domain:youtube.com
The quality of legal advice current LLMs give is miles better than what you could get in 2023. It's still not perfect but now it's at the point where you need to have a decent idea of the field to understand where it goes wrong compared to back then when an intelligent layman with Google would have been able to point out the errors.
Voting systems. I'm very against STV and would love to hear some counterarguments if you've got them so I can feel sane again. STV makes ballots unresolvable on a local level; local counting is no longer easily aggregated. Every ballot needs to be held onto to possibly be recounted, possibly multiple times depending on exactly how the global election is progressing. Local recounts can force global recounts, multiple times as who is eliminated changes. On top of that automated vote counting has to rely on OCR or heavier use of voting machines instead of scantron like devices.
STV doesn't even give you compromise candidates, it only prevents spoiler candidates. By example, if 50% want A > B > C and 50% want C > B > A, B is immediately eliminated and you have FPTP.
The fact that all the talk is about STV instead of approval voting (a better, simpler system) is either proof of a psy-op or proof that we don't deserve better government.
It's a piece of Web 1.0 lore: https://www.somethingawful.com/icq-pranks/icq-transcript-space/1/
Most progress for women's causes came from what one would broadly call the left.
I think there might be some revision in this statement. My understanding is that as late as the 60s the feminist vote was kinda up for grabs between republicans and democrats.
Calling your belief system a religion makes you vulnerable to certain laws and regulations that apply only to religions. For example, you can't teach it in schools. Indoctrinating other people's children is one of the main reasons to have a religion in the first place, so it's no surprise that the religions with this disadvantage are dying.
Nowadays, if you have a metaphysical theory about the intangible nature of human essence with strong dictates about how humans should behave, you call it a new field of science and loudly insist that your priests are scientists. Since your "field of science" does not interact with any previously-existing field of science and all scientists within that field will be your priests, no one can prove your "science" wrong.
See: gender science.
I expect to see religions gradually replaced by a variety of woo-woo superstitions and mystery cults that loudly insist that they aren't religious in nature.
How do you think religion in the West will interact with the Culture War in the next few elections, and in the future? Up until recently, the religious right seemed to be a mainstay of at least American politics. In Europe of course, Christianity is mostly an irrelevant force (though theoretically Catholics should have some weight?).
However, the evangelical right has been losing quite a bit of power and cultural cachet, and we're seeing the rise of more traditional versions of Christianity such as Catholicism and to a lesser extent, Orthodoxy. Buddhism has also made inroads in a more serious way, as well as Islam mostly via immigration of Muslim peoples.
In the future, how will these religions impact politics? Personally I see a fusion of Buddhism x Christianity already happening, and expect a sort of Christian orthodoxy mixing in Buddhism mental techniques as the most successful religion of the 21st century. That being said, I feel it could shake out in many different areas on the political spectrum - ironically, many of the Orthodox priests I know personally are surprisingly liberal.
One area we could see a resurgence is in monasteries, and the potential downstream impact in local communities. Within the Catholic community (and Orthodoxy in the U.S.) there has been a groundswell lately of pushes for more monasteries, and revitalizing the monastic order in general. We'll see how it shakes out.
Tell me, what do you think religion will do to the modern political landscape?
faceh said that a terrifying new superstimulus has entered the market that will destroy young men
I can agree he's wrong in that XAI is not even the first company that has developed AI GFs, and gooners have been working on it since day 0 of mildly competent LLMs. But you're wrong in calling it ridiculous. Qualitatively current technology is all that is required to have the impact he predicts, the rest is a question of training customized models, giving them access to your personal data, etc.
Do you think you'd be able to predict the exact inflection point for all the other technologies, as they were being developed? There was quite a few years between the first tittie I saw online, and the displacement of other forms of porn, for example.
that Army Corp biologist page that included fish gender.
Fish... ah, pretty clearly don't have gender? It can be pretty hard to even tell what sex they are without cutting them open, nevermind enquiring as to their feelings as to the roles imposed upon them by fish society.
Maybe next time the Army Corp biologists will write their report using proper scientific language; serves them right if you ask me.
This touches on something I've been wondering about for a while: Do all of these qualitative updates to LLMs actually translate to new use cases? In my case, the only two updates that have had any significant impact on my LLM use were the jump from ChatGpt3.5 to 4, and the increase of the context window from small to essentially limitless (yes it still has limits, but in day to day use I rarely hit them). Both of those happened in 2023. Since then, LLM tooling has become vastly better. But I struggle to think of anything that I can do now with an LLM that I couldn't have done in 2023 based purely on the quality of the LLM output.
I think this is a new definition and as you point out a bit of a futile goal. I thought most people learned as teenagers they can’t control how they’re perceived and develop an internal sense of self but this fallacy seems to run rampant these days.
Source for this? It seems to me that Christianity is growing again as the more 'scientific' ideologies are on the decline.
More options
Context Copy link