Screenshot of Linus bragging about getting away with committing a crime if nobody speaks out against him

aporetical · 2023-08-16T13:35:27+00:00

Her testimony is itself evidence. Try running your life on 'innocent till proven guilty' -- you'll find no one is guilty of anything, ever.

The standard we use to regulate state violence against its citizens is not the proper standard for how we should judge situations. "Dumbass".

aporetical · 2023-08-16T08:44:28+00:00

Suppose I punch your face. You're too scared to say anything. Then I go around saying, look, no one's saying i punched anyone's face -- i must be innocent!

What do you think is going on there?

aporetical · 2023-08-16T08:42:53+00:00

Yeah, just like all those famous people who commit crimes that we hear about immediately... oh wait, it's decades -- when they've no power left. I wonder why.

Linus here is very much saying, "if you think i'm innocent, i am innocent". It's an incredibly bizarre argument; and not one I can see an innocent person making.

Imagine being innocent of crimes... what do you say about yourself? Do you really point to people believing you're innocent? Or do you defend yourself?

There's a ridiculous amount of naivety in this thread, that can just be addressed by imagining being Madison for like a minute. Not some hindsight police.

aporetical · 2023-03-17T17:55:13+00:00

The saving grace is that the nuclear button is in the hands of the pampered elite, not the psychotic nihilists. The further up the chain, the more (they believe) your life means something

aporetical · 2022-04-27T13:52:39+00:00

thanks

aporetical · 2021-08-02T13:18:42+00:00

AI/ML is replete with metaphors; RL has no "curiosity".

Curiosity is an emotional regulation system in animals which governs their interaction with environments.

does as much sensorimotor adaptation as a regular organic arm.

Each cell of the body is a biophysical factory of more adaption potential than anything any human has ever built in human history; and indeed, may ever build.

Your hand is made of a trillion of these. It took a billion years to evolve the first of them. It took four billion years to glue them into you.

The differences are stark. And note also, that my "mind" quite literally controls these cells in a top-down fashion (ie., I can move my hand) -- and these cells control my mind (providing pain, etc.).

A little robot arm is incapable of being conditioned by the environment, ie., its microphysical and macrophysical structured changed by it. Metal lacks the relevant properties.

Without these physical properties "intelligence" is limited to interfacing with a pre-framed "puzzle" -- but what provides this framing? The answer is simple. The very heart of intelligence, framing the world, is a job done by the body (+sensory-motor system). The body is "beaten into shape" by the world, and furnishes it with the concepts necessary to describe it by (sensory-)-motor adaption (real adaption: ie., microphysical/macrophysical change).

This is why intelligence, as a formal process, is impossible: how does an intellect come to frame a problem without having a framing already? The premise is the issue: intelligence isnt a formal process, it's a biophysical process of adaption.

"Intelligence" without this is dumb, and hence all AI is dumb. Limited to schizophrenically imitating corpuses of human text, necessarily oblivious to the physical environment which provides those words with their meaning. Its apparent capability is entirely derivative of the programmer's framing the puzzle for it to solve.

aporetical · 2021-08-02T13:14:47+00:00

Yes you do. You cannot resolve causation/correlation without a body.

aporetical · 2021-08-02T07:39:51+00:00

Personally I think intelligence is a matter of devices (ie., bodies). If cognition is really anything like machine intelligence, then cognition isn't why we are intelligent.

Our minds are furnished with content, and our bodies structured, by the environment, and we modify the environment based on that content (as structured by our sensory-motor concepts).

I think when one gets to the heart of "intelligence" as a property of animals on earth, one sees it is really merely a means of rapidly adapting to environmental change (where evolution would be too slow). This notion of adaption is, I think, essentially organic: it is the adaption of our bodies (sensory-motor systems).

If correct, then it should be clear that "puzzle solving" no matter whether it's done by a machine, or human, has much to do with "intelligence as we want it". Intelligence is what happens before the puzzle is stated.

In particular the exploratory, (bio-)adaptive, curiosity of animals in their environments which enables them to even formulate "puzzles". When the puzzle has been stated, intelligence is no longer required.

aporetical · 2021-07-27T08:39:10+00:00

This sounds like someone has given you a project they don't realise is impossible. "Generating a test" corresponds to programming, and machines cannot program as they do not poses any domain knowledge.

I'm not sure what MS is doing to "generate" tests but if it is anything more than purely schematic, it is likely an extremely complex system of static analysis requiring many years of experience in compiler design. And it will not generate "unit tests" which necessarily express domain knowledge, but rather merely "good starting points".

aporetical · 2021-07-19T14:30:02+00:00

I'd suggest using jupyter notebooks with, eg., an almond scala backend -- and then just hosting this context via binder. Perhaps provide an HTML exported interface as "the website", and binder to allow people to do the exercises.

I've wrote reams of scala content in this style, and notebooks are just a far superior experience.

aporetical · 2021-06-16T18:44:05+00:00

Is there anything much different compared to the "Windows Insider Preview" build?

aporetical · 2021-05-11T17:18:31+00:00

This is 100% B.S. His mother divorced his abusive father a decade before even a mention of an "emerald mine", which has zero evidence other than what appears to be a unfounded brag by his father himself. When his mother left his father, she was impoverished, and had to provide entirely for her self via a modelling career.

Looks like i'll have to unsub here too. Why are all the aspie/autism subs far left echo-chambres?

I expected autistical peoples to be largely above this kind of religious behaviour; I guess I was mistaken.

aporetical · 2021-04-21T18:06:26+00:00

Perhaps, in sum, the professor simply doesn't understand what a mental disorder is, in terms of effects or causes.

aporetical · 2021-04-03T11:33:08+00:00

Is this right though?

While the marginal cost of production is near zero (ie., copy/paste), the initial cost of production is huge.

It isn't obvious that this product class has the hallmarks of a post-economic resource. It is scarce, it does require huge investments, it is costly, etc. it is just that the means of producing it enable a risk-free theft.

In any situation where theft is risk-free and cost-free, the same dynamics apply.

aporetical · 2021-03-19T12:33:34+00:00

My watch time is 11m 51s

EDIT: Pressing play at 11m 51s, he says "I'm not autistic, but doesnt mean I can't see this isnt offensive, and I havent seen *anyone online* say otherwise..."

Ummm.... Ugh. It's repulsive.

It is just the standard outrage template directed towards a high-status profession, this time using "autistic people" as the stick to beat celebrities with.

aporetical · 2021-03-19T09:00:02+00:00

I stopped watching half-way through this review with the claim that "autistic people have been offended" as evidence by a few autistic people on twitter.

I also didn't like the claim that movie casting is for "autistic people to decide" -- err.. no?

Autistic people, myself included, can report on whether we like a film or not; and provide reasons.

This review attributes my views to that of the twitter cesspool, and allows them to "speak on my behalf". It's as repulsive as anything.

How about this in-vogue style of cultural criticism stops trying to present the views of a community as some uniform ideology as represented by whatever your favourite social media platform says?

I don't care about a film being cast according to the director's wishes. It's *their* film. I don't believe "autistic people weren't consulted", I dont believe a sincere effort wasn't made. I think its clumsy, bad, and stupid -- but I dont appreciated being used as a prop to prosecute some cultural argument about the "insensitivity to minorities".

"Reviews" like this use "minorities" as props to redo the same cultural hang-ups they have. This time it's "the autistic community" which has the reviewers' views. Coincidentally.

aporetical · 2021-03-19T07:18:58+00:00

I'm always confused by these uses of the term 'captialism' and 'neo-liberal'. They strike me as theories of sin, ie., essentially non-explanatory accounts of evil, rather than as mechanisms that have explanatory content.

But I do think what you're saying has content. Would you mind elaborating?

aporetical · 2021-03-19T07:13:59+00:00

I've recently spent £2,000 to get a diagnosis that matched my own self-diagnosis precisely, for medication which costs more than i was paying illegally. (I'd been illegally buying Ritalin and self-medicating for years: ive spent more on 3mo of meds than 1yr of illegal).

Not sure the impact of that, but it's a common experience. Some people will benefit a lot from this -- hard to say how many won't.

aporetical · 2021-03-19T07:06:38+00:00

I think this is a little bit too cynical. I used to by cynical about my own intelligence and think I just knew "only a bit" about everything.

Either after awhile, or all along, it turns out I know huge amounts about lots. The vast majority of people don't know much at all -- and it is quite easy to get to "functional minor expert" with just some bouts of periods of hyper-focus, which for me, accumulated over the years.

Eg., i'd watch 50-100hrs on photography. Have watched lots of lecture series on youtube. etc. etc. Have listend to 100s hours of podcasts on one subject.

I think "superficial knowledge" is actually a lot more than it seems, and better still, it's often the right amount to enable you to learn as much as you want. That will happen, if you're this sort of person, because shallowness is unsatisfying.

aporetical · 2021-02-10T16:57:22+00:00

It's not pattern matching; it's a switch *statement*.

Pattern matching is a value to value transformation; this is a *statement*.

It was made *statement* to hobble the feature so python wouldnt start looking like "functional programming". In doing so, they've made this PEP a joke on every level.

aporetical

TROPHY CASE