Edawayac_Tosscount
No bio...
User ID: 3772
Edawayac_Tosscount
17d ago
I assent to everything you said, albeit without any of the prerequisite expertise to give me proper knowledge. In short, and I hope this does not do your piece a rhetorical disservice, I vibe with it.
I've dealt with the products of the current AI paradigm as a mere enthusiast, watching 4chan /g/ threads from about 2021 and onward, looking on with both excitement and disappointment as text and imagegen models, though both increasingly easy to deploy in reduced scope on consumer hardware and increasingly capable when developed and hosted by professionals, nonetheless retained epistemic and recollective issues that, while capable of being papered over with judicious use of the context window and ever-more training data processing power and storage, nonetheless gave me the impression that there was a fundamental kink in the underlying implementation of mainstream "AI" that would prevent that implementation from ever achieving the messianic (or demonic, or, at the very least, economic) hopes foisted onto it.
That said, I'm provisionally materialist, so barring me becoming convinced of the human soul I don't see why in principle software couldn't achieve incredible intelligence, either by your definition of it or in some more nebulous sense. I'm just thoroughly disappointed by the hopes piled onto (and consumer software & web services tainted by) the current "AI" bandwagon.
I'm still sympathetic to the pro-conspiracy responses' general conclusion ("something weird is going on"), but what confuses me is how some attempt to defend that conclusion.
If it was strictly a matter of saying, "yes, Rov_Scam has reduced the apparent probability of there being a conspiracy by undermining some folk narratives, but there are still discrepancies x, y, z which may still outweigh the anti-conspiracy evidence" then I wouldn't be aghast at it (as someone who has absorbed the Epstein death conspiracies through osmosis I'm still on the fence about the security camera issues but don't feel confident staking out a position) but some of the responses almost sound like a parody of conspiratorial reasoning, taking it as a given that Epstein was murdered and then discounting evidence against it per the anticipated conclusion.
More options
Context Copy link