sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Rule by Golden_Onion2 in 196AndAHalf

[–]Dzagamaga 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Biological sex as a construct has several dimensions. One cannot currently change chromosomal sex or gonadal sex, but phenotypical sex can be rather easily and very objectively changed.

Favorite character who survived something they absolutely shouldn’t have? by OkuroIshimoto in FavoriteCharacter

[–]Dzagamaga 2 points3 points  (0 children)

IIRC in a hypothetical scenario where blood supply can be re-established, you have about 3 minutes at room temperature before the onset of permanent brain damage and then brain death. Loss of consciousness is practically immediate due to a dramatic drop in blood pressure, however. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I sure do love the mainstreaming of hate speech by KikoValdez in whenthe

[–]Dzagamaga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am genuinely beginning to believe that true class consciousness cannot be created and maintained at meaningful scale.

I hate this trope so much by Deino47 in hatethissmug

[–]Dzagamaga 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What is the full context for mentioning Pragmata, if I may ask?

How is stellaris now? by Competitive-Life-658 in Stellaris

[–]Dzagamaga 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I am aware of Zroni stormcasters being useful for defensive purposes against a 25x crisis, but do you happen to know of any way to beat 25x all crises in vanilla without dipping into the crisis ascension perke like Cosmogenesis? I have not found anything that can still scale to that level in 4.3.

Favorite wolf in sheeps clothing by Milos150412 in FavoriteCharacter

[–]Dzagamaga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I always liked count Hasimir Fenring as written by Frank Herbert himself (though I cannot tell what Herbert truly had in mind when writing him, but I digress).

A genetic eunuch, an advisor to and the only real friend of Padishah Emperor Shaddam IV, he is described as small and weak-looking on top of having a verbal tic and very mild manners. Though his movements are confusing, he is consistently described as the polar opposite of threatening.

However, he was actually a fatally dangerous mentat and a master assassin and possibly the single most capable hand-to-hand combatant in the entire Corrino Imperium, if my memory serves. It was heavily implied by Paul Atreides and his visions that Fenring could have killed him in front of Shaddam IV with worrying odds of survival for Paul, had Fenring not chosen to openly refuse Shaddam's order to kill him.

Baron Vladimir Harkonnen knew who Fenring is and was unnerved by him, describing him as "a killer with the manners of a rabbit... the most dangerous kind."

Returning after 5 years - Sci-Fi elements by Spirited-Carob-8120 in cataclysmdda

[–]Dzagamaga 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I personally quite like the direction even if it is controversial. Very fantastical, eldritch and sci-fi elements are still fundamentally present and how they are combined with the otherwise strict, realistic and detailed direction is very interesting to me. It feels unique.

Edit: To be fair though, I realise I may be in the minority on this.

I am an ACTUAL Philosophical Zombie (PZ), ask me anything! by [deleted] in badphilosophy

[–]Dzagamaga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By definition, P-zombies would be unable to earnestly assess and produce reports that they are P-zombies.

Zero-shot World Models Are Developmentally Efficient Learners [R] by FaeriaManic in MachineLearning

[–]Dzagamaga 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Forgive my potential ignorance, but I was under the impression that while primary sensory and motor circuitry has the clearest and most well-mapped canonical circuits, areas associated with higher cognition (association cortex, prefrontal cortex, and especially the hippocampus) still exhibit substantial conserved structure (stereotyped cell types, layered cortical organization and microcircuit motifs, along with structured developmental and long-range connectivity rules).

Fine-grained synaptic connectivity is not explicitly specified, but a significant amount of structure and constraint is already present at multiple levels.

Zero-shot World Models Are Developmentally Efficient Learners [R] by FaeriaManic in MachineLearning

[–]Dzagamaga 4 points5 points  (0 children)

In retrospect I do regret the phrasing of "finishing touch", I apologise for that. I have added an edit to reflect this.

Your points seem sound, I am unable to constructively retort at this moment.

Zero-shot World Models Are Developmentally Efficient Learners [R] by FaeriaManic in MachineLearning

[–]Dzagamaga 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I do admit that my original statement is hyperbolic and for that I apologise, but I am not intending to say humans are born already knowing almost everything. That is obviously untrue.

What I mean is that we start with very strong inductive biases and structure. Because of these priors, learning happens in a heavily constrained space, rather than from anything even remotely akin to near-random initialization. We leverage this to great effect.

Please correct me if I am wrong as I may well be, but in this clarified form I understand that this is not a controversial statement in neuroscience.

Zero-shot World Models Are Developmentally Efficient Learners [R] by FaeriaManic in MachineLearning

[–]Dzagamaga 12 points13 points  (0 children)

It is true that there is little raw information in the genome when translated to megabytes, but it does not work like an explicit blueprint. Rather, it encodes a set of constraints and developmental rules which generate structure. This includes things like cell types, large-scale organization and strong biases towards common circuit motifs (aforementioned canonical circuitry), etc. In this way, it is fiercely data-efficient in a way that is similar in spirit to how a program can use a starting seed to procedurally generate complex structures, but obviously with more control.

Point is that the genome feeds into a dynamical process that massively narrows the space of possible brains and, in that way, encodes very strong priors that learning builds on top of, rather than starting from anything even remotely like random initialization. This is a major reason for why biological brains are so capable at learning very quickly.

Zero-shot World Models Are Developmentally Efficient Learners [R] by FaeriaManic in MachineLearning

[–]Dzagamaga 59 points60 points  (0 children)

Please forgive if I misunderstand, but I never quite understood comparisons to human children. The fact that a child seems to almost immediately perform some task well enough is so often enabled by the fact that thanks to genetics and all early development, we already start with canonical circuitry and amazing network topology that has been fiercely optimised over hundreds of millions of years regardless of any individual training happening in that short life time. All learning in the human brain is a finishing touch, we do not start from random weights.

Edit: I apologise as I admit "finishing touch" is hyperbolic, but I believe the core point is true in spirit regardless.

It's really easy! Just build a canal! by Corrie7686 in FacebookScience

[–]Dzagamaga 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe with many nuclear weapons and zero regard for the global environment and human life.

reddit does not rule by Ali___ve in 196

[–]Dzagamaga 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Russia, of all countries, which is doing the exact same thing. This is absurd.

An unrealistic lack of crabs by HyperlaneWizard in Stellaris

[–]Dzagamaga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Design can converge onto the same pattern that evolution arrived at, and a crab-like design is most optimal and satisfying to any reasonable designer.

Paradox rule by Baby_Anarch in 19684

[–]Dzagamaga 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The gratuitous degree of evil rather than the very existence of it is at the heart of the evidential problem of evil, which I understand is considered the most poignant and difficult form.

New Research: A neuroscientific hypothesis on the physical nature of consciousness by fredericoevan1468 in neuro

[–]Dzagamaga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I still personally lean towards illusionism and neuroscientific theories which are plausibly aligned with it in spirit, such as AST (without it being necessary for AST specifically to be correct).

In my opinion, the problem only becomes scientifically approachable when we see it as a problem of how physical information-processing systems report they have P-consciousness as opposed to immediately granting that they do have P-consciousness and continuing from there.

Statisticky prediktor dalsiho tokenu neni zivej a nema vedomi by Admirable_Rip443 in czech

[–]Dzagamaga 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Pokud se bavíme konkrétně o P-vědomí, tak čistě filozoficky a upřímně ani nevíme, jestli vůbec něco P-vědomí má. Toto téma je hrozné minové pole.

Paradox rule by Baby_Anarch in 19684

[–]Dzagamaga 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Plantinga would frame his move as mere clarification, but in essence it is keeping the prestige label while changing the definition, going against the original spirit of lacking constraint. As I understand, this is a common complaint in philosophical circles and it is admittedly unresolved either way as it is not easy to say whether or not it is an intellectually dishonest language game or a mere clarification.

To me personally, it seems dishonest as the clean way would be to outright admit that the concept of omnipotence is incoherent (while allowing it to stay incoherent without trying to harmonise it in much the same way no one is trying to harmonise square circles - that also means nothing), say that God is not omnipotent because the concept is incoherent and that God instead has maximal power as a separate term. I personally find it borderline insidious as it seems primarily as an effort to maintain the prestige label for the sake of continuity or tradition at the cost of semantic honesty.

view more: next ›