Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Make up a guy

antipope.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 176 posts

Re: Make up a guy

#91

Post by troupe »

roflyear wrote: post #60
xwolfi wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I mean I wish life wasnt made in this self eating way, and I dont think intelligence should be the only factor: all the mushrooms you gobble have an intrinsict beauty you're violating, tearing and repurposing like they're mere trash to recycle. But it is so for now and our chemistry is made to make more out of meat quicker, and to feel good eating it as result: we cant stop nor expect others to stop just yet. Don…

Animals are tortured today like they have never been. Animal husbandry harms the planet on a massive scale. It cannot be reduced to what you suggest.

> Animals are tortured today like they have never been

I'm not sure that's true.

The Old Testament has spells out that if you want to eat part of an animal, you have to kill it first which is a huge step forward in being kind to animals if hacking off part of an animal to eat while keeping it alive was something that happened enough to need a prohibition against.

It wasn't that ago that Edison electrocuted an elephant as part of a marketing stunt and it wasn't particularly quick. I don't think that would fly today.

Re: Make up a guy

#92

Post by hvl2 »

codeflo wrote: post #3

I encountered the author’s short story that’s linked in the article, Lena [1], a while ago, possibly here on HN. It’s really great, but be warned. It’s one of the most deeply disturbing sci-fi horror stories I’ve ever seen. To be clear, most of the horror is implied rather than described, which I think only makes it worse. Part of me wishes I had never read it. Highly recommended, but if you’re at all in doubt if you…

If you think this is horrific, then you apparently assume that it has "consciousness" rather than only simulating it. A true AGI might be intelligent but only simulate consciousness. And yes, it might be difficult to tell the difference.

This reminds me of Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment. In order to upgrade the Chinese Room to modern deep learning: suppose we run a brain image by instructing each human being on Earth to act as one neuron. Would "we" "feel" discomfort?

Re: Make up a guy

#94

Post by yboris »

Related: Better to Never Have Been by David Benatar

It's a position of antinatalism. Antinatalist philosophy roughly claims that sentient beings are harmed when they are brought into existence, and it is therefore wrong to procreate.

I think everyone ought to consider this philosophy / argument before having children - as to recognize the severity of the act. At the very least, not having children should be the default, and to have a child one needs to think thoroughly and clearly, and to have a clear reason in mind when saying "yes", as it's one of the most important decisions in one's life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Never_to_Have_Been

Re: Make up a guy

#95

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

rogual wrote: post #26
toto444 wrote: post #5

The article points to a Twitter account named Two-Word Horror. I clicked on it not expecting much, it's actually quite disturbing. Here are some examples : > Riemann counterexamples > Unicode Corporation > Google Sex > procedurally-generated regulations > denim skin > peak humanity

> Unicode Corporation There is an Emoji Corporation [1], which as far as I can tell exists to try and trick people into thinking they've got to pay them to use emojis. Looks like they got some Danegeld out of Sony Pictures for the Emoji movie. [1] https://www.emoji.com/

First thought was how a big movie studio could be duped by that, especially for such a large project.

> We are the exclusive rights owner of the registered emoji® trademark

”We own the word and they used it!”

Playground logic from adults. Of course there are legitimate use-cases for a trademark but this is pretty plainly not one of those.

Re: Make up a guy

#96

Post by scrollaway »

Carioca wrote: post #80
gilleain wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Harder to pull off these days, but not impossible I imagine! Chat-gpt + text-to-speech? Seems like AI-employees who 'handle' marketing calls would be quite possible. Of course, then the marketers make their own AIs, and it will end up with the majority of phone calls being robots talking to robots.

It's all fun and games until the chat-responder inadvertently buys the product. And when/if you reveal the deception, the other company sues. In AI court, obviously, where it will be decided by an AI judge

It's OK, the AI court is biased in favour of the AI, so the other company doesn't stand a chance :)

Re: Make up a guy

#97

Post by paleotrope »

blinding-streak wrote: post #56

Speaking of making a person.. at this startup I worked at years ago (before LinkedIn existed), it was a tiny shop and we were all maxed out time-wise. It was frustrating when we had to deal with incredibly persistent salespeople that wouldn't take no for an answer, and others that preyed on our time relentlessly for no apparent reason. So as a joke we invented a fake employee with a fake name. I think his first name…

I wonder if this is going to change with time. Most people of a certain age remember a time when answering the phone and talking to the other person was a social more. This is the social courtesy that telemarketers and scammers have been using for years now.

But there's another way. Just hang up on them. I know it's considered hostile but it's just an outdated social more at this point.

Re: Make up a guy

#98

Post by dclowd9901 »

yboris wrote: post #94

Related: Better to Never Have Been by David Benatar It's a position of antinatalism . Antinatalist philosophy roughly claims that sentient beings are harmed when they are brought into existence, and it is therefore wrong to procreate. I think everyone ought to consider this philosophy / argument before having children - as to recognize the severity of the act. At the very least, not having children should be the defa…

It’s funny, I never knew of the formal philosophy of anti-natalsim (though, as a human, certainly familiar with the concept of never having existed). Yet, the very first thought experiment I had before deciding to have a child was to, in my head, have an answer for them if they ever asked me “why did you have me?” And make sure it was a really good answer.

I do doubt many folks do this but I’d be willing to bet most who have given any thought to their existence probably do.

Re: Make up a guy

#99

Post by seba_dos1 »

troupe wrote: post #91
roflyear wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Animals are tortured today like they have never been. Animal husbandry harms the planet on a massive scale. It cannot be reduced to what you suggest.

> Animals are tortured today like they have never been I'm not sure that's true. The Old Testament has spells out that if you want to eat part of an animal, you have to kill it first which is a huge step forward in being kind to animals if hacking off part of an animal to eat while keeping it alive was something that happened enough to need a prohibition against. It wasn't that ago that Edison electrocuted an elephan…

It's about scale. Your examples are minuscule in scale in comparison.

Re: Make up a guy

#100

Post by Firmwarrior »

rom-antics wrote: post #63
adastra22 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I completely honestly would, and I'm confused that people wouldn't. That frog would hop off to lead a bleak, short, meaningless existence if I don't turn it into a person. Even if I wave the wand and make it human then fully abandon it, it'd still be a better outcome overall for a sentient being.

Why is a frog's life more bleak and meaningless than a human's life? We can't understand animals' thoughts, but that doesn't mean they don't have them. A frog spends its time chilling in a pond and swimming all day. People pay good money for vacations where they can do exactly that. Sounds like a good life to me. If I was a frog and you turned me into a homeless guy who has to go get a job at an Amazon warehouse to a…

Ridiculous. A homeless guy is going to have a way easier and more comfortable life than a frog

He can just hang out in a makeshift shelter and eat whatever free food he finds. He'll be in way less danger at any given time than a frog would be, with a vastly longer and more fulfilling life ahead of him.

Post reply on HN