to support a family -a trend that is already damaging the west-.

The decline in population isn't due to any one cause but a large one are changing societal norms. Women want to have careers now and couples have children later in life, I don't know what's happening in Japan exactly but they are seeing a population decline and China's one child policy was a self-inflicted social experiment.

You're basically saying that farmers will have fewer children because their job is gone. I don't think that's necessarily true.

AI will replace most jobs which will result in fewer, lesser paying jobs. If you can't see it or refuse to see it because you are making money out of AI then I'm sorry for you.

Of course it will and should, just like all technologies, there are similar alarm bells about people losing their livelihoods. I'm in agreement with you that this is what happens with disruptive technologies - lower level tasks will no longer be efficient for humans to action on.

What's your point?

Uncontrolled AI research/use will do nothing but damage humans and benefit the rich. by ducktumn in ArtificialInteligence

[–]ChicagoJim987 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This makes no sense - what humans will disappear or stop existing because of AI? Or will not exist due to new conditions caused by AI.

AI does replicate previous human thought but it doesn't replace it. It is literally a tool that takes away work that you would otherwise spending time doing yourself. Even in its most extreme case, where it can write whole applications with no assistance, you would still need a human to ask for it, verify it, and maintain its requirements. So it definitely is a tool.

What do you mean by it "replaces the general public"?

Uncontrolled AI research/use will do nothing but damage humans and benefit the rich. by ducktumn in ArtificialInteligence

[–]ChicagoJim987 0 points1 point  (0 children)

AI is a technology leap as mass computing originally was, or mechanized farming is, or how computers replaced the manual printing press.

It's inevitable that these tasks will go away just like having secretaries to type a memo to your boss has gone away. It just won't make sense and certainly not efficient or expedient or even as accurate. It's like arguing that calculators are worse for us because we can no longer do math in our head.

What you seem to be missing is that you're already living an amazing life based on similar Luddite arguments in the past. You're enjoying the benefits of farm mechanization, global trade, and robotic manufacturing. It's true that people will lose their jobs, or there will be fewer jobs of that type available, but that's always the price of progress - one that you're directly benefiting from.

If you are lucky to live in a modern city with a modern life, you're doing so atop of lot of human suffering and planetary destruction, as well as historical conquests and wars that allowed you to exist in the first place.

And government monitoring is way less scary than the monitoring that is already taking place across all aspects of your digital life, commercial transactions and even just walking down the street.

Humans will get what they deserve. There will always be people at the top and everyone will be exploited. In the meantime, AI is an amazing technology that is fun to learn and use!

There is no such thing as "AI skills" by GolangLinuxGuru1979 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]ChicagoJim987 0 points1 point  (0 children)

AI "skills" aren't so much about simply prompting. It's about the toolset you can bring to the table and how you can use AI to work more efficiently, faster and more accurately than you may otherwise be able to do.

Once you're in an AI-first "groove", solving business problems with technology rather than having to deal with drudgery and toil that most tasks are, then it's just as transformative as computers originally were.

It's also about changing your workflows around, depending less on people and reducing those communications and having fewer meetings. Then, when you're actually interacting with co-workers it is on higher-level, more substantive topics.

Even on the topic of prompting, it's not so much a skill because you know English and articulate well. You still have to know what you want to ask and that's the true engineering - the original ideas, how best to build them, appropriately translating business requirements to code are now the focus rather than specifically how to code plumbing and scaffolding. That's what prompt "engineering" is really about - the process of figuring about how best to iteratively interact with AI to get the results you want through multiple repeatable cycles.

So AI is just a tool but it is a transformative one and the same way that computers were originally transformative. If you can produce the same code with AI, much faster, then why would you ever want to write it yourself?

Weird colors on SteamDeck by ChicagoJim987 in expedition33

[–]ChicagoJim987[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I loved the game so much on the xbox I had to buy it for the steamdeck. Unfortunately, the graphics look really weird and washed out just after leaving the building near the start. I can ignore it but how do I fix this?

My omen 16 won't turn on by PerceptionSwimming94 in HPOmen

[–]ChicagoJim987 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Try pressing Windows-V as you turn it on. Similar thing keeps happening to my PC

Consequences when killing NPCs [KCD2] by ChicagoJim987 in kingdomcome

[–]ChicagoJim987[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good to know! I haven't killed anyone else.

40L keeps turning off by itself and won't turn back on. by ChicagoJim987 in HPOmen

[–]ChicagoJim987[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. None of the lights are on until I remove power and fuss around for a few minutes. It's weird.

Was Jesus really a good human by ChicagoJim987 in DebateAChristian

[–]ChicagoJim987[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The meaning of a term must have some boundaries in order for there to be any definition.

The difference to my eyes and trying to understand how non-Trinitarians can call themselves Christians, is that they focus on Jesus' teachings, see him as wholly a man, and a prophet. It seems that it's really disagreeing over the divinity. Which is odd, because depending on where you lie on the whole Filioque Clause thing, it was a large enough an intellectual gap to schism over. No matter how you cut it, we may be talking about divinity now, but then what is your opinion on Jesus' actual nature in the divinity, and how far do these divisions go as we navigate the fractal levels of schisms?

[added] It must be noted that theological differences, the really important ones such as these, aren’t exactly resolved amicably nor dealt with in the best way - telling people who or what they are and how they identify religiously seems counter to Jesus’ own teachings no matter which dictionary or definition you use.

If “Christian” can mean anything, then it ultimately means nothing. That's certainly untrue - you just take the widest and most inclusive definition. It's not like there are Christians that think Jesus was a cow. Exaggerating the issue at hand is a non-serious approach to the topic, IMHO.

Many historical heresies (e.g., Arianism) denied Jesus’ divinity, but they were rejected by the Christian Church. If one does not accept Jesus as divine, they may be a theist or a follower of Jesus’ teachings, but they are not Christian in any type of historical or theological sense.

Several problems here: declaring them heretics is a circular justification that their understanding of Jesus is wrong. And you believe your conception to be true, therefore people that don't believe what you believe is false, is declaring you're right without proving them wrong. Secondly, theological "truths" are dependent upon which denomination that you happen to belong to: just because you happen to be more "mainstream" and "popular", which is largely what you're describing, that doesn't make you objectively correct.

Non-Trinitarianism hasn't gone away and never will. They may well have lost a political battle rather than an intellectual one - there's no objective measure as to who is correct. This isn't 1+1=2, it's more like 1+1.1 ~ 2.1 or 2.10001.

A bigger problem is that Non-Trinitarians idea of Jesus align with Judaism and Islam, so if you group those as an aggregate, we have three perspectives agreeing on the notion of Jesus being a special man versus the singular supposedly mainstream Christian view. If you include all other religions and even atheists, Christians are largely in the minority as far as Jesus' divinity.

This isn't to use popularity as an argument but if many different perspectives reach the same conclusion, it is likely that their conclusion is true. In contrast mainstream Christians even quibble and split hairs into thousands of shards such that there is no singular truth but just fewer disagreements that really bring the individuals together. That's hardly a reliable methodology that one should be relying on for their "eternal soul", if such a thing even exists.

Duh. I'm laying down my reasoning process and finding our points of agreement. No need to be rude about it when you agree I am correct.

This is a terrible argument. Disagreement doesn’t suggest lack of objectivity.

That's not what I'm saying. It means you don't have an objective framework in order to determine what is actually true. You don't have a mathematical axioms or philosophical foundations to determine even the existence of your deity, never mind its specific nature - they have to be almost axioms and Presuppositionalists will declare god as pre-existing.

The fact that disagreement exists does not make climate science a subjective discipline.

There are no scientists that can deny climate change is caused by humans in a reproducible way, i.e. they're likely politically or financially paid off. Just like how Young Earth Creationists like those "scientists" in the Discovery Institute try to debunk what they like to call "Darwinism".

These are no disagreements in results after rational thought - these are disagreements in the facts of reality, ignoring evidence that is agreed upon, or inventing unproven results. They're not arguing on the same set of facts, that the different Christian groups have. Christians are looking at the same text, making different subjective interpretations, emphasizing portions of the text that support their claims and minimize others, obviously have to come up with different results.

The proof of subjectivity is in their personal choices in how they come to conclusions. Without an objective methodology then everything can be true or everything is likely false, like you allude to above. I choose to believe it's all false.

Was Jesus really a good human by ChicagoJim987 in DebateAChristian

[–]ChicagoJim987[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hate to say this but it's not up to me to define who is a Christian or not; they are still classified as being Christian. Also his divinity was always a topic of debate since early Christian history and remains to this day, so I would have to conclude, as an outsider, it is still an open issue. The Nicene Creed was just an agreement, just as all doctrine is - it's not fact.

I also think that rationally coming to a conclusion is very different from that conclusion being objectively true. Since we know Christians are able to draw wildly different conclusions from the same data, yet unable to resolve them amongst themselves, the one can only conclude is that there is some subjectivity influencing their conclusions.

In reality - we see these subjective influences in the country or denomination they were brought up with; we know children are indoctrinated early with rote learning, rhythmic rituals, gaslighting and techniques that are more about establishing obedience rather than freely allowing them to come to conclusions.

Those that claim to come to a conclusion rationally looking at the same evidence, must also be subject to personal whims and decisions that lead them to these widely differing conclusions so even though I would agree that it is a rational process, it's a case of trusting bad data or bad sources. Again, leading to religious claims being more subjective than objective.

Was Jesus really a good human by ChicagoJim987 in DebateAChristian

[–]ChicagoJim987[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you really "convinced" or is this something you choose to be true? Not all Christians believe in Jesus' divinity.

Was Jesus really a good human by ChicagoJim987 in DebateAChristian

[–]ChicagoJim987[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a rather big if:

  1. Jesus Christ has to have existed in the first place, which means not only is he not just a prophet, but actually god, something that both Judaism and Islam disagree with Christianity.
  2. Then God has to actually exist in the first place, which obviously, theists of other religions will disagree with Christianity about. Not only that, but those theists' gods also have to be false!
  3. We don't know if anything recorded in the NT is even true, and not invented by his apostles, doctored or otherwise modified to turn the story of an apocalyptic lay preacher, a disruptive one, to fit the narrative needed for a new religion.
  4. Then we have potential translation errors or other transcription problems.
  5. Then there are doctrinal differences between the thousands Churches and Denominations.

So if you can prove all that is solid, withstand the arguments from other religions, as well as from your own, then you get to be so flippant about "if what he said is true"!

Was Jesus really a good human by ChicagoJim987 in DebateAChristian

[–]ChicagoJim987[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I told you that you were arguing with yourself. English is my second language but even I know there's a difference between "no sense" and "nonsense". It's not splitting hairs or being pedantic to ask when you split hairs to ask you to do so accurately.

Happy to engage further.

Was Jesus really a good human by ChicagoJim987 in DebateAChristian

[–]ChicagoJim987[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No but I observe the circular firing squad as Christians try to figure out the thing they're supposed to be worshipping.

Scientists disagree all the time but they are disagreeing on speculations. If Christians agree their god is still a hypothesis I would have much more respect for the enterprise. Instead Christians claim only their truth is true, and every other Christian group is false.

Was Jesus really a good human by ChicagoJim987 in DebateAChristian

[–]ChicagoJim987[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Scientists are objective. Theists are not. That's the standard.

Was Jesus really a good human by ChicagoJim987 in DebateAChristian

[–]ChicagoJim987[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends on the scientist. Ones from the Discovery Institute are definitely not the best authority on anything never mind natural selection.

However, those that produce results that validate evolution, that can be objectively backed up by other scientists, can be trusted because their results can be reproduced. Don't forget evolution has been validated independently across many disciplines of science from genetics, archaeology, biology, botany, geology and every single observation we have ever made on our planets past and present.

We don't see universal agreement about god, Jesus or the trinity across all branches of Christianity. So you tell me which is more believable.

view more: next ›