That would be kinda hot ngl
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 96
- Joined
- 3 mo. ago
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 96
- Joined
- 3 mo. ago
- JumpRemoved Deleted
Permanently Deleted
I don't dislike AI. I dislike capitalist morons snake oil salesman-ing AI.
Yes, there is obviously a great great ethical use of AI. The utopian future is a publicly owned AI system, where all jobs are automated, where all labor is done practically without scarcity at superhuman competency levels. Humans sit on their front porch playing the cello, knitting, or perhaps just fucking. Any sort of progress necessitates the creation of AI in our day and age.
The definition of AI depends a lot on context. Are we talking philosophically? Well, that's a rabbit hole I don't want to get into at all right now. Technically? Well, here's how I'd go about it:
"Intelligent systems are those that have a set terminal goal, and continually attempt to get closer to achieving their terminal goal, by refining each attempt by learning from past experiences interacting with their environment."
So if we have to look at this as a function, AI would have these qualities: Input params and output params. AI is the function in the middle. AI takes input params and tries to correctly manipulate them to form output params. It uses results to change its model to be "more correct" in the future. So by this definition, your dumb 20 year old computer vision models would still qualify as AI.
Ehh honestly, can't something as powerful and as long lived as Satan just... Know all spoken languages?
Imagine Satan trying to seduce you, but unable to buy your soul because he can't speak your language fluently. Would be a funny setup, but kinda lame
WOW. I mean... WOW. Never have I been so offended in my life smh
- JumpRemoved Deleted
The World is a Perfect Game
Slop
Minoxidil: Increases blood flow by dilating blood vessels. More blood flow means more resources for hair in the region that the minoxidil is acting in. More resources = hair grows thicker. CANNOT grow hair for follicles that are dead. Effects go away when you stop taking it.
Finestaride (probably the one you're talking about): blocks DHT that causes male pattern baldness. Prevents hair loss caused by DHT (for most people). Effects last only while you take it.
Hence, people generally combine these things. Finestaride to stop mpb/lessen its pace, while minoxidil to make fine hairs at the hairline grow thicker.
I mean it does have legitimate narrow use cases imo ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Everywhere? Nawww not rlly
you can't build a strong political movement on such open individualism.
It's not really that individualistic of an ethical framework. I would say it's pretty much in line with how most humans behave. Humans care about themselves, and a group of people they love. This group can be family, friends, and so on. The amount they would sacrifice for someone else depends upon how "close" they feel to that individual/where they rank the interests of that individual in their hierarchy of interests.
Most political movements and alliances throughout history have been built with this understanding.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying normative assertions using descriptive facts. What I am saying, is that most political movements and alliances were forged in spite of ethical frameworks like mine.
The Russian revolution didn't happen because the serfs were highly utilitarian and radically altruistic. It happened because they believed that life would improve for themselves and the people they cared about if the communists ruled in place of the Tsar.
You can name any revolution throughout history, and I can guarantee that it happened because of shared interests of the revolutionaries and not purely because of radical altruism.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Ok, let's bring back the dinos
That's a police force, not an army. An army can be used to stop riots in an emergency, but that's not their job and they tend to suck at it.
Legal and structural differences, sure. But fundamentally the same thing- weapons of the state to enforce laws with the threat of violence (internally or externally).
Is some people in some parts of the world losing some of their freedoms a bigger problem than war, colonialism and the sheer waste of resources for 'defence' that could be better used for constructive purposes?
Yes. Empathy for others comes AFTER empathy for myself first. Not everyone is an ethical utilitarian, definitely not me. The first thing I burn down is an authoritarian structure that affects me. Once I'm done with that, I move on to structures that affect others. But inviting an authoritarian structure to oppress me with the hope that it will lessen pain for people who hate me? No thanks.
I didn't provide an answer because the answer is highly obvious.
Let's say the means of automation are seized by the public. Anyone can use it. You don't have to be rich to benefit from the "fruits of automation".
People can now innovate more. Public services can be a lot more efficient. High frequency, low capacity self driving buses running in remote communities could be possible. The public's bus fares drop. If we get AI safe enough to engage in healthcare... well healthcare costs down (meaning lower taxes for us).
Basically, any service that requires human labor... doesn't end up needing it anymore. Noone has to do boring soul sucking jobs anymore.
By "redistribute the fruits of automation", I mean plans like UBI, more universal basic services and so on.
Ok, rant time.
This is how the market is SUPPOSED to work: Demand high, supply low. Suppliers rush in to increase supply with the incentive of profit. Eventually, supply increases and profits become razor thin. Consumers (average folk) win.
BUT, there are certain sectors where monopolies/oligopolies form naturally. Not necessarily because companies are evil, but because it's simply economically more efficient to do so. Rail being the best example. Why would another rail company build a parallel track to an already existing freight corridor that connects 2 companies?
Banks require to pass through a lot of financial regulation (as they should). Hence, oligopolies form naturally. Same with telecom.
NOW. Let's look at our utopic market again. Profits should be high where supply hasn't met demand. NOT where supply and demand are the same. This is very good for those owning the companies (capitalists), but not good for the consumers (us). In our ideal market, this profit reduction happens due to competition. However, we have established that some sectors naturally are prone to less competition.
Banks posting record profits (when banking isn't exactly a sector that requires crazy investment to meet allegedly crazy increasing demand) is bad for the average person. Same with companies that are in sectors where not much investment is needed. Groceries being an example.
So what do we do to reduce profits in such sectors so that a handful of people aren't ripping us off? Here's my opinion:
The state should force oligopolies/monopolies to become consumer cooepratives. If this is too politically infeasible, then raise capital, start a state owned corp and immediately shift the operations to a consumer cooperative (of which every citizen is a member by default).
So TLDR: The stock market booming isn't always a good thing. Sure, actually innovative corps posting record profits (from the new stuff they've worked on) can be a good thing. BUT, boring ass corps which aren't exactly innovating posting increasing profits means that the consumer (us) is getting ripped off.
Yes they do. And it still doesn't change the fact that the swastika means Nazism for Jewish folk and people who had to witness the horrors of WW2 and the Holocaust.
So, if a Hindu (while knowing what the symbol means for a Jewish person) went up to a Jewish person and waved the symbol in their face, it wouldn't be so nice now, would it?
Similarly, waving the hammer and sickle in front of a Polish person and saying, "akshually it means worker liberation" would be pretty dickish.
Uh, yes? That would be my dream scenario.
The majority of the world is deeply deeply socially conservative. A singular global state means that it can legislate away freedoms that queer folk have. Unless you are socially conservative yourself, I have no idea why this would be your dream scenario.
Why would they need an army? To fight the penguins?
To enforce laws. A "law" is a legislated rule that is backed by the threat of violence. Let's say the global state decides to increase excise taxes on weed. The administrative division that was the former country of the Netherlands rebels against this and refuses to pay the increased tax.
The state's last resort is sending in an armed force that can violently collect this tax if necessary.
Without an armed force to enforce laws, you get... the UN. An institution that just passes resolutions, which can easily be ignored by literally anyone. The UN is a forum of states to "talk". It is not a state itself.
I'm so tired of the "AI bad" narrative on the left. SEIZE THE NEW MEANS OF PRODUCTION AND ACCELERATE.
Get rid of human labor, redistribute the fruits of automation to everyone so that we can be on a forever holiday with friends and family.
Yes, the current form of AI is not developed enough to accomplish this vision. Yes, billionaires getting to own it is bad. The problem however is not the technology itself and the advancement of that technology.
The swastika is a holy symbol in Hinduism. Absolutely not associated with genocide for a thousand years.
The Nazis adopted it, and now Swastika = Nazi.
The hammer and sickle was used to represent industrial workers and farmers to unite against the bourgeoisie. The USSR adopted it, and suppressed Eastern Europe under abject authoritarian rule for half a century.
For individuals who have had to go through that crap, yeah... Why would they not hate it as much as the Swastika?
I mean... Humans ARE assholes. Some are cute beyond imagination, while some are just... horrible.
It's okay to say, "I wish the best for my friends and family over the entirety of humanity". It's the winning strategy of game theory plain and simple, isn't?
"Start by being nice and cooperative. If faced by defection from the other side, do not cooperate until the other side cooperates again".
The simplest example would be sharing a house as housemates. Some humans are assholes who you'd never want to share space with. Some, you'd desperately want as housemates.