slopinthebag

7 ms·

91.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
You said “Given causal closure, any causal influence is explained by prior physical events, thus bypassing any relevance of this special property.” That does not follow. A property being physically caused does not make it causally irrelevan
92.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
How so?
93.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
It's a massive leap to go from consciousness must be causally integrated with physical brain activity to consciousness is exhausted by an abstract functional description of that activity . At best you could establish that consciousn
94.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
Thanks for the reply. And I didn't mean to quote you out of context. The reason I brought up the enigma machine's hardware is to illustrate there is a difference between the physical machine and the abstract program that it can be
95.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
> How does a person's brain containing all the facts, information, and skills that it needs to have a fluent conversation in Chinese. They don't, they have simply memorised a translation function which takes Chinese as input an
96.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
> What's stopping the book from containing that information? Because in the thought experiment, the translation function (which is what you mean by the book) is f(Chinese) -> Chinese. If you don't have knowledge of Chinese,
97.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
This is a decent summary of functionalism but it doesn't provide any concrete justification for it. We both agree that the brain processes information. The question is if a sufficiently abstract description of that processing captures
98.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
We obviously will never agree since functionalism and my form of somewhat-physicalism are at complete odds. But I do want to understand your position more. You say that the physical hardware your enigma simulation runs on provides the causa
99.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
If someone digitally modelled a nuclear reactor, would any energy be produced? No, because the simulation is actually missing an important aspect, namely the causal part that exists with the physical material but not in the simulation. It’s
100.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
If we are in a simulation than by definition we cannot get wet, we can only be simulated to be wet. Practically for us it makes no difference tho.
101.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
If the person was told in Chinese to jump in the air, would they be able to follow that instruction? If they actually understood Chinese they would. But since they don’t and they’re just mechanically translating symbols without actually und
102.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
I’m not sure, what would evidence of qualia even look like?
103.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
The person who memorized the book doesn’t understand Chinese. In fact they don’t even understand that Chinese isn’t a language. Searle’s response stands.
104.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
> But frontier model handing off a DAG rather than a raw markdown to a cheap model seems like a decent idea It's not
105.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
Okay well I don't care about "winning friends" and "influencing people" on the internet.
106.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
Heh. Interesting article. > Single developer projects can build to the caliber and consistency of large development teams. This has always been true. Good developers, like truly good devs, could run rings around a team of mediocre devs.
107.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
Really? Deregulation will never do this? Care to wager before I provide examples to the contrary?
108.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
Can you explain the difference between price and value here? Like I understand in general that the market price of a good might not align with the price an individual ascribes to a good, but in this case why would value rise with more suppl
109.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
No it's pure unbridled pedantry. The state does not allow you to use any object or thing to break the law, including your own body. Thus by your definition the state "controls" everything, making the distinction irrelevant. I
110.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
Are you saying that because laws exist, and it’s illegal to break the law while using your phone, that is therefore justification for making it illegal to scroll on social media for longer than an hour each day?
111.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
You think the state should restrict what adults do on their phones?
112.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
How so?
113.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
We agree on the first point yes, lol.
114.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
If he is a libertarian that perspective is more modern than socialism, technocracy, or pretty much any other political ideology. Modern libertarianism is from the mid 20th century. And if you share the view that societies gradually shift fr
115.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
> A truly free market is also free of regulation and embraces predatory actions by monopolists. This is a non sequitur and also makes no sense. A free market doesn’t “embrace” anything, it’s the sum of the decisions individuals make abse
116.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
It’s basically self-contained cloud agents. I’m not sure why they’re called that but I think it’s just the next grift, kinda like “loops”…
117.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
Who cares tho. The agents deal with all of that, if you’re still looking at the code or caring about anything other than the loops and orbs you’re at the wrong level of abstraction. The important thing is the models have tons of python in t
118.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
Not unless you just let the LLM do whatever it wants. Surely you don't let it do that, right?
119.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
There is no point having this discussion. Some people have had their brains genuinely broken by Anthropic and will defend them to the last breath, despite having no clue what they are talking about.
120.
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
Everything is vibe coded, would you expect anything different?

More ›