kilgnad

16 ms·

91.
by kilgnad 4y ago
>The Chinese state is usually levelheaded; but every so often it succumbs to a manic episode, in which it grips the population, not relenting until it has shaken them out of their pots for backyard steel furnaces, out of their schools fo
92.
by kilgnad 4y ago
There is. Just not with your rabbit alone. The equilibrium evolves at the ecosystem level. In the wilderness it's predators. For your case, you are "dealing" with the rabbit infestation, therefore YOU are the one that's
93.
by kilgnad 4y ago
No it does not. No mammal develops a natural instinct to flow into an equilibrium. What is happening is natural selection is operating on a more macro scale. Ecosystems can be naturally selected out or in. Ecosystems where the individual co
94.
by kilgnad 4y ago
No. Technology production requires an energy input. It's fundamental physics. Reversing entropy requires an energy input, and technology is essentially entropy reversing. At the more scientific level you can see this occurring by simpl
95.
by kilgnad 4y ago
As an example programmers can understand, machine learning is a better model for this than a logistic map. Natural selection is basically gradient descent with random walk as the "step" algorithm rather than back propagation. At e
96.
by kilgnad 4y ago
The world will become a north Korea if unchecked growth continues unchecked. When cancer is growing the tumor is healthy and happy. It's when the tumor consumes all available resources and begins dying that it becomes a problem. We are
97.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Immersion isn't really a problem. When I buy stuff online or get money from a bank I'm not looking for immersion. What I'm looking for is a fast load and snappy ui. When I watch a movie or play a game, that's when immers
98.
by kilgnad 4y ago
You don't get it. Let me explain. And when I'm done explaining you will understand. He means the reader will feel guilty for not understanding rather then blaming me for his lack of understanding due to a poorly worded explanation
99.
by kilgnad 4y ago
The difference is in vocabulary. Stagnation and equilibrium are the same thing only in one word the definition has positive connotations, in the other word the vocabulary had negative connotations. No point in arguing about vocabulary and c
100.
by kilgnad 4y ago
No, the guy didn't get it. He was using the analogy completely incorrectly. There is nothing unfair about my response, he simply wasn't getting it. I'm quite well versed in not only the science behind natural selection, but i
101.
by kilgnad 4y ago
It's not true true equilibrium, it oscillates around an equilibrium. You can call it an equilibrium zone. Within this zone you can get chaotic changes, but what you don't usually get is complete destruction and extinction as you
102.
by kilgnad 4y ago
A few years is eons for a kid. The father here is wrong. Logic isn't an argument here. The iphone is an icon, a fashion symbol, his son wants it for cultural reasons. Logic DOESN'T apply to fashion. Whenever I hear an argument lik
103.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Growth itself is not cancer. Growth that never ends is cancer, because it eventually consumes all available resources in the system. I mean this is raw inescapable logic, there's no argument against this. There's an alternative wa
104.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Depends on the timescale in which you view it. The overall earth benefits through natural selection. A creature or ecosystem that overloads itself is selected out through self suicide paving the way for a more stable system to take it'
105.
by kilgnad 4y ago
>Life looks a lot like cancer. Cancer looks a lot like life. "Being cancer" isn't a bad thing, cancer is only bad when it is a disease in humans. Otherwise it is the way of the world. We are surrounded by patterns that pro
106.
by kilgnad 4y ago
>Every study is the study of our interpretation of something. But there is a clear difference between quantitative results validated by the scientific method versus "interpretations" from philosophy and the humanities. >Yes,
107.
by kilgnad 4y ago
Same here, you honestly reminded me of an idiot. Your explanations are simplistic you fail to see nuance and complexity within reality. I find your outlook on things to also be delusional. You think things are simple and well understood but
108.
by kilgnad 4y ago
None of these fields are in actuality the study of human nature. They are the study of our interpretation of human nature. Interpretations change constantly. Until we can simulate the brain at the lowest level and have accurate quantitative
109.
by kilgnad 4y ago
The answer is: No, I don't actually care. I wouldn't say it's complete apathy though, I can still recognize that it's not exactly the most moral decision. I agree, let's not exaggerate, if the overwhelming majority
110.
by kilgnad 4y ago
The growth is actually too fast. I was a python expert. Now it's not a big deal any more because the language is so easy. I've hit interviews where they DIDn't want me to use python because it's too easy. I branched out
111.
by kilgnad 4y ago
>As many have mentioned, there is a large subset of the user base that uses Python for applied purposes in unrelated fields that couldn’t care less about more granular aspects of optimization. Nobody cares about this that much. Even a st
112.
by kilgnad 4y ago
We likely have lost something. It's like global warming. Everybody talks about it as if they care, but if you still drive a car, do you actually care? No. Not enough to stop contributing to global warming. It's the same thing with
113.
by kilgnad 4y ago
- GPT style language models try to build a model of the world: https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.13382 - GPT style language models end up internally implementing a mini "neural network training algorithm" (gradient
114.
by kilgnad 4y ago
The meta meta thing about this is that not only am I dogmatically arguing for dogmatism, but what I say is logically true in such a way that people who disagree with me can't formulate an argument against it. They can only dogmatically
115.
by kilgnad 4y ago
>But in the cases of both low NFC and high dogmatism, it feels like there's a type of intellectual laziness or cognitive immaturity at play. Almost like "It's too overwhelming for me to actually think this through, so I&#x
116.
by kilgnad 4y ago
The only way for randomness to work is to limit the set of available random "datums". This is done by composition pre-existing knowledge. For example, if I have trillions of atoms randomly composed together with the objective to
117.
by kilgnad 4y ago
What I said still applies. Randomness is trivially addable. Additionally it's arguably not a source of source knowledge. Its just a selection parameter. Which sources of knowledge do I use for composition and in what way do I compose i
118.
by kilgnad 4y ago
It's trivial to add randomness too the model. chatGPT, I believe already has it. Simply add a new input neuron with a random seed or add a tiny bit of noise to some weights or seed the tokens yourself in your query. "<Query See
119.
by kilgnad 4y ago
The gaming industry is not 0.1 percent.
120.
by kilgnad 4y ago
There's no linter that checks for a missing if statement and a missing error handler.

More ›