621–630 of 800 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no other interpretation for that other than what I said. If you disagree then that’s a misinterpretation of the English language. I am addressing the substance of your argument and that substance is lack of knowledge there is zero other angle to interpret it.
As I said previously, I don't think this is a productive use of time or effort for anyone involved so I'm dropping out of this thread.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not the point of Dune. Who blindly obeyed who?
The Fremen followed a messianic figure into a galaxy-wide holy war because the Bene Gesserit seeded their culture with manufactured prophecy as a failsafe.
Just woke up after 80 years of abuse by Landsraad/CHOAM, possibly centuries of persecution before that, at least decades of religious conditioning by Bene Gesserit, and decided to “follow” messianic figure.
Totally same point as humans using LLMs to smoothen their brain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russell's chicken (or turkey) would like a word. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey_illusion
I love that you brought this up. Chickens are killed ALL the time. It’s a recurring mass event. If you were a smart chicken you could see that pattern and put it into a formula. In contrast, the end of Humanity would be a singular event. It’s even in the name… And that is fiction / speculation in comparison. It’s not backed by any data. Human survival over 300,000 years by contrast is. I mean it’s fine to dream thing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People vote for people they don't agree with. When there are only two choices, and infinite issues, voters only have two choices: Vote for someone you don't agree with less, or vote for someone you quite hilariously imagine agrees with you. EDIT: Not being cynical about voters. But about the centralization of parties, in number and operationally, as a steep barrier for voter choice.
Combined with the quirk in Australia’s preferential voting system that enable a government to form despite 65% of voters having voted 1 for something else. As a result, Australia tends to end up with governments formed by the runner up, because no one party actually ‘won’ as such.
say preferences are 1 (low) to 5 (high).
suppose 65% of the population ranked candidate A at 5 and B at 4, and the other 35% ranked A at 1 and B at 5. the majority doesn't get their favorite choice, but they do get an outcome they're happy with, and the minority doesn't have a horrible outcome. Exaggerated, but I don't think situations like this are unrealistic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flying a drone around is easy. Identifying who is on the in group and out group and then moving them is the hard part. I’m not sure you have really thought out what the drone part is meant to do. Militaries gave outgunned populaces for decades at this point. You don’t need drones to kill civilians.
It's actually quite easy. Whoever isn't in the bunker is the outgroup. You only needed to tell people apart when you needed some meatware to man the factories and work the fields. Militaries can side with the crowd, or more likely decide to keep the power for themselves.
But they also need 2nd order meatware to support that 1st order: teachers, doctors, merchants… You need scientists to advance your technology against other militaries… You need leaders (3rd order) to keep the first two populations quiet and productive since that turns out to be more cost-effective than fear control through extermination…
Hell you need a certain level of genetic diversity so your own kids don't come out weird.
Give evolution a little more credit. The required number of humans for the in-group to be self-sustainable is definitely not billions, plus it's been shrinking with automation. But we are where we are for a reason – lots of alternative arrangements have been tried over millenia and found wanting.
"Keep my bunker + my drone factory and some farmers, kill the rest" leaves rulers with terrible quality of life (bad) and the next-door-junta taking over pretty quickly (also bad). It is a self-defeating, poor long-term strategy.
Automation tips the power balance further: fewer humans needed, more local autonomy. Which is, I suspect, why the ruling class are so terribly excited about AI, more so than some market valuations. Fewer pesky humans across all levels. Genetic diversity of bloodline remains the primary concern (unless you manage to live forever, which happens to be another evergreen of power ghouls).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All in all, because of light cones there can be no large-scale growth faster than x^3. And more like x^2 if you want to expand something more than just empty space.
Depends on what the curvature of the universe is. If it's negative then it supports exponential growth.
Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them. ... Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind. -- Frank Herbert, Dune You won't read, except the output of your LLM. You won't write, except prompts for your LLM. Why write code or prose when the machine can write it for you? You won't think or…
If we consider humans with the same anatomy the numbers are ~300,000 ~50,000 for language ~6,000 for writing ~100 for standardized education
The "end of your humanity" already happened when anybody could make up good and evil irrespective of emotions to advance some nation
"It had been a slow Tuesday night. A few hundred new products had run their course on the markets. There had been a score of dramatic hits, three-minute and five-minute capsule dramas, and several of the six-minute long-play affairs. Night Street Nine—a solidly sordid offering—seemed to be in as the drama of the night unless there should be a late hit." – 'SLOW TUESDAY NIGHT', a 2600 word sci-fi short story about lif…
This is incredible. > A thoughtful-man named Maxwell Mouser had just produced a work of actinic philosophy. It took him seven minutes to write it. To write works of philosophy one used the flexible outlines and the idea indexes; one set the activator for such a wordage in each subsection; an adept would use the paradox, feed-in, and the striking-analogy blender; one calibrated the particular-slant and the personality…
https://gwern.net/doc/fiction/science-fiction/1953-dahl-theg...