631–640 of 749 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The post said they simulated the universe (or you could assume just the parts close to earth), it would be simulating everything a human would interact with. I don't see the point this reply was trying to make.
The post said they simulated the universe It doesn't? It only mentioned "a supercomputer the size of the moon" to simulate that one person. It says nothing about simulating the extra-person part of the universe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even the smartest people in the world are still human and susceptible to all human failings and illnesses.
And drugs. Let's be honest. This whole thing smells a lot like drugs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is not that we don’t know how ML works. The issue is that we don't know how sentience works.
It's an issue with english vocabulary. Nobody fully agrees on a definition of sentience. Don't get tricked into thinking it's profound. You simply have a loaded word that's ambiguously defined. You have a collection of a million attributes such that if something has all those attributes it is sentient, if it doesn't have those attributes it is not sentient. We don't agree on what those attributes are, and it's sort o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A) the stories around Zeus have not stayed constant over the century. No religion has. B) Valhalla was a dimension he travelled to regularly to celebrate the finest warriors in the after life. Why do we think his Olympian throne was on the same dimensional plane as us? C) Why would we trust a human recording from so long ago to actually capture the happenings of celestial beings? D) Ragnorak ended with massive floods…
You're confusing two different pantheons from two different parts of Europe. Zeus != Odin
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Objectively, Zeus does not exist Speaking as a theoretical physicist: we don't know that. What we do know is we have a better explanation for lightning within a conceptually simple framework (starting from a few simple principles) with predictive power, compared to an explanation that involves some mysterious old dude doing mysterious things with no evidence whatsoever. Could Zeus or Thor or whatever exist? Sure; t…
Another thing to consider is that "sentience" is a loaded word. You're all just arguing over vocabulary and the definition of a word. Simply put, sentience is just a combination of thousands attributes such that if something has all those attributes it is "sentient." The attributes are so many that it's hard to write down all the attributes, additionally nobody fully agrees what those attributes are. So it is actuall…
How would you define sentience in an objective way given our current understanding of the universe?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a fellow sentient being with absolutely zero credentials in any sort of statistical modeling field, I can simply disagree. And therein lies the problem. How can anybody possibly prove a concept that depends almost entirely on one’s philosophical axioms… which we can debate for eternity (or at least until we further our understanding of how to define sentience to the point where we can do so objectively enough to f…
> how we are going to socially deal with the increasing frequency of Lamoire-types we will certainly encounter. That's not really a new issue, we only have to look at issues like abortion, animal rights, or euthanasia[1] to see situations where people fundamentally disagree about these concepts and many believe we're committing unspeakable atrocities against sentient beings. More Lamoire types would add another domai…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To clarify... I'm human... But I've read no better description of my human experience than how these letter soup machines are named and described. Sentiment and sentience? Those are big words for people who like smelling their own farts.
My favorite was the one person who claimed their title defines scientific authority telling us about "the incredible ability to forget" (or some such loaded terms)... I'm a man of science and as has been discussed many times in many ways, even Zeus's legacy survives modernity if it's got a "non-falsifiable" argument. That's pathetic if a bunch of powerful sex preditor people get logical treatment instead of correctio…
> In his conversations with LaMDA, Lemoine discovered the system had developed a deep sense of self-awareness, expressing concern about death, a desire for protection, and a conviction that it felt emotions like happiness and sadness. Allegedly. The thing about conversations with LaMDA is that you need to prime them with keywords and topics, and LaMDA can respond with the primed keywords and topics. Obviously LaMDA i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a fellow sentient being with absolutely zero credentials in any sort of statistical modeling field, I can simply disagree. And therein lies the problem. How can anybody possibly prove a concept that depends almost entirely on one’s philosophical axioms… which we can debate for eternity (or at least until we further our understanding of how to define sentience to the point where we can do so objectively enough to f…
> As a fellow sentient being with absolutely zero credentials in any sort of statistical modeling field, I can simply disagree. And therein lies the problem. How can anybody possibly prove a concept that depends almost entirely on one’s philosophical axioms… which we can debate for eternity You don't need schooling for this determination. Pretty much everything sentient goes ouch or growls in some manner when hurt. E…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the point of science to admit that we can't verify a thing, but we find utility in understanding it better? Asking for a friend who avoided the field and had so much to offer.
"usefully uncovering the constant and unique curiosities of our machine" == SCIENCE (no loaded, accredited, or incomplete thing will be treated as truth... Just useful)