there is not a single thing that could wipe out a deep sea habitat that wouldnt also wipe any space colonies. but i dont see anybody arguing for that, despite being far more achievable and practical. also, there is no feasible way for space colonies to be self sufficient anywhere in the near future, so wiping out earth also wipes out space colonies relying on it for supplies. this argument aboOt survivability is absurd.

is this a play on luddites?

i can give this class for free: dont

a consultant trying to make money off of teaching managers how to “manage people using ai”. this is very silly.

us economists are hardly at threat of being disappeared for criticizing the economy

via statistical imitation. other methods, such as solving and implementing by first principles analytically, has not been shown to be np hard. the difference is important but the end result is still no agigpt in the foreseeable and unforeseeable future.

the limitation is specifically using the primary machine learning technique, same one all chatbots use at places claiming to pursue agi, which is statistical imitation, is np-hard.

also the answer to that question, shitloads of data for a better ai, is yes… with logarithmic returns. massively underpriced (by cost to generate) returns that have questionable value statement at best.

Humanity is not intrinsically violent to this scale.

could you expand on that?

programmer linguistigs is certainly something to behold.

read where?

Just going to point out: russian culture doesnt use nazi in the same way we do; largely they dont view nazis as ontologically bad because of the bigotry or the antisemitism or the genocide of many peoples, but because they were an existential threat to russia or russian ethnicities. a lot of the associations westerners have about nazis are just not widespread in russia. this is why there are a lot of seemingly idiosyncratic phrasings in this kind of stuff.

this is an explicit design feature of federation: free association. this is one of the primary reasons it is in theory better than something centralized. this post is layers of wrong.

see certain optical illusions in a way that other vision models cannot.

eh… but not in a way that is really like what humans see. which is the articles claim, but it makes a clasically cs approach to nuerology: zero effort to prove the quite substantial claim.

Word soup

that is most certainly not word soup. it’s also an accurate statement, though uncharitable to the authors claims.

Also, the detail in description of their “quantum” inspiration (an effect not unique to quantum mechanics in fact, at that level of description) reads like they skimmed wikipedia’s intro to xyz topic, whether or not the author understands the topics more deeply.

sorry are you saying people should pronounce their own names in ways they don’t prefer to be “correct”? Also etc etc language guides are descriptive not prescriptive.

If they can target the underlying architecture of the models like nightshade does, it will actually be quite hard to deal with for the surveillance companies.

Trilium is good

Datas is correct if you are referring to multiple distinct populations of data. Which in this case works.

afaik no known cases

Did you actually look?

Sibling in existence I know asbestos must be airborne. You aren’t refuting anything by repeatedly saying that. Respond to the words I am saying or I can only assume you are copy pasting talking points.