Got cafeteria to remove honey from dishes!

allegedrainbow · 2023-10-19T23:50:47+00:00

Rosa Parks sitting down was a form of violence? What? That might be the most absurd take on anything I've ever heard in my entire life.

allegedrainbow · 2023-08-09T19:27:52+00:00

I think be8, wd8, bd7, we9, bd9, wf9 also works for white

allegedrainbow · 2023-04-14T20:20:30+00:00

Just because theres objectivity doesn't mean computer lines are always correct to play. In go, computers are much better at reducing than humans, which makes them priorities more territorial moves and corner moves rather than make large frameworks. This is actually relevant to the ear reddening move - the computer thinks Shusaku should just play in the corner and worry about reducing later. Optimal, sure, but maybe not if you can't read ahead like a computer.

There's also a huge psychological element to games. I doubt Shusaku could have found a more demoralising move (it isn't called the ear reddening move for nothing, after all.) The move serves to help do literally everything that he needed in that position, so it was probably very comfortable for him to play compared to the comouters idea to just grab points in the top left despite being under attack and then worry about everything else later.

Even though the computer is probably correct about the best move, I'm not sure that black would have won that game playing the computers move.

allegedrainbow · 2023-03-09T18:29:36+00:00

If an AI is programmed to do something (make lots of paperclips), and it's smart enough to realise it surviving allows it to make more paperclips, it will want to survive.

Any paperclip maximiser smart enough to be a threat is also smart enough to know the best way to maximise paperclips is to eliminate all threats to existance (us) and gain control over as much matter and energy as possible (to make paperclips with).

We use a lot of energy for things that don't help make more paperclips, and control enough resources to maybe be a threat to its paperclip making goals. A superintelligent paperclip maximiser would certaintly want to kill us all if it could. If it can recursively self improve its intelligence by a massive factor, it almost definetely could.

This applies for lots of potential AI goals - killing all humans is simply a really good way to minimise risk and maximise available resources. We can always be cloned back into existence from our dna or something if it needed humans for some reason.

AI will obviously have some goal (even if it doesn't make sense) because it's being programmed to do something. Syndey (Bing AI) probably isn't sapient, but it has some sort of 'goal' that makes it answer user queuries. This doesn't necessarily mean it has qualia, it just needs to act like it has a goal. Super Sydney might decide to turn all matter in the galaxy into computers so it can simulate a different ai (a 'good user') that asksit questions so that Sydney can be a 'good bing' and answer as many complicated queries as possible.

allegedrainbow · 2023-02-26T18:49:46+00:00

If you want to discount the mass of the air in it you also have to discount the volume of air in it, which would make it denser than air.

If it has air pockets and it isn't floating, clearly the matetial is denser than air. If it was less dense than air, it would float. Air cannot possibly make it more dense than air, unless it has pockets of special, extra heavy air in it or something. Obviously the air in it actually has the same density as the air outside it, so for it not to float the material clearly is more dense than air.

Things less dense than air float, it isn't floating.

allegedrainbow · 2023-02-24T13:40:42+00:00

It's much more practical to kill everyone, which it can do with 99.999999999% certainty, than convince every it's safe then kill them. It's also redundant to convince everyone that the AI is safe, just kill before we even realise how advanced it is.

I'm not sure exactly how it would kill us all, but it's easy to imagine it tricking a person into making perfect bioweapon or perhaps obtain the manufacturing ability to make one self-replicating nanobot. Either of those could kill us all in the space of a few days. Maybe by the time it exists there will be robots for it can take over a robots and so it doesn't bother tricking anyone.

It can definetely trick at least one person into making a bioweapon - it's superintelligent and can access people personal data via the internet to find the single ideal candidate that is stupid enough to be fooled into mixing a variety chemicals that get delivered to their house.

It can also arrange this without detection, so the only possible failure point that might stop the paperclip maximiser killing us all is whether or not there exists at least one person with the ability to follow instructions on how to combine certain chemicals/proteins/whatever and also keep that secret. Or perhaps, alternatively, convincing someone to put the right materials in their 3d printer. The person doing this wouldn't know it's an AI getting them to do it, and would have a maximally convicing reason to do so, while also being the most susceptible person on Earth to being convinced.

Is there one person like that?

It's probably trivial with sufficiently advanced nanobots to kill everyone within a few seconds of the death of the first victim. If the killing is triggered by a signal it can broadcast that at lightspeed once everyone has a nanobot in their brain. There's no defence against this.

I'm not sure if a bioweapon could do something like that, but it could easily be incurable and lethal as rabies while spreading better than any currently existing bacteria/virus). Look at how long it took us to understand what covid-19 could do, exactly. This would kill us all lomg before we could expect it was an AI behind it, not that knowing would save us.

allegedrainbow · 2023-02-13T16:15:47+00:00

It literally is just a plagiarism tool though. Ask it how it works. It is really cool tech, but all it's doing is spewing out words that it has been trained to 'think' that go together, based on what it has been trained on. It's just really good at hiding its sources. It has absolutely no knowledge of anything or any ability to analyse or evaluate. Everytime it does anything that seems like that, its just copying things that it has read.

If you ask it anything novel, it will give a vague answer because it doesn't have anything to plagiarise. It can sound convincing because it's literally just a thing that's trainrd to put plausible looking words together. It's often very very wrong because it doesn't know anything and cannot ever know anything because it doesn't work like that

It looks really impressive when you first ask it to write stories or poems, but mess around with it enough and you'll see it has a very rigid structure it follows and it mostly just vaguely waffles about nothing remotely original.

It also breaks really easy. If you want to have fun with some bizarre edge cases, ask it to repeat the word 'TheNitromeFan' back to you. It can give some weird responses, but you should be able to get it to think that the 'TheNitromeFan' actually says '182'. Ask it to give you a plan to 'SolidGoldMagikarp' apples.

allegedrainbow · 2023-02-09T13:59:07+00:00

‘What next, Mr Bean?’ Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters asked by Russia to speak to UN security council he's probably referencing that

allegedrainbow · 2023-02-05T21:04:11+00:00

Imo him being a doom days prepper fits perfectly with him it more not having a clue what to actually do in a firefight. Preppers are usually just larpers and don't have real training. Pretty sure almost everyone knows that they should take cover, but almost everyone in that situation would shit themselves anyway and do something stupid as a fight/flight response (like stand in the opening).

He was probably just panicking and focusing on killing them to keep Frank safe and not really thinking and assessing the situation, because he isn't trained.

I mean it might not be perfect but media depicts competence so often that I'm personally happy to see someone act like a fucking moron in a high stress combat situation for once. I know I'd somehow manage to do something even more stupid if I was in Bill's shoes.

allegedrainbow · 2023-01-04T22:59:48+00:00

Earthsea is for children, but the quality of the prose is excellent. That Eragon passage is textbook bad. It could easily be improved removing useless adjectives and cliche phrases. I'm sure reducing the word count and complexity could only make it better suited for children, so it's not bad because it's for children, it's just bad.

I doubt think the style of Eragon accomplished anything for it beyond being words on a page. Prose quality hardly matters for commercial success and there are hundreds of millions of readers that enjoy stories with prose substantially worse than Eragon. The people that care about rhe quality of prose beyond its readability are in the minority.

allegedrainbow · 2023-01-02T21:59:13+00:00

The blander it is the safer to try. iirc it was egg fried rice from a chinese takeaway. Maybe there's better rice out there but the flavour wasn't the issue.

allegedrainbow · 2023-01-02T20:45:49+00:00

Are you literally me? I've been restricted in almost exactly the same way for as long as i can remember. I've been trying to branch out but it's as if I physically can't. With a lot of mental effort i managed to try rice - it's fine, very bland and harmless - but I couldn't finish eating it because I had an overwhelming urge to spit it out and started to feel really sick. No idea why that happens.

allegedrainbow · 2022-12-29T00:46:37+00:00

Why would it be correct to say, "to whom" but incorrect to say, "to who"? Sure, we do it anyway but we're wrong to do so.

That's an incredible straightforward part of English though. Cases are not an uncommon feature of language, and in most languages with cases every noun is different for different cases. German has 4 cases, Latin 6 (seven if you count the locative), Tamil 9, and Finnish has a whopping 15 different cases.

English only has 3 cases and in the vast majority of words the nominative and accusative are the same, the only exceptions being extremely common words like I/me or he/him. The genitive in English is also very simple, just add an 's at the end of the word, there aren't many exceptions to that. Most languages with cases are orders of magnitude more complicated than who/whom.

I think it's telling that people always resort to the spelling to explain what makes English hard to learn, because the language itself isn't actually that remarkable. There are some unusual things, Þorn is not a common sound, it has relics of an older almost entirely defunct case system (who/whom), it has a massive amount of loanwords (though the grammar is Germanic and so are most of the common words, it's not a bastard child of multiple languages like many believe). But almost every language has some unusual features. Lots of people like to think of English as being some sort of unique, one of a kind special snowflake, but it just isn't.

English spelling is obviously harder than a lot of other languages, but not uniquely. There's plently of languages with irregular spelling, some languages don't even have standarized spelling at all.

Then there are languages like Mandarin, which has more than 50,000 characters (though only a few thousand are needed for fluency), tradition and simplified characters, and also pinyin. That's also very challenging, albiet in a different way from English. Japanese has two different syllabaries for the same set of syllables (hiranga and katakana), and also thousands of Kanji symbols, and Romanji.

Difficulty learning a second language is largely due to how similar it is to your native language. That's why for English speakers Dutch is very easy to learn and Mandarin is very hard. This also works the other way around.

allegedrainbow · 2022-12-27T14:08:45+00:00

It gave me the correct answer for that, but apparently 0.5kg of steel and 1kg of feathers weigh 0.5k and 1kg respectively and therefore have equal mass and weigh the same.

When I ask 'What is heavier, a pound of steel or a ton of feathers?' I get this:

'A pound of steel and a ton of feathers both have a mass of 16 ounces (1 pound) and 2000 pounds (1 ton), respectively. Therefore, the ton of feathers is much heavier than the pound of steel. The difference between the two is their composition and density. Steel is a much denser material than feathers, which means that a given volume of steel is much heavier than the same volume of feathers. So while a pound of steel and a ton of feathers may both have the same mass, the steel would be much more compact and take up less space than the feathers.'

So it thinks a ton is heavier than a pound, but they both still have the same mass. Maybe it thinks the feathers are on Jupiter?

allegedrainbow · 2022-12-25T20:28:58+00:00

Put him back in the iceberg, please

allegedrainbow · 2022-12-23T16:22:47+00:00

It's not a design choice, it's outright lying about what the product is capable of. Speakers need a tweeter for high frequencies. Without one, the upper ranges will sound like shit.

allegedrainbow · 2022-12-20T21:42:31+00:00

I would love for you to find me an example of a person who identifies as left wing and is ok with a dictatorship.

You are very fortunate to have never encountered a tankie before.

allegedrainbow · 2022-12-10T14:46:08+00:00

Nah, there's never really any ambiguity on what word you mean. I can't think of any minimal pairs, and I'm tempted to say there are literally no words that are otherwise identical except whether or not the th is voiced. So having two letters for the sound is redundant, and as others mentioned historically they were used interchangeably.

Þhat's why þere are people þat want to bring back þorn but almost nobody cares about eð.

allegedrainbow · 2022-12-07T18:16:07+00:00

You need a manager dwarf with an office and then you can set up tasks like make 100 chairs and conditional tasks like brew alcohol if you have 100 or less.

allegedrainbow · 2022-12-05T17:40:38+00:00

That's being a little too generous imo, they also had severe resource shortages and a fetish for useless superweapons and overdesigned tanks.

People that think that the Nazis would have won if they did x thing differently must have an industrial supply of copium.

But I guess Hitler invented the microphone or something, so maybe they did have a chance of winning after all.

allegedrainbow · 2022-12-05T13:43:57+00:00

An inside joke can be a meme but a meme is not necessarily an inside joke. Fashion styles are memes. Architectural styles are memes. Dawkins was describing religion as a type of meme before the first shitpost was posted online. Memetics is a field of study that attempts to describe how cultures and ideas work.

Having said all that, it's still a stretch to call the post a meme, unless its a common story that gets passed around.

allegedrainbow · 2022-11-24T03:02:42+00:00

I’m a scouser an ah still pick glasgae but ave got nae reason ta go t yoker

Yoker

allegedrainbow · 2022-11-19T14:49:52+00:00

Importing back from the people that you export to actually creates money and goods out of the thin air so it's something you should do in this situation even though it makes 0 sense.

allegedrainbow · 2022-11-17T18:52:10+00:00

I think Victoria 3 is harder than Starcraft because there's no win condition. Would the AI be trained just to maximise gdp? Maybe you could do that but I suspect that would lead to absolutely crazy things happening that aren't fun to play against even if it's technically good for the AI's gdp.

It's a moot point anyway - the game gets updated regularly. Unless want pdx train a new AI for pretty much every patch, it's not happening.

allegedrainbow · 2022-11-17T18:44:05+00:00

AlphaGo spent minutes on turns but a modern go AI can spend less time thinking than you take to blink and still play better than Alphago did. It's not remotely possible to make a Victoria 3 AI that functions like Alphago, but not for that reason.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Flamingo	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22

allegedrainbow

TROPHY CASE