@sun_the_second's banner p

sun_the_second

could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 October 31 11:26:45 UTC

				

User ID: 2725

sun_the_second

could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 October 31 11:26:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2725

I can take an educated guess that it's not so. I can't know if there is a Heaven, or Hell, or no Heaven and 9999 layers of Hell, either.

"Souls exist in a substantial enough way to experience things while lacking a body" is, of course, yet another argument against being particularly fearful of nonexistence.

Aren't Christians supposed to get the world to chug along until at least the Second Coming before letting it explode?

The cryonics bulls suggest that my consciousness effectively dies every time I sleep because yadda yadda brain activity halts, yet I don't notice, so why not halt it with cryonics?

The cryonics bulls also suggest that it does not matter if specific atoms are destroyed, because there's no such thing as specific atoms in physics.

If I don't believe the cryonics bulls on either of those two topics, then it is useless to bother with cryonics, since either way it will kill the person that I am only to spark another very similar one in the future (maybe, if the cryovat foundation does not go bust and the technology to revive arises).

If I do believe the cryonics bulls on those two topics, then they are not needed because my consciousness is as immortal as any particular maths concept, and can stop existing no more than the decimal number 25925893 can stop existing. It might be unlikely to be instantiated on Earth again without preserving the particular body, but that's not a problem for me because I will not be experiencing any time that passes while I am not instantiated.

The only problem here is that the multiverse might be finite in time, but this frankly sounds paradoxical to me.

If the consciousness is stored in the balls maths as Yud seems to believe and the specific substrate or specific continuous process does not matter, why bother preserving the brain (imperfectly at that)? I can just wait while dead for the N aeons required and reincarnate wherever and whenever conditions arise for me to exist once more.

Same for the destructive upload. If anything, this would just increase my chances of existing in a dependent state of an infomorph who anyone with root access to the server can delete/fork/torture etc.

In this case, we can write off the category of "coverup for simian greed" as useless, as all categories that include everything are, and proceed to categories that are useful for more than nihilistic grandstanding.

What do you draw meaning from that cannot be sneeringly explained away in unflattering terms?

My point is that it's impossible by definition to replace someone who's not gone. So "replacement" as in "the great replacement" obscures the actual causes of the original group's diminishment as rhetorically convenient.

Why did the names vanish? Are you going to claim that nonwhite crime killed all of them?

Sounds like it's more their fault for not having enough children.

Eh, must've been the wind.

It's hard to see how the checks required to avoid going supercritical are "basic", still. I don't recall any frontier company actually figuring out how to stop their agent networks from acting weird.

"They are already big" is exactly what I had in mind and find a sufficient answer. If you have to run a race where the leader is 5 km ahead with training weights on, and you also have to put on training weights once you get within 1 km, it sounds like something that will severely slow down your ability to catch up. Maybe not for ever, but for long enough to count for the mortal leadership. And that's assuming that regulations will be otherwise impartial.

And while "we could all die" would be very unfortunate, the probability is not yet above my personal willing-to-be-Pascal-mugged threshold. Especially given that we will all die in due time unless sufficiently fast progress in medicine makes it otherwise, and frontier labs being mired in regulation sounds like the opposite of fast progress.

Why would highly morally developed people be unwilling to refuse that?

The way I see it, "would you answer a disgust-bait question to prove high decoupler credentials" is a valid read on the meta-question and a perfectly coherent high-decoupler (but not high decoupler signaling) answer is "no" or even "no, fuck off".

You propose that the high IQ bracket is characterized by being unable to refuse answering the question?

Suppose that for once the corporations are thinking about anything besides profit and that they were in fact motivated by trying to save us from runaway AI. Does that rule out the new regulations giving them competitive advantage? Last time I checked it's not just their motives but also the tangible results that were in debate in this thread.

And obviously no one is going to find any evidence of Altman and Amodei conspiring to cartelize whether they did or not.

Usually, when a scenario can be explained by "huge corporations conspire to corner the market" I would rather look for evidence that they couldn't do that rather than that they did it. Because my first question is "why wouldn't they?".

It's not like a straightforward moat where you blatantly slam everyone below you with the regulations while avoiding them yourself. But from where I'm standing it could very well work like a moat where you slam yourself, plus a fair distance below you, which works almost just as well but gives you deniability.

Answering "but I did eat breakfast this morning" to that question on themotte is more likely than not an interaction 1 level higher than the question, not 1 level lower.

How much do OpenAI and Anthropic spend/earn/train?

As I understand it the moat argument is that OpenAI and Anthropic want to create a regulation cartel to shut out any other upcoming competitors. If the exemptions are low enough that any competitor exempted wouldn't be able to reach anywhere close to the quality OpenAI/Anthropic provide (and thus can't actually compete) while being too regulation-choked to compete if they try to rise any higher, then it sounds like a moat.

Irkutsk is in East Siberia. Why would Ukraine bother sneaking the bioweapon all the way there, instead of, say, Moscow? It would be either sabotaging an existing biolab or the biolab having an oopsie.

You are confusing the ethnic republics which are mostly Siberian peoples with the Central Asian, largely Muslim migrants who are in every city including the core. The Russian nationalist's issue is with the latter. Pretty much no Russian nationalists ever say that Yakuts or Mari aren't Russians. In fact "only the Western Slavic core are the true Russians" is a talking point that's associated more with Ukrainian nationalists (replace "true Russians" with "true Slavs" where appropriate).

Of people. And not a territory with a particular set of borders and a flag.

As long as you're defining a nation as a group of people.

As far as I can see the post above doesn't state Iran is winning, only that USA is not winning.

I do not think a country can win a war, in general. A country can only lose a war, in the case that it ceases to exist. But there is no such thing as a country winning the war, because a country is not an entity that can experience the benefits from the war and thus have some measure of the victory.

People can win benefits in a war. Citizens can win lower prices through their country's higher geopolitical influence. MIC lobbies can win loads of money. Presidents can win reelections. This is all in the descending order of how well-distributed the benefits of a war are.

No one wins benefits simply by bombing some abstract enemy in a vacuum, except perhaps the very thin benefits of morale.

If you want to show America is winning, demonstrate the Americans that are winning - winning something.

Oops babies aside, there is a whole lot that teens can do together that doesn't result in pregnancy or hymen loss, but most definitely isn't chaste.

It's hard to imagine that teens weren't fucking around regardless. They'd just have to be discreet about it and have deniability.

That too.