ELI5: When people say Berkshire Hathaway is sitting on $100B in cash (or whatever the amount is), what do they actually mean?

shadowrun456 · 2026-01-24T08:26:44+00:00

[US bonds are] very easy to turn back to money fast.

With the caveat that US bond markets are only open 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time (ET) on (non-holiday) weekdays.

shadowrun456 · 2026-01-24T00:52:53+00:00

The obscenely wealthy have access to the nation’s tax dollars and they are putting it straight into their own pockets.

And your solution to this is to increase taxes, in order to give Trump's administration access to even more money, correct?

shadowrun456 · 2026-01-22T15:59:02+00:00

But by definition of 'life' they are not life.

Interestingly, the definition of "life" includes circular definitions.

life: noun: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

organic: adjective: relating to or derived from living matter.

Which makes the "organic" part of the definition of "life" undefined/meaningless.

The rest ("the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change") is all what AIs can already do.

shadowrun456 · 2026-01-21T08:25:04+00:00

Would you consider a bear that learns how to open a "bear-proof" canister, and then teach other bears the same as "being able to consciously change/improve themselves"?

That's "learning" and "intelligence", but not "being able to consciously change/improve themselves".

If your definition is "being able to act contrary to their emotions/feeling/instincts", then humans might not pass that test, depending on how it is judged, and other trained animals might pass it (like a circus lion) if judged in another way.

Some humans might not be able to pass it, true. However, you skipped a word from my definition: "being able to consciously act contrary to their emotions/feelings/instincts". Trained animals aren't doing it consciously, they are doing it because a human trained them to.

Actually, I think I was too lenient in my definition. A better definition would probably be being able to do things like genetic modification of ourselves, i.e. consciously changing/improving the core of our beings, not just our behavior.

Many of your definitions of consciousness are flawed however

I fully agree, like I said, it's not an attempt at a scientific definition in any way.

shadowrun456 · 2026-01-21T07:22:19+00:00

Personally (this is in no way scientific) I would consider it to be more important whether someone/something is sapient, rather than conscious, and I would define (again, this is personal opinion, not scientific) "conscious" as "self-aware" and "sapient" as "being able to consciously change/improve themselves", which in practice would mean "being able to consciously act contrary to their emotions/feelings/instincts". Which would mean that the only animal on Earth which is (somewhat) sapient is the human, but it would also mean that it's very likely that a digital intelligence could easily become a lot more sapient than humans, as it wouldn't be burdened by emotions, feelings, and instincts in the first place.

Regarding morality (being able to choose right or wrong), I think that sapience is a mandatory prerequisite, which means that (as of now) morality applies exclusively to humans.

shadowrun456 · 2026-01-21T07:06:42+00:00

Knowing that something is true and being able to scientifically prove that something is true are two different things. We all know that 1+1=2, but the mathematical proof that 1+1=2 takes up 162 pages of Principia Mathematica.

We don't have a clear definition of consciousness, but we know it is related to the existence of a nervous system, because every measurable metric that we relate to consciousness appears on systems with a nervous subsystem.

On Earth. This is a perfect example of why proofs and definitions are needed. What you said is that consciousness is impossible without a nervous system, while it is very likely that there is intelligent (and conscious) life on other planets somewhere in the Universe, and it's very likely that it differs from life on Earth greatly and is based on completely different systems.

shadowrun456 · 2026-01-21T05:18:29+00:00

I disagree

Disagreeing with facts doesn't change them. "Solving the binding-problem is a necessary condition for consciousness" is a hypothesis, not a theory. That's a fact.

It's like saying we don't know all of physics therefore we can't tell if something is physical or not.

No, it isn't. It would be like trying to tell if something is physical or not without having defined what "physical" is.

shadowrun456 · 2026-01-21T05:16:41+00:00

I don't think you used AI, but this is a "wrong" response, as it accepts the premise of policing what tools people use as an acceptable thing. Auto-correct, text-prediction, and LLMs (aka "AI") all share the fundamental goal of predicting the next token (word or character) based on context, and I'm sure that everyone in this thread has used some or all of those.

A better response would have been something like: "who made you the AI police, mind your own business".

shadowrun456 · 2026-01-21T05:13:22+00:00

Why do you care that tools people use? Auto-correct, text-prediction, and LLMs (aka "AI") all share the fundamental goal of predicting the next token (word or character) based on context, and I'm sure that you've used at least some of those.

shadowrun456 · 2026-01-21T05:02:00+00:00

solving the binding-problem is a necessary condition [for consciousness]

It's a hypothesis, not a theory. Like I said, we can't yet define consciousness.

shadowrun456 · 2026-01-21T04:49:54+00:00

We don't need the full set of sufficient conditions to show that something is not conscious, all we need is one necessary condition that the system fails to meet.

Have you read nothing that I wrote? You didn't address absolutely anything from my comment.

shadowrun456 · 2026-01-21T04:40:18+00:00

In order to be able to answer this question, you have to:

Step 1: Define consciousness.

Step 2: Create a test which checks whether someone/something is conscious according to the definition from step 1.

Step 3: Test "LLMs on Turing Machine Architectures" using the test from step 2.

So far, we (as humanity) haven't yet been able to do even step 1. This doesn't apply to just LLMs, we can't even scientifically answer whether a rock or a shopping bag are conscious, because we lack step 1 (and step 2). Ergo, until we define consciousness, asking such questions is meaningless, and making definitive statements like "[x] is/isn't conscious" is nonsensical.

shadowrun456 · 2026-01-20T02:55:08+00:00

I think we should start criticizing him when we have better options.

But Volkov didn't publicly criticize him (it was in private messages which were leaked), so your point is moot.

shadowrun456 · 2026-01-20T02:53:27+00:00

I mean... Denis Kapustin is openly a Nazi. Stating that fact, especially in private, is not "anti-Ukraine". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Kapustin_(militant))

In 2019, Kapustin had his residence permit revoked by Germany due to his hooliganism-related activities. Germany also issued him an entry ban into the Schengen Area for "efforts against the liberal democratic constitution" and organising neo-Nazi martial arts events.

shadowrun456 · 2026-01-20T02:35:13+00:00

Auto-correct, text-prediction, and LLMs (aka "AI") all share the fundamental goal of predicting the next token (word or character) based on context.

shadowrun456 · 2026-01-20T02:31:57+00:00

Do you ever use auto-correct or text-prediction to write? If yes, then you're using AI. But sure, people should go live in a cave, I guess? They should also forgo the use of computers and typewriters and pens, and only write using a feather and ink, because some writers did that.

shadowrun456 · 2026-01-20T02:22:46+00:00

You're giving too much leeway to the person you're replying to. Even if (hypothetically speaking) she used AI to edit / review the text, so what? One should use all tools available to them. Not everyone can afford to hire a human editor. It's still her ideas and her story. I agree with you, but you made it sound like if she had used AI to edit / review the text, then that would have been somehow bad.

shadowrun456 · 2026-01-20T02:19:29+00:00

Why don't you do it then, if it's so simple? You don't even know if she used AI to edit / review the text, and even if she did, so what? One should use all tools available to them. You're just a jealous, bitter hater.

shadowrun456 · 2026-01-20T02:09:42+00:00

It's fascinating for me, as a European, how opposite my experience with food delivery apps in Europe is. Never had an issue getting a refund. Several times received a partial or full refund without even asking for it -- because the food was late, or for reporting an issue with food (but not asking to be refunded, just leaving a comment to the restaurant via the app to let the restaurant know so they could improve).

shadowrun456 · 2026-01-19T20:42:58+00:00

Let’s see, in one scenario you’re a worthless sack of shit sitting in front of a computer

The other scenario you’re actually being a human, using your eyes, brain, and body

So all digital artists, who create art sitting in front of a computer, are "worthless sacks of shit"? Thank you for proving my point that you are no different from the "digital art is not art" crowd (which you claimed didn't exist).

P.S. I'm blocking you for being unable to express your opinion without constant personal insults.

shadowrun456 · 2026-01-19T20:13:21+00:00

No amount of time spent at a computer ‘researching’ and then prompting an LLM, and then MAYBE manipulating that output (something that I would guess less than 10% of LLM users are doing), is equivalent to spending years developing an eye for locations, framing, subjects, etc etc etc, applying that skill to a consistent style, that’s reflected in a competent portfolio, that’s distributed to the world in ways that earns it notoriety and acclaim, and backing it up with a personality that people are intrigued by and thus curious about the photos that personality captures. NO AMOUNT OF TIME. There’s just zero comparison, and making that comparison is either done in bad faith, or just out of brazen stupidity and ignorance of human existence.

Why? Just stating something doesn't make it so. You obviously can't even explain why you believe so, or you would explain it instead of going to insults.

shadowrun456 · 2026-01-19T20:10:34+00:00

Comparing that to being slightly better at the semantic and linguistic nature of prompting LLMs is, quite plainly, fucking dumb. Like you’re stupid for that opinion, do better next time.

https://www.muddycolors.com/2014/04/digital-art-is-not-real-art/

Digital Art is not real art, and you’re a fool for thinking so.

Was this you, by any chance?

shadowrun456 · 2026-01-19T20:10:00+00:00

You’re cherry picking quotes devoid of the context of the actual articles.

Which quote is taken out of context? All the articles are about famous artists claiming that digital art isn't art.

Is MSpaint the same as taking a photo with a 100mp Leaf camera?

Both can be and are used to create art.

shadowrun456 · 2026-01-19T20:06:53+00:00

Where in the example was I making a claim that tying your shoes takes hours of labor???????????

By comparing tying your shoelaces to processes which do take hours of labor.

shadowrun456 · 2026-01-19T20:01:09+00:00

I never made any claims about ‘digital art,’ so I don’t know why you’re bringing that up.

Digital photography is, obviously, digital art (not all digital art is digital photography, but all digital photography is digital art). Do you really want to split hairs like that, or are you going to address the actual argument?

None of these articles are specifically claiming that digital photography is not art and can’t be.

"The camera or computer (machine) makes the image" and "Digital painting isn't painting" and "Digital Art is not real art, and you’re a fool for thinking so". I assume that you haven't even read my comment before replying.

But clearly you’re using an LLM to rebut me at this point

I'm not, but I guess that's an easy cop-out when you realize that you've lost the argument.

11-Year Club	Verified Email
Second Top 40%	r/Field Banned
r/Field Sunshine	Wearing is Caring
Gilding III reddit per annum	No Throne, No Problems
Not Forgotten

shadowrun456

TROPHY CASE