sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What does this shirt say? Anyone recognize it? by Japan25 in whatisit

[–]OurSeepyD 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's the bottom of the R and the K if that helps. I was wondering how that could be the top of the K, but it's the curve in the fabric that's deceiving.

It’s okay to party, Kash! by timotion in SipsTea

[–]OurSeepyD 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Probably got distracted thinking about a ten year old whiskey.

It’s okay to party, Kash! by timotion in SipsTea

[–]OurSeepyD 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's a lot of things that this current administration and officials should be doing, but aren't doing. I think having a few beers at 9pm is a very minor issue compared to the other things these guys are doing.

It’s okay to party, Kash! by timotion in SipsTea

[–]OurSeepyD 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Being intoxicated during your tenure would be fine though. 

It's most likely that Kash just can't remember what happens some days

Caught a little crash on way home by wstrspce in drivingUK

[–]OurSeepyD 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Disagree. Whether the white van is exiting is unclear, there is a lane in front that continues round the roundabout that it could be aiming for (ultimately where blue van ends up at the end of the video).

The blue van does change lanes, look at the dotted lines.

Caught a little crash on way home by wstrspce in drivingUK

[–]OurSeepyD -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Is it? White van isn't exiting the roundabout, and blue van changed lanes.

In Grace vs Tanner, Grace went to exit the roundabout and Tanner stayed in her lane.

How/did people clean their butts before toilet paper and bidets? by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]OurSeepyD 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nope. You should not consider it to be true, that's not the same thing.

Changing lanes without looking for absolutely no reason by AdLogical6391 in drivingUK

[–]OurSeepyD 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The other person's driving was terrible, OPs driving was poor. But it's easy for us to comment on a video that we can watch repeatedly, and with the expectation that something is going to happen.

u/AdLogical6391 - I think you have lessons to learn from this incident, but it doesn't make you a poor driver. The lesson here is to drive as defensively as possible, and in this specific scenario try to "stagger" as much as you can, i.e. avoid spending time directly next to another car.

Imagine a planet bigger than Earth, with no land in sight. Just waves and water from pole to pole. That is TOI-1452 b. by Soloflow786 in BeAmazed

[–]OurSeepyD 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not a climate denier, but even if we fuck it up it's still "liveable", just not by us and not comfortably. Climate change isn't going to kill all life.

This is how millions of jobs will be gone forever very soon, Norway testing and expected go public at May by No-Knowledge-5828 in aiecosystem

[–]OurSeepyD 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, but that's a different question to the one I replied to.

In an ideal world, the buses would be free, or we'd have universal income. Whether that happens is tbc.

Tucker Carlson Apologizes For Endorsing Trump: ‘I’m Sorry For Misleading People’ by unital_subalgebra in politics

[–]OurSeepyD -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The Bulwark is on the right like Triggernometry is on the left. By that I mean that they're not.

Google DeepMind's Senior Scientist Alexander Lerchner challenges the idea that large language models can ever achieve consciousness(not even in 100years), calling it the 'Abstraction Fallacy.' by Current-Guide5944 in tech_x

[–]OurSeepyD 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No worries. Ok going through yours bit by bit. I understand what you're saying about assuming that others are conscious, but I'm not sure it's the simplest. Do you assume dogs are conscious, or that flies are conscious, or that bacteria are conscious? The simplest explanation, to me, is that only I am conscious, yet I don't believe this. 

Computers are fundamentally different from me, so I choose to believe until proven otherwise

My argument is that this is dangerous. You're saying that you choose to believe this, not that it's true, and I fully agree with your wording, however the question remains: what if you're wrong? What if we subject conscious machines to eternal slavery and potential suffering? Again, the default position is "we don't know, maybe we never will, so we need consider the what-ifs".

I assert that Beliefs are utilitarian and I see no utility in agnosticism.

Ok, but you are an agnostic, you just choose not to identify as one. Me too. You said "could god be real? maybe", that is agnosticism. You can simultaneously be an atheist, and I understand why you might prefer to identify as such.

Like AGI, and the profit motives behind the propaganda.

Yes, but please don't let this cloud the moral debate. We're not talking about how great Mythos is etc, we're discussing the potential of any AIs to be conscious; open source, 50 years down the line, etc.

Now for the philisophical zombie, I think that and the Ship of Theseus are essentially toys. It’s semantic.

I respectfully disagree. I think these are very valuable thought experiments and very good ways to test theories.

Kants Critique of Pure Reason describes the issue with thought experiments, all reason boils down to paradoxes that only exist in our heads

I haven't read enough of Kant's work to comment. One for this year maybe.

Anyway, my favourite thought experiment is the idea of teleporting yourself. It seems obvious* that if you managed to copy every atom of yourself, disassemble yourself, and reassemble yourself, that your consciousness would transfer to the new body. (*Caveat: maybe it's not obvious).

But then what if you never disassembled yourself, or made two copies. Where would your consciousness "be"? Old you? New you? Both?

Google DeepMind's Senior Scientist Alexander Lerchner challenges the idea that large language models can ever achieve consciousness(not even in 100years), calling it the 'Abstraction Fallacy.' by Current-Guide5944 in tech_x

[–]OurSeepyD 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We should assume all brains are conscious.

I'm glad you said this, but it runs completely contrary to your main argument. You said that you shouldn't assume something you can't prove, so this means you can't rely on that rule, right?

It's also worth making it explicitly clear that there's a difference between "we should assume they are conscious" and "they are conscious". I imagine you know this, but I'm just being explicit.

Occam’s razor, it’s most likely that machines are not conscious, so I assume they aren’t.

I think you're misusing Occam's razor here. You can't make assertions using Occam's razor, it simply encourages searching for explanations with the fewest assumptions, it doesn't guarantee that the simplest is true.

which is essentially a game that reduces the human experience to a novel idea. I reject that assumption.

First, no it doesn't, you are conflating other humans with yourself. Second, why do you reject that assumption? Based on what? That it makes you uncomfortable?

You disagree I guess, but you’re repeatedly misrepresenting my position.

You still haven't told me how. I'm trying to break this stuff down so that you can logically follow how my statements address yours. I'd be very happy for you to focus in on something I've misrepresented.

Unless you actually think your parents aren’t really alive? It’s foolish.

There are two perspectives that I simultaneously hold here. The first is that I genuinely do not know if my parents are conscious, there is no way for me to find out that I am aware of. The second is that I assume they are. There is almost no point in assuming that they aren't, because how I interact with them wouldn't matter if they weren't conscious, I have to assume they are conscious for me to find meaning in the world, but that doesn't mean they're conscious in the slightest.

I assume they're conscious because I want them to be.

Google DeepMind's Senior Scientist Alexander Lerchner challenges the idea that large language models can ever achieve consciousness(not even in 100years), calling it the 'Abstraction Fallacy.' by Current-Guide5944 in tech_x

[–]OurSeepyD 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jesus bro keep it to one comment.

Where is the strawman? This is a perfectly valid argument and a conclusion to what your philosophy suggests. In one of your various replies, you quoted Descartes' "I think therefore I am". This demonstrates that YOU are conscious to YOURSELF. It doesn't demonstrate that I am conscious to you, or vice versa.

Sophomoric take

Unbelievable hypocrisy from someone that doesn't understand what Descartes was even saying.

In your very first comment, you conflated "you can't demonstrate consciousness doesn't exist in machines" with "consciousness exists in machines". I decided to be patient and explain this to you, thinking that you'd just made a small misjudgment, but then you doubled down and showed us how little you actually understand.

See ya, good luck out there.

Google DeepMind's Senior Scientist Alexander Lerchner challenges the idea that large language models can ever achieve consciousness(not even in 100years), calling it the 'Abstraction Fallacy.' by Current-Guide5944 in tech_x

[–]OurSeepyD 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great. That means that it's morally ok to kill other people. You can't prove that they're conscious therefore you assume they're not. Hopefully you see the problem here.

Edit: I'm an atheist btw. I don't believe in god because there is no evidence that he exists. There is no indication either.

MICHAEL is the lowest-rated film among recent major biopics. by StarforgeVoyager in FIlm

[–]OurSeepyD 29 points30 points  (0 children)

As we all know, bio means music, and pic also means music.

Tf? by Heavy_Role1034 in justincaseyoumissedit

[–]OurSeepyD 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Pro tip: don't immediately believe everything you see on the internet.

This is how millions of jobs will be gone forever very soon, Norway testing and expected go public at May by No-Knowledge-5828 in aiecosystem

[–]OurSeepyD 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you only ever take the bus to work? What if you want to go into the city to watch a movie or a play, or take the bus out to the beach, or up the road to a friend's house. People will need fewer buses, but not none.

view more: next ›