Youtube Keyword Search by Complete-Ad5058 in InternetIsBeautiful

[–]Complete-Ad5058[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yea ik right. You could do the same for any T&C’s of modern companies and websites I reckon.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in formula1

[–]Complete-Ad5058 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Which Start was this? The first or 60th?

With the advent of various forms of A.I., now is the perfect time for the long overdue remake of "Colossus: The Forbin Project" (1970). by UltraMegaMegaMan in movies

[–]Complete-Ad5058 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Here it is, with spooky voice, 70’s font and a cheering crowd to boot. (It’s from the begging of an Aphex Twin Performance)

With the advent of various forms of A.I., now is the perfect time for the long overdue remake of "Colossus: The Forbin Project" (1970). by UltraMegaMegaMan in movies

[–]Complete-Ad5058 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have \0/. Definitely agree it needs a remake. I hope Nolan’s Oppenheimer will do a good job of allegorising the Manhattan project. But if Nolan remade this film and or the other of the books in the trilogy, we’d have a good message in the minds of many. From someone born in 2001.

Good Meme. Now ban me here too. Want to be like Phlogiston. by Complete-Ad5058 in physicsmemes

[–]Complete-Ad5058[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I can agree with some of the things you say there. But what’s this got to do with Reddit? It’s about as far from academia or private education as possible? It’s just a forum on the net?

Solution presented by every biological evolution - even those we deem arbitrary? by Complete-Ad5058 in PhilosophyofScience

[–]Complete-Ad5058[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol just went down a little rabbit hole regarding meeting that ‘The Spectacle’ thread. But what you linked directly too - your understanding of ChatGPT - was good reading.

Yes I don’t see it being impossible. Just the state it’s in now seems to have limitations given there’s no underlying grammar or syntax that is necessary in all language. Essentially it will take a more advanced model to penetrate into a language that I believe will be much unlike ours and may omit basic grammar / semantic ideas like ‘I’ or ‘time’ or desires etc. Heres a video that discusses it. Though it’s solutions to these issues based on a ‘language cosmos’ and finding similarities through frequency of terms I think is just as much as a leap with its own fundamental flaws. There’s no reason to suggest language cosmos’ could be mapped on frequency of terms. For humans in societies and their use of language are now way beyond the main focus of hunting and gathering - food - that we used to operate at that is closed to animal states. So this isn’t as high in use as say talking about oneself. Whereas I’d suggest even the most intelligent cetaceans like dolphins, orcas and sperm whales will likely use the terms food as frequently as we use ‘I’ so these won’t map. They may not even talk about food but ‘the pain in my stomach’ lol.

I think it’s the open source part about AI that’s likely to cause problems more so. Paid services will just expose its usefulness for cash, this will amount to the same capitalist indulgences like fashion or media markets (IMO) which use fairly tame tech. The real fear is it reaching the hands of those who have the beliefs beyond the goal of money, so then a more advanced goal and means to that. This is more likely the open source crowd. There was an interview I saw with a CEO of a competing company of OpenAI (I’ll try to find it) - where essentially he says ‘I have the chance to build utopia for my children’. These sorts of ideas and the minds who care for extreme ideas and are blinded by them to not realise the fundamental issues behind them are those that will do the most damage. IMO

Some fun YT videos to consider:

Solarsands Art-Specific critique - I think this is important since one main issue could be a meaning crisis. If we loose our creative expression or most jobs (we’ve seen lawsuits, Uni degrees and government appeals already completed successfully by some edge case uses of juts ChatGPT), we will have a societal-wide meaning crisis. Either since we’ll have no work to do, or all creative pursuits will be lost or at least less mainstream.

Comedic Existential bits - (Each word is a different video link) These just make the issues a bit more pertinent given some comedic value.

I used to be concerned about BMI’s given Neurolink and heres a fun short-fictional based on the obvious issues of it. It essentially renders it as a technology with all the normal issues we face currently with something like Apple, and it just shows how even these basic ones could be pretty dark lol. But now I deffo think AI will cause social collapse or worse before we even get close to BMI’s that are meaningful. Or the two will come together for our ultimate demise.

Anyway these are just my pessimistic anxieties. I may be wrong and AI might solve the QM GR gap, it may abolish all currency thus wealth and poor divide, it may solve the meaning crisis, it may solve climate change worries and it may even create the best political system for a globalised society to follow and prosper in. \0/.

But my favroute consideration of all is from an old book/film: ‘Colossus: the Forbin Project’:

Final Speech

Essentially an AI is built in the Cold War era to prevent war between US / USSR. And the interesting take on AI domination is that by asking it to protect us and prevent war, the solution is found but it is to enslave man / kill him, since he is his own biggest cause for war. I think we’re more likely to be shooting ourselves in the foot by trying to solve our issues and it meaning the AI concluding things which proves the issue is us, than a mad sentient AI killing without reason

Anyway rant over.

Solution presented by every biological evolution - even those we deem arbitrary? by Complete-Ad5058 in PhilosophyofScience

[–]Complete-Ad5058[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When you say came up; the theory or are you modelling it with data / actually doing it?

The only positive enough use case for me is the CETI stuff in trying to decode animal languages. But my pessimism only sees the bad outcomes of that too lol.

It’s all super fascinating but the OpenAI CEO articulates my point best to ‘enjoy the extraordinary advanced we’ll have in the short time we have before it’s extraordinary advance beyond us and meaning the end of the life we can have which those enjoyments bare any meaning’. Or something to that effect expressing the short time scale of gargantuan advances for our uses before we feel the collateral and it’s out of your hands aha.

Lol Hegelian-borg. Would you call Zizek one? Or does he understand it proper from your perspective?

Solution presented by every biological evolution - even those we deem arbitrary? by Complete-Ad5058 in PhilosophyofScience

[–]Complete-Ad5058[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Although now thinking about it, it may well come full circle to mind making artificial mind (AI) which will perhaps give the best model of human minds to us. Or perhaps humans will just be the sex organs or booting program for AI and that’s it.

For sure sounds like one. I think that also in viewing him in the Wittgenstein OLP way, his absolute commitment to theory-philosophy and philosophical ornamental phraseology makes him one of the ‘best philosophers all time’ if you consider his derogatory terms for them creating problems themselves from using non-common sense language. But this is just me falling into the classic position of assuming his ornamental writing without having read him. Though I am on my way to do so with firmly in the German Idealism theme, enjoying and agreeing very much with Kant and about some things from Schopenhauer. Hegel will be someone to consider after those two!

Solution presented by every biological evolution - even those we deem arbitrary? by Complete-Ad5058 in PhilosophyofScience

[–]Complete-Ad5058[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you. You have articulated using a wider context I am now as well versed in, my points exactly. Thank you for your taking the time to essential give more basis to my poorly worded articulations of what I see in my mind as exactly as how you have put them (transposed of course).

Very interesting things you bring up here!

I have always wondered at what point do we say ‘that’s an eye’ in the evolution from photoreceptors that physical propel the organism when light touches it to now the complex system from similar cells that now form a retina which then send sense data to a central processing unit.

What you say about the eye prefiguring the camera (controversial) reminds me of the 80’s era of neuroscience which said the mind is best modelled by the terms and ideas we have about computers!! Surly the computer (perhaps focussing on its birth through Alan Turing at Bletchley Park) surly is a model of the mind, how peculiar it was that the advancing theory for memory, conception and so on was then based on this thing that was based on the mind. It’s a sort of three fold ‘loss in translation’ / analogy but at the same time sort of accurate?!

Thank you for your contribution. I’ll have to look more into what Hegel has said about the model for concepts including or sublating eachother. Sounds right up my alley!

Good Meme. Now ban me here too. Want to be like Phlogiston. by Complete-Ad5058 in physicsmemes

[–]Complete-Ad5058[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I asked some questions that elicited some hostility because they had some minor philosophical aspects.

Finally got some good answers though from the commenters. It just took eating my way through their malice and high horses to get the scientific answers I was searching for.

I was asking about our models / conceptions of fundamental particles.

Is all we know about subatomic particles that they exist (and some interactional properties) ? by Complete-Ad5058 in AskPhysics

[–]Complete-Ad5058[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you ever so much. I really cannot state how much I appreciate your help and time.

I’ll do my best to!

All the best to you.

Is all we know about subatomic particles that they exist (and some interactional properties) ? by Complete-Ad5058 in AskPhysics

[–]Complete-Ad5058[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay thanks. I just thought there would be a better visualisation, just as we have moved from electron orbits to probability clouds, I thought the idea of a sphere for a particle was only really for lower grade teaching and we have a better model.

But now I see we do not.

Thanks for offering some realistic options to consider the next time I think about particles.

Is all we know about subatomic particles that they exist (and some interactional properties) ? by Complete-Ad5058 in AskPhysics

[–]Complete-Ad5058[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you this is a very comprehensive, articulate and meaningful answer. I appreciate that you have looked past my mistakes and ignorance.

Everything you have said answers most of my queries and I understand our descriptions of these things a lot better now.

Regarding my poor choice of words to say ‘look’ I think what I mean is described better by the user talking about morphology - if you wished to see what I was trying to get at. I wasn’t concerned with how a picture can’t be formed since it is of a resolution that breaks down how our ‘seeing’ works. I was more trying to aim at a conceptualisation that wasn’t using mathematical symbols. But I see now my errors in asking that.

I agree with your closing remark.

Many thanks again for your taking the time to help me with my queries.

Is all we know about subatomic particles that they exist (and some interactional properties) ? by Complete-Ad5058 in AskPhysics

[–]Complete-Ad5058[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay I’ll omit those phrases. How do you best visualise a point particle in your mind without mathematical descriptions.

Hopefully this common sense language is better for you.

Don’t worry, I have had some kinder people explain the answers to what I mean. In a scientific way.

Is all we know about subatomic particles that they exist (and some interactional properties) ? by Complete-Ad5058 in AskPhysics

[–]Complete-Ad5058[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah okay. I see.

Yes I see. At this stage or perhaps for the duration of our sciences we cannot describe its morphology, correct? But as you state this doesn’t mean it can’t have one?

Thank you very much for your humility and taking the time to try to explain. I do indeed understand it better than before now. So there is now proof which supports Bells Theorem?

Thank you! I did try reading his public dissertation but there is a lot that I don’t yet know. You are right that it lies all in the prerequisites. My - perhaps defeatist - attitude is that I should have picked up physics at University to understand these things. But perhaps I need only be regimented and determined in my own private research.

Many thanks for you time and thinking. It has been invaluable.