Skip Navigation

Posts
28
Comments
235
Joined
5 yr. ago

  • Of course. If anti-war activists achieve their goal, Russia will withdraw from Ukraine. Then, NATO will set up bases there, including nuclear weapons, in the most strategically relevant outpost at the Russian border. This, of course, will allow NATO to easily defeat Russia, the largest military power barring itself. Unopposed, it will take on China, the only real contender to the US on the economic front. This will eventually result in the US keeping its hegemony for the rest of our lifetimes, which by simple imperialist logic is detrimental to current global South nations. So as much as I dislike authoritarianism, those activists don't know what they are doing (or, worse, know it damn well) and stopping them by any means will help the rest of us.

  • I'm sorry, I mischose my wording. They did not abandon any ideas or revert any socialist policies. By "sacrificing" I meant they chose to remain in a particular stage of socialism and delay any further advances in the path of socialism until the conditions allow. This is in perfect accordance with the revolutionary principles outlined by Lenin and even Mao (e.g. On Contradiction), and I see no problem with that strategy.

  • No, I'm not talking about markets per se. But there are different stages of socialism and China is in a pretty young stage at the moment, compared to a country like NK. There are still plenty of changes ahead, which will need to happen as the complex geopolitical situation in the world allows, notably as the West starts becoming less of a threat to socialism worldwide.

  • As bad as this may seem, it is actually beneficial to the rest of the world.

  • I mean, China has sacrificed some specific Marxist ideas in the short-term (edit: meaning "dealyed until safe", not "reverted" or "abandoned") in order to avoid being destroyed by the West like the USSR was. So it makes sense that some paranoid Marxists want to wait and see how the situation evolves before making their minds on the issue. I believe in the Communist leadership of China, but I can't blame others for being more skeptical.

  • AI is just dirty cheap intellectual labor. If you are not concerned about people hiring other people to do x (post comments, whatever), then you should only be slightly concerned about AI making that orders of magnitude more feasible to do.

  • The demonstration was organized by far-right parties, so I'm highly skeptical that they are asking for anything other than liberal measures...

  • Seems like China is starting to challenge the US at their own game... Interesting to see where this is going.

  • As AI evolves, its behavior is progressively entering the realm of normal inter-individual variability among humans. Solutions like this will eventually fail catastrophically, provided they are not already failing.

  • Wonderful job! Thank you two!

  • I've seen AI fail miserably at drawing human skeletons. While it's very good at making things that look realistic, or even beautiful, it's still far from achieving complex illustration tasks (e.g. anatomically correct bones, architectural designs, comic strips that make sense, etc.).

  • You're right, Lemmy does the job :)

  • The issue with debate is that it's an inherently hard problem. Every platform tries to solve it in a different way (voting consensus, etc.). I think federation would help prevent platform-introduced biases.

  • You are absolutely right... I posted a while ago about a solid-state lab project I was working on. I made pretty large steps towards that, but I eventually realized that it would only make a difference if I could leverage the latest technology. So I've spent the last months working on a smaller-scale project (a very low-cost ultrasound imaging machine) and finally I'm starting to see some tangible results; I will build and present the final prototype in collaboration with my university, but the important thing here is that I'm getting both experience and reputation, plus I'm convincing a friend (an engineering lab researcher) to join an eventual, larger-scale, solid-state lab project. The idea is not to get "something that works and is open source", as it was before, but to research cutting-edge technology.

  • Well, a lot of stuff I'd say. For example:

    • A federated structured debate platform.
    • A (good) biochemical pathway simulator.
    • Open-source ASIC design automation tools.
    • Software to help research on diplomacy/politics via game theory.
    • More cool games why not!
  • I hope they ship all the ASML EUVL machines. The US is just fucking over the entire world at this point.

  • Hi, sorry for not responding earlier. You seem to be very knowledgeable. I was trained in ethics as part of my medical training, so the extent of my knowledge may not be as great as yours. Anyway, these are the specific pieces of knowledge I was invoking:

    • Ethics only applies to entities with free will. I don't believe countries have free will since they act in a deterministic fashion.
    • Ethics deals with principles that must be upheld. These principles include not causing harm, acting for the benefit of others, etc. I understand that these principles are the main mechanism for making choices.
    • In the paradigm I was trained on, ethics only states what one should do, and doesn't deal with punishment.
    • A nexus of causality transfers responsibility. I believe there is a nexus of causality when any deterministic process is involved.

    So, my point is that this specific situation must not be resolved by you stated means since:

    • Here, punishment is incompatible with seeking the good of others.
    • Since countries are deterministic, ethics doesn't apply to them.
    • Since countries are deterministic, even if ethics were to apply, responsibility is transferred (e.g., since I know 100% sure how a country will respond to my actions, I am triggering their response as much as them).
  • Thank you! I eventually found out about the AI-generated pictures. I know it's weird on my part to listen to libs like that, but they always turn out wrong, so whatever... In this case I was pointing out that, even if what the webpage said was right, they weren't claiming anything special.