myrmidon

23 ms·

451.
by myrmidon 1y ago
I think the sentence makes perfect sense-- critics/supporters make the same argument, just with different priorities: Supporters place farmer interests over animal welfare, critics do the reverse. I do have to say that the supporters&#
452.
by myrmidon 1y ago
I honestly don't see what the whole framework gets you. Red (or all qualia) is just the reaction of your nervous system to a stimulus. Since that reaction is shaped by common context/associations, the "subjective experience
453.
by myrmidon 1y ago
> If you need two things to happen at the same time in sync with each other no matter if they are separated by billions of miles, then you need faster-than-light travel, or some magic [1]; see what I did there? No. Because even if you ha
454.
by myrmidon 1y ago
What would be the symmetry axis? If you classify this as "critical of Israel (?)" then I can guarantee you pretty confidently that an article critical of the PA (or Hamas or whatever) would get flagged at a pretty similar rate her
455.
by myrmidon 1y ago
How is it a false dichotomy? If you want consciousness to NOT be simulateable, then you need some essential component to our minds that can't be simulated (call it soul or whatever) and for that thing to interface with our physical b
456.
by myrmidon 1y ago
> they assume consciousness emerges through purely mechanical means. From my view, all the evidence points in exactly that direction though? Our consciousness can be suspended and affected by purely mechanical means, so clearly much of i
457.
by myrmidon 1y ago
I think it is hugely underappreciated that in most of "the west" we can have public media content that is critical of army/politicians/administration and just makes the nation look bad abroad. I'm talking less abo
458.
by myrmidon 1y ago
> You don't even know what physics or particles are as yet undiscovered You would not need the simulation to be perfect; there is ample evidence that our brains a quite robust against disturbances. > just because you simulated a
459.
by myrmidon 1y ago
I think thats slightly unfair; people just tend to flag polarizing political topics because it often leads to inflamed repetitive arguments without the HN effect (which would be the Israeli lawyer chiming in, here).
460.
by myrmidon 1y ago
> Would you consider it sentient? Absolutely. If you simulated a human brain by the atom, would you think the resulting construct would NOT be? What would be missing? I think consciousness is simply an emergent property of our nervous sy
461.
by myrmidon 1y ago
There is some good insight in there, and it raises some interesting points. But it misses a somewhat critical question in my view: What percentage of global manufacturing would you expect the Chinese to have over the past/next decade
462.
by myrmidon 1y ago
Maybe, but the "paying" is load-bearing, because you need to prevent banned people from just creating new accounts. Sure a different approach might be possible, but would likely also hinder adoption of such a 3rd party account sys
463.
by myrmidon 1y ago
> If the US merge with a few Africa countries, does it count as an "improvement" in regard of carbon emission? Yes? I fail to see what your point is? But seems both unworkable and likely to fail/lose its positive effect in
464.
by myrmidon 1y ago
What do you mean by "output"? If you compare emissions/export volume, then the US is behind lots of European countries, like Germany (or even Italy). Comparisons with the Netherlands (heavy agriculture) or Norway (big oil pro
465.
by myrmidon 1y ago
# Cost National budget items have to stand on their own merit. I agree that the US overspends on defense, but "waste" in one place is no justification for "waste" elsewhere. You could apply the exact same argument to blo
466.
by myrmidon 1y ago
1) Reasonable cost is what taxpayers/voters are willing to give. If you want a $100bn NASA budget, you are basically asking every American for $200/y. If you made that optional, I'd argue that a lot (most) Americans would
467.
by myrmidon 1y ago
Did you mean the Guardian? Because trust in BBC is at ~80% according to what you linked.
468.
by myrmidon 1y ago
We have no lack of spending opportunities for "progress"; there are dozens of promising research fields, and the ressources we can realistically invest are limited. Most historical progress was driven and motivated by incremental
469.
by myrmidon 1y ago
Do you similarly think that switching "impaired driving" legislation from a regulatory to a pure punishment based (you only pay on accidents) approach would be an improvement? Because I think not, for following reaons: - You creat
470.
by myrmidon 1y ago
Really interesting, thanks for the link! Acre-feet as a unit just made me realize how many options you get for volume with multiple base units (a foot-mile-inch is ~12m³ in case anyone was wondering). The non-metric system continues to impr
471.
by myrmidon 1y ago
> Why? There’s nothing in the current process of developing AI that would lead to a AI that would act against humanity of its own choosing. If we had certainty that our designs were categorically incapable of acting in their own interest
472.
by myrmidon 1y ago
> We've just made a math equation that can spit out language, you're comparing this to things that can actually _experience_ without someone clicking enter on a keyboard. What would it mean to "experience" language pr
473.
by myrmidon 1y ago
> Just because both the brain and computing devices are physical, it doesn't follow that computers are capable of what the brain does. My position is: Physical laws are computable/simulatable. The operation of our brains is exp
474.
by myrmidon 1y ago
I never knew that insects are capable of crossing oceans... Seeing close-up pictures of them is always a very humbling experience to me, because it is very obvious how "huge" and complex they are in terms of individual cells. A ve
475.
by myrmidon 1y ago
> I don’t think we’ll be able to replicate consciousness until we’re able to make things alive at a biological level. But why? What gives you any confidence in that? This is a very popular notion that I frequently encounter but I'm
476.
by myrmidon 1y ago
By "materialism" I mean that human cognition is simply an emergent property of purely physical processes in (mostly) our brains. All the individual assumptions basically come down to that same point in my view. 1) Human intelligen
477.
by myrmidon 1y ago
How has the feasibility of AI anything to do with science fiction? Unless you believe in some kind of magic (soul/divine spark/etc.), it seems completely inevitable to conclude that human cognition can be replicated by a machine,
478.
by myrmidon 1y ago
Evolution had a much worse understanding of intelligence than we do and still managed just fine (thus i'd expect us to need less time and iterations to get there).
479.
by myrmidon 1y ago
My point is that "evolution" most certainly did not have a better understanding of intelligence than we do, and apparently did not need it, either.
480.
by myrmidon 1y ago
This is not an argument at all, you just restate your whole conclusion as an assumption ("a symbol manipulating device is incapable of cognition"). It's not even a reasonable assumption (to me), because I'd assume an exa

More ›