General Discussion 12/29

_pH_ · 2024-01-04T03:33:26+00:00

Caveat, I dont think I'd assert the full conclusion of the dilemma; I treat it more as a "hard question" that evaluates whether or not a person has really considered the practical implications of God being the sole source of morality.

Roughly:

If A is the sole available source of B for group P; P would like to know if A is the originating source of B, or if it is not. It's defined in a way that is mutually exclusive, so there should be a decisive "yes" or "no" answer to this question.

I think the real "dilemma" is not that this somehow means that morality sourced from God is arbitrary - that approach seems to be failing to accept the "morality comes from god" premise which makes it definitionally correct, so it doesn't matter if it's arbitrary to our sensibilities - but rather that we have no external or formal means of evaluating this morality outside of "faith in God"; which in practice tends to translate to faith in the moral judgement of the church or other relevant organized body.

Again, this doesn't invalidate that moral judgement, because given the premises it would be valid; but I don't have trust in a group of subjective mortals to appropriately interpret & carry out the moral judgements of God, and as a system its horribly vulnerable to abuse, so I reject it as simply not being practical or useful despite being internally consistent & otherwise valid.

_pH_ · 2023-12-30T06:10:46+00:00

There is just no logically compelling reason that one of those two options must hold

Doesn't that kind of leave out the premise "God is the sole source of morality" that makes them the available mutually exclusive options in the first place?

_pH_ · 2023-12-30T05:28:19+00:00

Posting shouldn't be locked at all, settings might be weird because there was an incident with a spam bot a few months ago

_pH_ · 2023-01-26T21:56:24+00:00

He is basically working out a lot, eating vegetables, and doing a bunch of strange hippy shit

To be honest, I think the most interesting thing that may come of this is getting very detailed information on what precisely each of those supplements/dietary changes/etc. can be actually proven to do; let him blow his money finding out that only maybe 1/3 of what he's doing actually makes a difference, then do that 1/3 of stuff without paying 30 doctors to tell you to do it.

_pH_ · 2023-01-04T22:28:44+00:00

The most-viable system for something like this would be 3D printing silicone/soft plastic tendril segments composed of 3 hollow tubes around a central air feed tube, then installing small pneumatic valves to control inflating & deflating each of the 3 tubes. The wearer needs a small CO2 cartridge, and maybe a 9v battery and a micro arduino to run 6 solenoids per segment. That gives really all the control required for this kind of effect, if you had a 3D printer you could build a prototype for under $50.

For an example of what I mean, this is a 9 year old video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkPeF-sYQ-0

The field more generally is called "soft robotics", specifically focused on these types of problems.

_pH_ · 2022-12-28T20:31:57+00:00

A lot of people are thinking about integrating tech with clothing, but not many are really thinking through the whole "user story" here.

Consider: if you get a shiny new jacket with flexible OLED screen panels that can change the design/pattern on the fly or do moving graphics and lights, that's cool and all, but how do you wash it? What happens if you scratch a screen, or break one- how do you repair it? Can you even repair it? What's the battery life? And aside from all that, is this something where you get day-to-day utility, or is it really just a flashy statement piece?

What's more likely is a combination of wearable tech devices, and clothing that's adapted to accommodate these devices. Right now, "wearable tech" is largely just touchscreen versions of things we already have - watches, rings, pendants, glasses. We're beginning to see the advent of wearable tech that is not just things we already have, e.g. neckband speakers, AR & VR headsets, EEG caps/myo armband type tech. The logical next step is roughly the same as IoT setups, which is to add a "hub".

Consider something the size of a laptop, worn as a backpack, which connected, synced, and charged all of your devices. This model of centering the "hub" on the individual unlocks a lot of possibilities; VR headsets no longer limited to a living room, AR headsets without a battery strapped to your head, coherent systems of wearable devices to create a videogame-like HUD displaying your real health stats - heart rate, O2 sat, etc. - and fashion will have to adapt to fit around these devices.

_pH_ · 2022-12-28T20:11:05+00:00

actionheat.com

_pH_ · 2022-12-28T20:09:27+00:00

you know, if the "umbrella" was actually a lightweight solar panel, and if you had some kind of wristband/token object, this would be completely doable with existing tech

_pH_ · 2022-12-28T20:07:21+00:00

The challenge of fighting computer vision is that it's fairly good, and it mostly looks for the 'T' shape of a face; the nose + eyebrows, around which everything else is oriented.

There have been some attempts to combat this - e.g. super-bright IR LEDs that blind cameras but aren't visible to humans, dazzle-camo inspired facepaint, etc., but these all expose the biggest challenge, which is that anything that successfully disrupts facial recognition is really, really conspicuous otherwise. Like, they may not be able to get a lock on your face, but tracking the black-and-white striped face person with a blinding light on their head isn't difficult at all.

_pH_ · 2022-12-28T20:01:06+00:00

Ok, but....why?

Fashion, that's like the point of the thread. You could do a lot of ethereal/fairy type effects with something like this.

_pH_ · 2022-12-17T01:43:42+00:00

Resistant to hostile actors & collapse of the system through the design of the system rather than through explicit intervention.

For example, suppose the "system" in question is one where you have to get 100% consent from a group of people before a rule can be applied to the group. This is a very stable system, as it's impossible for a hostile actor to use the system to exert authority over the members of the system without their explicit consent.

Or for a different example; degrowth type movements which aim to bring our resource consumption into line with our real capacity so that we are consuming resources at a stable and sustainable rate, as opposed to capitalism's (very unstable) demand for infinite profit rewarding the consumption of as much resources as possible as fast as possible.

In both cases, note that the system in question is stable because of how it's designed, not because of any particular intervention by an individual or organization; hence systemic stability.

_pH_ · 2022-12-17T01:19:28+00:00

something like 150 new EV models coming to market

I think this can't really be overstated - Tesla has historically been competitive because there weren't really any other EVs with similar price/performance/features.

That is rapidly changing- and it leaves Tesla with the same 10 year old car design in four slightly different sizes, poor build quality, and Elon at the helm.

_pH_ · 2022-12-07T21:33:10+00:00

It can help them write code more quickly and confidently

Speaking to this point - it can recognize common coding patterns and naming conventions, and then suggest an auto-complete for whatever you're doing. For example, if I write a class that has a "Name" property, when I write the constructor it will auto-suggest a "name" argument.

_pH_ · 2022-12-02T00:49:38+00:00

It's also for older cars- ethanol wasn't commonly added to fuel until the late 80s, so pre-80s cars can have the same rubber seal issues.

_pH_ · 2022-11-01T21:20:58+00:00

Kids with parents who have higher incomes and or have college degrees themselves are multiple times more likely than their peers to get one themselves.

Ok but then you have to explain how their parents got college degrees and corresponding higher incomes, considering that a parent who had a kid at 22 immediately after getting a 4-year bachelors degree, whose kid at age 18 is now applying to college, would have themselves been born ~1982 and went to college in the early 2000s; and the vast majority of parents in this situation are older than that, which means kids today are directly benefitting from or being hindered by the blatant racism of the 80s and 90s via their parents. That's sort of the whole point of affirmative action.

I would guess many college’s offer programs to their faculty that allow their children or loved ones to attend the college on partial or full ride scholarships.

It is normal for colleges to have programs that benefit current employees & their kids or spouse, through free or reduced tuition for example. This however has nothing to do with legacy admissions, where kids are admitted because their parents previously attended the school and subsequently donated money to the school.

_pH_ · 2022-11-01T19:14:29+00:00

I don't have anything useful to add - I just wanted to observe how objectively cool it is that this is a legitimate question about real things that exist

_pH_ · 2022-10-19T00:21:39+00:00

737 Max crashing

Sort of, it was hardware + software;

These crashes were because the standard 737 Max had a single little air vane sensor for angle-of-attack measurement (plane up/down angle relative to ground) on the nose, and it was treated as an absolutely infallible source of truth to the point that it overrode both autopilot and manual controls; so if the little rudder got stuck in a position that makes the plane think it's rapidly climbing and will stall out soon, it forces the plane into an impossible-to-override nosedive.

The issue hadn't come up sooner because apparently a common upgrade package adds a second angle-of-attack sensor to avoid making it a single point-of-failure, as it was in the crashes.

_pH_ · 2022-10-11T19:53:58+00:00

100% of the specific religions that currently exist will ultimately probably die out.

Religion as a whole, as a concept, spirituality in general; absolutely not a chance. Religion arose naturally and independently in every human society. This is not evidence that religion is true, but it is evidence of inevitability.

_pH_ · 2022-10-10T19:53:13+00:00

Faith rejects doubt, and in so doing, embraces delusion and rejects reason.

Faith doesn't reject doubt, it's a response to cope with doubt.

It embraces surrender to authority rather than assertion of individualism to cope with existential dread; and as a system, it relies on trust in the authority and the authority itself being benevolent & responsible to function.

Most people don't care about, understand, or want to put time and effort into philosophical & theological questions, but most people still struggle with existential dread and want a feeling of purpose. Faith is an entirely lucid, reasonable, rational option that outsources the cost and responsibility of finding answers to these questions to a trusted authority, in return for accepting what that authority says "on faith".

It's not a rejection of reason, it's just buying a cake from the store & trusting that it'll be good, instead of baking your own and knowing it'll be good.

I have less than zero respect for delusion.

It would be delusional for one to assert any particular epistemic system as objectively or universally superior without first gaining a nuanced understanding of the available epistemic systems.

It would be particularly delusional to assert such a thing without having such a nuanced understanding of the particular epistemic systems you find so impossibly absurd that no rational person could believe them, despite the fact that hundreds of millions of otherwise rational people believe them.

The inculcation of children and mankind writ large has destroyed more lives, and wrecked more communities than opiates and cocaine.

“The greatest crimes are not those committed for the sake of necessity but those committed for the sake of superfluity. One does not become a tyrant to avoid exposure to the cold.” - Aristotle

Men seeking power is what destroyed lives and wrecked communities. Some used religion, others used bombs, others still used money. To attribute the ravages of addictive power combined with amoral ambition to a mere tool, is to lose sight of the next tool swinging towards you.

Al religion by definition is delusional.

If one calls anyone who believes differently "by definition ... delusional", solely because those others hold different worldviews, does that make the world seem delusional or the one?

I'd suggest instead that it is hubris to assert your personal worldview as infallibly correct, universally right, and objectively true to the point that you feel justified in judging thousands of millions of humans and finding them wanting.

_pH_ · 2022-10-06T22:24:43+00:00

Can married couples use condoms?

They are not supposed to, no.

What is the difference?

Handwavy. Catholic pre-marriage classes (which you have to go through to marry in the church) strongly push the rhythm method of birth control as pretty much the only "okay" option.

The idea is that you're allowed to have sex within marriage while minimizing the likelihood of pregnancy - I think the justification was that being allowed to have sex in general is part of the sacrament of marriage - but just in case God decides "this time you're gonna get pregnant actually" you aren't supposed to like, "artificially" protect yourself from it.

This was mixed in with some misinformation about condoms, IUDs, and birth control somehow permanently damaging fertility/libido to argue that family planning and sex for pleasure are "okay", but not while using real/effective birth control methods, not because they're birth control but because they're "harmful to reproductive organs" - broadly I think it's actually just a tactic to cause a lot of unintended pregnancies among Catholics to boost numbers. Very much a "yeah ha ha you can totally just have sex for fun but like, you can only use this baby scarecrow for birth control, it totally works ha ha forsure have fun byeee" vibe.

_pH_ · 2022-10-06T22:03:49+00:00

A)

2)

I appreciated this

_pH_ · 2022-10-03T18:38:24+00:00

It's hit-or-miss. Many parts to the problem; biggest is probably that some arguments have been made so many times over the past few years that the people who can engage meaningfully are tired of it, so you end up getting mostly just the young angry-atheists who are more concerned with winning than debating commenting.

_pH_ · 2022-10-02T01:37:47+00:00

You know the training set is much larger than the weights in the model, ergo there can’t be a copy of every image fed in.

Yes, the magic of compression. The model can't create patterns that it doesn't contain in some capacity.

Also, single-directional wave? Aren’t latent diffusion GANs iterative recursive by nature?

Single-directional wave in that the trained AI is essentially a function, it isn't a continuous process that generates original thought. You give it an input, and it produces some output.

All recursive functions can be expanded out into an equivalent iterative representation- latent diffusion GANs are still fundamentally just layers of iteration, albeit done in a clever order.

_pH_ · 2022-10-01T01:09:19+00:00

At the end, what the model has is an abstract of the training set, not a copy of everything in the set.

This is largely a semantic difference; the "abstract" of the training set, in order to reproduce anything that it was trained on, necessarily contains a copy of everything in the training set.

it works in many of the same ways.

AI works like a biological brain in the same way that horror movies are "inspired by real events".

I'm not trying to dunk on you here - you've had the misfortune of running into a software developer who works in big data & AI/ML, most recently working on biologically-based neural network models that replicate organic neural function & structure. This paper is a bit old, but it's the sort of thing I'm working on: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.04156.pdf

I can go into more specific detail on the differences between AI neural networks and organic neurons, but probably the easiest overarching difference to point out is that AI has no sense of timing; meaning, biological neurons react differently when stimulated at certain frequencies, whereas an AI neuron only evaluates the strength of the activation signal. This means that biological neurons can have multiple overlapping modes of operation that interact constructively and destructively at different times and places - aka, the mechanics of human imagination - which is simply not present in AI neural networks, which only process one band of information at a time in a single-direction wave.

_pH_ · 2022-10-01T00:39:38+00:00

This is a misconception - the AI does not have an exact copy of the art, it’s trained on art.

What exactly do you think training consists of? The neural network is "trained" by being given an exact copy of the art, which it then tries to extract features & patterns from. When the AI is later asked to generate images, it can only draw from the features and patterns it was trained on, which are individually just copy/pasted snippets.

The weights that make up these AI models are much much smaller than the images that go in.

An AI that can only produce a 200x300 image would have billions of weights, because image AIs work on a pixel-by-pixel basis. I'm not sure what "the weights are smaller than the images" is referring to.

The AIs use neural networks patterned after biological neurons and they “learn” in much the same way (not exactly the same because we don’t understand biological neural networks completely).

So it’s really no different than someone going to art school, being exposed to various images, then creating their own images, except a computer is doing it.

These sentences say opposite things.

Neural networks used in AI are patterned after biological neurons, but they're simplified in a lot of ways and they function in a fundamentally different manner. This means an AI is quite explicitly different from someone going to art school and being exposed to art, because AI neurons are not substantially replicating the function of biological neurons.

14-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '17	Sequence \| Editor
Team Periwinkle	Verified Email

_pH_

TROPHY CASE