gbzm @ gbzm @piefed.social

Posts

0

Comments

40

Joined

4 mo. ago

Late nineties to early two thousands on an arch-based distro is Ayanami Rei territory for sure

EDIT: could also be Serial Expeirments Lain or Major Kusanagi depending on your age and horniness in asking this question

Right. I don't believe it's inevitable, in fact I believe it's not super likely given where we're at and the economic, scientific and military incentives I'm aware of. I think the people who are sprinting now do so blindly, not knowing where or how far it is. I think 2 years is a joke or a lie Sam Altman tells gullible investors, and 200 years means we've survived global warming so if we're still there our incentives look nothing then like they do now, and I don't believe in it then either. I think it's at most a maybe on the far, far horizon of the thousands+ years in a world that looks nothing like ours, and in the meantime we have way more pressing problems than the snake oil a few salesmen are trying desperately to sell. Like the salesmen themselves, for example.

I get it, the core of your argument is given enough time it will happen, which isn't saying much: given infinite time anything will happen. Even extinction and total collapse aren't enough, infinite time means a thinking computer will just emerge fully formed from quantum fluctuations.

But you're voicing it as though it's a certain direction of human technological progress which is frankly untrue. You've just concocted a scenario for technological progress in your head by extrapolating from the current state of it, and you present it as a certainty. But anyone can do the same for equally credible scenarios without AGI. For instance, if the only way to avoid total collapse is to stabilize energy consumption and demographic growth and we somehow manage it, then if making rocks think costs 10^20W and the entire world's labour, then it will not ever happen in any meaningful sense of the word "ever".

PS - to elaborate a bit on that "meaningful sense of the word ever" bit, I don't want to nitpick but some time scales do make asteroid impacts irrelevant. The Sun will engulf the earth in about 5 billion years. Then there's the heat death of the universe. In computing problems you get millions of years popping here and there for problems that feel like they should be easy

The thing is I'm not assuming substrate dependence. I'm not saying there's something uniquely mysterious about the biological brain, I'm saying what we know about "intelligence" right now is that it's an emergent property observed in brains that have been in interaction with a physical and natural environment through complex sensory feedback loops, materialized by the rest of the human body. This is substrate independent, but the only thing that rocks can do for sure is simulate this whole system, and good simulations of complicated systems are not an easy feat at all, and it's not at all certain that we ever be able to do it without it requiring too much resources for it to be worth the hassle.

The things we've done that most closely resemble human intelligence in computers are very drastic oversimplifications of how biological brains work, sprinkled with mathematical translations of actual cognitive processes. And right now they appear very limited, even though a lot of resources - physical and economic - have been injected into them. We don't understand how brains work enough to refine this simplification very well, and we don't know much about the formation of cognitive processes relevant to "intelligence" either. Yet you assert it's a certainty that we will, that we will encode it in computers, and that the result will have a bunch of properties of current software, easily copyable and editable (which the human-like intelligences we know are not at all), not requiring more power than is output by the Sun, (which humans don't, but they're completely different physical systems), etc.

The same arguments you're making could be made to say, in 1969 after the moon landing, that the human race will definitely colonize the whole solar system. We know it's possible so it will happen at some point is not how technology works, it also needs to be profitable enough for enough industry to be injected in the problem to solve it, and for the result to live up to profitability expectations. Right now no AI firm is even remotely profitable, and the resources in the Kuiper belt or the real estate on Mars aren't enough of an argument that our rockets can reach them, there's no telling that they will ever be ; our economies might well simply lose interest before then.

I've given reasons. We can imagine Dyson Spheres, and we know it's possible. It doesn't mean we can actually build them or ever will be able to.

The fact that our brains are able to do stuff that we don't even know how they do doesn't necessarily mean rocks can. If it somehow requires the complexity of biology, depending on how much of this complexity it requires it could just end up meaning creating a fully fledged human, which we can already do, and it hasn't caused a singularity because creating a human costs resources even when we do it the natural way.

Why is the mercury arc rectifier getting a "what the fuck"? I don't know much about them, are they more magic than glowing rocks, runes, levitation and demon cores?

What if human levels of intelligence requires building something that is so close in its mechanisms to a human brain that it's indistinguishable from a brain, or a complete physical and chemical simulation of a brain? What if the input-output "training" required to make it work in any comprehensible way is so close in fullness and complexity to the human sensory perception system interacting with the world, that it ends up being indistinguishable from a human body or a complete physical simulation of a body, with its whole environment?

There's no reason to assume our brains or their mechanisms can't be replicated artificially, but there's also no reason to assume it can be made practical, or that because we can make it it can self-replicate at no cost in terms of material resources, or refine its own formula. Humans have human-level intelligence, and they've never successfully created anything as intelligent as them.

I'm not saying it won't happen, mind you, I'm just saying it's not a certainty. Plenty of things are impossible, or sufficiently impractical that humans - or any species - may never create it.

Alright. I had already seen that stuff and I've never seen really convincing arguments for these predictions beyond pretty sci-fi-esque speculation.
I'm not at all convinced we have anything even remotely resembling "mimicking the processing power of a human mind", either through material simulation of a complete brain and the multi sensorial interactions with an environment to let it grow into a functioning mind, or the party tricks we tend to call AI these days (which boil down to Chinese Rooms built with thousands of GPU's worth of piecewise linear regressions, and that are unable to reason or even generalize beyond their training distributions according to the source).
I guess embedding cultivated neurons on microchips could maybe make new things possible, but even then I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out making a human-level intelligence ended up requiring building an actual whole ass human, or at least most of one. Seeing where we are with that stuff, I would rather surmise a time scale in the decades to centuries, if at all. Which could very well be longer than the time climate changes leaves us with the required levels of industry to even attempt it.

At the risk of sounding like I've been living under a rock, how do we know it's coming, exactly?

I'm not very big on life myself, but to me that's only superficially what this is about. To me it seems the negative reaction you get is because "life is boring" is an expression of personal suffering first, and a judgment about an objective, intrinsic quality of the very concept of existence second. So you have to be careful when you want to argue that boredom is not an intrinsic quality of existence because you end up invalidating an expression of personal suffering, which is generally considered gauche.

Second, your arguments in favour of life not being boring generalizes conditions that may not be everyone's. The ability to change jobs, move, find new friends, etc. is not necessarily universal. People who struggle with depression, in particular, may feel that your argument boils down to "pull yourself by your bootstraps". People who are in situations of economic or social servitude will feel it comes from a situation of personal privilege.

I wouldn't want to convince you that life is boring, it's a good thing that you enjoy your existence, and the very fact that you enjoy it is a proof by example. That said, I think your approach to trying to make people find good in their own lives by convincing them sight unseen that their bad experience with it is their own fault is misguided.

On dirait que Macron a trouvé la solution à l'instabilité...

Really? Again? I already disproved that take of yours in another thread, and you're still on about that bullshit even though your own source disproves your claim literally in its first sentence?

The citation you're contradicting is from an actual real-life, respected biologist who wrote peer-reviewed scientific articles. Who are you? Where are you getting these facts from, since they're nowhere to be found in your source? Are you really that deep in the Dunning-Kruger valley? or are you trying to hide some sort of message in ignorance too solid to be genuine?

Please, being mistaken isn't a crime but at least try to learn

Edit because I can't reply to a comment that was moderated out: Saying "again" when you're spouting the same nonsense again is not a tactic, it's just frustration. What is a tactic is cherry picking the parts of an article to present only one side of a debate, in order to refute another argument than the one put to you.

I didn't speak about the offensiveness or not of the term DSD here. I can at most think I would be or not, but I'm not qualified to know whether I would be offended. What I am talking about is reading, which I am qualified to do. There are three definitions of biological sex mentioned in the very first sentence of the article, none of which refer to gamete size which is a fourth one. I could also add the part where not all the DSD listed can be said to be male or female, and the ones who can actually use the chromosomal definition.

But I guess consistency is only for true believers, actual truth seekers like you neglect all that and keep repeating bad approximations as if they were facts because it feels good when the world is simple.

It's ok: you only get this value every two years. That way, even though it's a decrease from the previous year you have actually no idea whether the figure is higher than two years before

So insane even his former prime minister called for his resignation today. I still don't think he will but the vibes are getting weirder every day

"Less than a month" isn't conveying the absurdity of the situation. He spent "less than a month" in discussions to agree on a government (which was actually very long). He resigned - taking said government with him - less than fifteen hours after settling on one.

Then Macron rehired him for 3 days, he said he'd leave then, and Macron said "alright then 5 days". We're living in a Month Python skit.

It is. It could be construed as a form of constitutional brutalism: in theory the president is free to name whomever he chooses, however he is expected to choose someone from the parliamentary majority.

But this is the first time in the history of the current constitution that the parliamentary majority isn't an absolute majority or cannot form an absolute majority coalition. The consequence is that they can't systematically no-confidence-vote out any head of government they don't approve of, and basically enforce this expectation directly.

So Macron can just name someone from his minority (3rd biggest group even) and wait for the parliament to (more or less slowly) disagree enough with it that they'll agree to no-confidence-vote it out (usually when the government proposes a budget). Then, every time a prime minister is ousted, he can pretend he's not violating the constitution -- in spirit if not in letter -- when he starts again. He can frame it as defending the republic against "extremes" even though the relative parliamentary majority he's "defending against" is just a loose leftist alliance between parties that span from barely liberal to a bit more angry, but not extreme even by the state council's own definition. The second biggest group, however, is actually the far-right authoritarian racist party founded by literal ex-SS that's going to win a presidential election at some point if he keeps trying to out-authoritarian them.

Lecornu quit first thing this morning

Seven over his two terms. Three since his party lost its relative majority last July

"New" in this case means almost literally a permutation of the same people, with two 'additions' from previous failed governments.

I was also under the same impression, but it seems to have grown less clear?
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2025/09/15/tyler-robinsons-groyper-connection-truth-or-conspiracy-theory/

In any case, Kirk enjoyers have never been known to let facts get in the way of their hate