401–410 of 473 posts
> But all collected data had yet to be completely correlated and put together in all possible relationships. > A timeless interval was spent in doing that. > And it came to pass that AC learned how to reverse the direction of entropy. > But there was now no man to whom AC might give the answer of the last question. No matter. The answer -- by demonstration -- would take care of that, too. > For another timeless inter…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not like they work a lot, why would a religious leader need to outsource spiritual advice to a chatbot? It only shows that all humans are lazy, no matter how virtuous they want to be seen as. IMO this counts as sloth. Hopefully this discredits religions even more with the younger generations. Claiming that an immensely powerful being demands obedience of you, and keeps tabs on you all the time, but his orders on…
> Claiming that an immensely powerful being demands obedience of you, and keeps tabs on you all the time, but his orders only go through a chosen few, was a hard proposition to begin with. You just described what Silicon Valley wants to build lol
On the contrary, we willingly use (and even pay for) chatbots so they increasingly think for us, and it would take a monumental effort to take them away from us now.
People would even make their own if needed, but at least in that case, it won't be a megacorp telling the chatbot what to think in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't adopt biblical literalism, then isn't the Bible just true in the same way that Star Wars is true?
No. You interpret each document in context and in culture. For example, you interpret Genesis as a story that makes a point and tell you something - it is like Jesus's parables (no one same says they are literal!). For example, that all human beings are made in the image of God - as we all look different that is clearly not literal. That we are all related and of one ancestry. On the other hand you interpret the gosp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not like they work a lot, why would a religious leader need to outsource spiritual advice to a chatbot? It only shows that all humans are lazy, no matter how virtuous they want to be seen as. IMO this counts as sloth. Hopefully this discredits religions even more with the younger generations. Claiming that an immensely powerful being demands obedience of you, and keeps tabs on you all the time, but his orders on…
You’re seething hatred is so obvious from this comment that no one should consider your opinion as anything close to valid
I can see how a strong disagreement can be dismissed as hate, though. It preserves the cognitive dissonance between reality and belief.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. You interpret each document in context and in culture. For example, you interpret Genesis as a story that makes a point and tell you something - it is like Jesus's parables (no one same says they are literal!). For example, that all human beings are made in the image of God - as we all look different that is clearly not literal. That we are all related and of one ancestry. On the other hand you interpret the gosp…
I think their point was that Star Wars also has metaphorical lessons to be learned if you're not interpreting it as a literal history lesson.
However, much of the rest of the Bible should be read differently - the letters, biographies etc. Each document ("book") needs to be read appropriately and in context. Again, each can be compared to others in its genre, but its inclusion in "the Bible" (but there are lots of Biblical canons) gives it that extreme importance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yesterday I when I was googling something it hit me: I wouldn't know how to find anything without a search engine. We're already reliant on big tech regarding what information is presented to us and LLMs are just the next step in that direction.
i dont remember a world without google but surely the answer is just walk into a library?
It's a given that a book on programming is already out of date when it goes to print.
My main gripe with paper sources is that sometimes an important piece of information is only mentioned in passing when the author clearly knew more about it.
IMO, any (important) writing you expect other humans to consume should be your own writing. I think it's kind of disrespectful to outsource your voice to AI but expect people to read it like it's yours. Why should I put in time to read if you're not putting in time to write?
IMO, any (important) writing you expect other humans to consume should be your own writing. I think it's kind of disrespectful to outsource your voice to AI but expect people to read it like it's yours. Why should I put in time to read if you're not putting in time to write?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't adopt biblical literalism, then isn't the Bible just true in the same way that Star Wars is true?
No. You interpret each document in context and in culture. For example, you interpret Genesis as a story that makes a point and tell you something - it is like Jesus's parables (no one same says they are literal!). For example, that all human beings are made in the image of God - as we all look different that is clearly not literal. That we are all related and of one ancestry. On the other hand you interpret the gosp…
Sorry to nitpick, but there were quite a lot of "heathens" and "witches" who had faced some problems with the traditional interpretations of the Bible before modern times.