thomastjeffery

8 ms·

61.
by thomastjeffery 4mo ago
You are arguing that he came to the "wrong" conclusions without actually arguing against those conclusions, or how he got to them. Instead, you are arguing that a reasonable person can come to your conclusions, and therefore Benn
62.
by thomastjeffery 4mo ago
Even more significant than the means are the ends. Why does my government get to decide what is appropriate for children? This sounds a lot like what governance is supposed to be, but there is a critical difference. It's one thing for
63.
by thomastjeffery 4mo ago
Software is a particularly egregious case, but the problem is more general. Copyright itself is just a bad move all around. Copyright demands that everyone pretend the value of someone's work is the product of that work, not the labor.
64.
by thomastjeffery 4mo ago
That's not a counterargument: it's an ad hominem.
65.
by thomastjeffery 4mo ago
That's memory efficient assets, not memory efficient code. The latter is already optimized for the former.
66.
by thomastjeffery 4mo ago
> I might be asking about laundering money to commit a crime, or to prevent one. Or, much more likely, the same pattern of tokens happen to exist in a completely different discussion, either as a direct metaphor, or as a reality of lingu
67.
by thomastjeffery 4mo ago
That's a reduction that isn't being made. This is a playbook that was utilised by the alt-right first, and adopted by nearly everyone else; particularly (though not exclusively) Republicans in the US, followed by most conservative
68.
by thomastjeffery 4mo ago
There's a fantastic web series that explains the whole dynamic: the alt-right playbook. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbAN...
69.
by thomastjeffery 4mo ago
The fact that there are so many people standing for a pro-science position is precisely the right circumstance for this situation. The GOP has fully adopted the alt-right playbook. Here's how it works: 1. Publicly announce that you hol
70.
by thomastjeffery 4mo ago
Any position you take that gets people to argue with you. Engagement is the currency of politics, today more than ever.
71.
by thomastjeffery 4mo ago
Maybe they have a lower level of confidence that it will actually work.
72.
by thomastjeffery 4mo ago
Maybe you can work on yours? I'm not making a distinction between silence as a pause and silence as keeping your mouth shut, because that distinction is irrelevant. In either case, nothing is communicated, because a pause is indistingu
73.
by thomastjeffery 5mo ago
If the communication medium is made ambiguous by high entropy, then the language needs to reduce that entropy somehow. The entropy we are taking about is temporal, like packet loss. The solution is for the speaker to be redundant and for th
74.
by thomastjeffery 5mo ago
The problem is that there isn't a simple canonical way to disambiguate, despite that being the obvious and superior solution. Taboo is a shitty communication feature. Taboo demands active silence in a system with too much entropy for t
75.
by thomastjeffery 5mo ago
Only if we abandon reason while simultaneously claiming objectivity. I cannot know objectively whether I am in a simulation or not. I can, however, reason about my experience, the experiences of others (as I perceive them), and the system
76.
by thomastjeffery 5mo ago
You are asking for evidence of absence, and that is the entire point. We don't understand brains, therefore this one specific theoretical feature (consciousness) must exist. Why should we stubbornly endorse a tautology for which there
77.
by thomastjeffery 5mo ago
Your vain appeal to objectivity is just a steelman argument. emotional != biased emotionless != unbiased Hard things are often worthwhile.
78.
by thomastjeffery 5mo ago
I don't think we have to argue against the "nazi bar" analogy, though. In that analogy, nazis are allowed to exist in the world, just not in the bar. The difference is how we implement the concept of "in". The same
79.
by thomastjeffery 5mo ago
Let's dig into what makes them worse, and see what we can do about it. I think the main struggle is moderation. Moderation requires a hierarchy, which is much more compatible with a centralized model. I'm thinking that curation wo
80.
by thomastjeffery 5mo ago
Ideally, we just run our own lives, collaboratively. That's the anarchist default position that we all start in. What we really need is to meaningfully participate outside of the hierarchical monopolistic systems that demand our part
81.
by thomastjeffery 5mo ago
That's one of the two main claims made by in favor of hardware attestation; so it makes sense to argue against it. Of course, the other claim (that categories of people must be kept "safe" from categories of content) is more
82.
by thomastjeffery 5mo ago
No. That would be a relatively better circumstance, but we would still have the root problem. > Most of the thread seems to be a call for attestation to die, which feels impractical and unachievable. I disagree, and I expect GrapheneOS
83.
by thomastjeffery 5mo ago
> How so? As I understand it, their terms of service (which of course nobody reads, but they're there) say that anything you post on their sites becomes their property, not yours. Yes. Is there something confusing about what I said
84.
by thomastjeffery 5mo ago
> Not quite, they support property rights, which is something that social anarchists implicitly accept as well, they just have a different conception of how that would work. The libertarian conception is that groups of people can form hi
85.
by thomastjeffery 5mo ago
Everything that Meta owns is either copyright or hardware that facilitates the ownership of its distribution. They wouldn't have the interest or capital to run giant datacenters without the ability to profit from their "owned&quot
86.
by thomastjeffery 5mo ago
The problem with [conservative] libertarians is that they are half anarchists. They support "radical individualism" (anarchy) and "free market absolutism" (hierarchy). This is a blatant contradiction no matter how you
87.
by thomastjeffery 5mo ago
That's the problem with depending on monopoly for coordination. Maybe if we didn't let one corporation control so much of the distribution chain, we would avoid both the decision to overproduce and the stagnation of overproduced g
88.
by thomastjeffery 5mo ago
That's why billionaires use shares as collateral to get loans. It's money once removed, and it continues to be spendable so long as the share price stays high. I sincerely doubt that Meta's share price would crash as a result
89.
by thomastjeffery 5mo ago
Describing it as a limitation is the problem. Hallucination is the core feature. It's the only thing they do!
90.
by thomastjeffery 6mo ago
Yes. The main problem is that they can only lead you to familiar territory. The next problem is that it's hard to notice when you are back where you started. This has been my main struggle using LLMs to soundboard my new idea. They can

More ›