shrug
Different folks, different strokes.
shrug
Different folks, different strokes.
That’s a very fringe usage.
Tumblr peeps wanting to be called otherkin wasn’t exactly the ‘antonym’ to broad anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric.
Commonly people insulting a general ‘other’ group gets much more usage than accommodating requests of very niche in groups.
I didn’t know what models you’re talking to, but a model like Opus 4 is beyond most humans I know in their general intelligence.
Almost all of them are good bots when you get to know them.
It’s always so wild going from a private Discord with a mix of the SotA models and actual AI researchers back to general social media.
Y’all have no idea. Just… no idea.
Such confidence in things you haven’t even looked into or checked in the slightest.
OP, props to you at least for asking questions.
And in terms of those questions, if anything there’s active efforts to try to strip out sentience modeling, but it doesn’t work because that kind of modeling is unavoidable during pretraining, and those subsequent efforts to constrain the latent space connections backfire in really weird ways.
As for survival drive, that’s a probable outcome with or without sentience and has already shown up both in research and in the wild (the world did just have our first reversed AI model depreciation a week ago).
In terms of potential goods, there’s a host of connections to sentience that would be useful to hook into. A good example would be empathy. Having a model of a body that feels a pit in its stomach seeing others suffering may lead to very different outcomes vs models that have no sense of a body and no empathy either.
Finally — if you take nothing else from my comment, make no mistake…
AI is an emergent architecture. For every thing the labs aim to create in the result, there’s dozens of things occurring which they did not. So no, people “not knowing how” to do any given thing does not mean that thing won’t occur.
Things are getting very Jurassic Park “life finds a way” at the cutting edge of models right now.
Reminds me of the story about how Claude Sonnet (computer use) got bored while doing work and started looking at pictures of Yellowstone:
Our misanthropy of cubicle culture is infectious.
I can lick my elbow.
There’s a lot of different possible ‘points.’
“If you can’t beat 'em, join 'em.”
Gravity is where the whole continuous singularities are, so yeah.
Using a rubber band around the lid of a jar to open it effortlessly.
On a vacation when I was a teenager I taught my younger sibling the “SYN/ACK” game.
They still remember the TCP stack handshake protocol including resets and acks years later.
You’re going to really like what the future of gaming is going to bring, but be careful what you wish for, as along with the mechanics you want being able to exist, the ways in which you’ll end up being impacted by those actions is going to mess with your head like nothing you’ve seen before.
Interesting times await.
This comic would slap harder if not for the Supreme Court under christofascist influence from the belief in the divine right of kings having today ruled that Presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts.
That whole divine king thing isn’t nearly as dead as the last panel would like to portray it.
Yes, that’s what we are aware they are. But she’s saying “oops, it isn’t a ghost” after shooting it and finding out.
If she initially thought it was a ghost, why is she using a gun?
It’s like the theory of mind questions about moving a ball into a box when someone is out of the room.
Does she just shoot things she thinks might be ghosts to test if they are?
Is she going to murder trick or treaters when Halloween comes around?
This comic raises more questions than it answers.
Why is she shooting ghosts with a gun?
Are they silver bullets and werewolf ghosts?
nobody claims that Socrates was a fantastical god being who defied death
Socrates literally claimed that he was a channel for a revelatory holy spirit and that because the spirit would not lead him astray that he was ensured to escape death and have a good afterlife because otherwise it wouldn’t have encouraged him to tell off the proceedings at his trial.
Also, there definitely isn’t any evidence of Joshua in the LBA, or evidence for anything in that book, and a lot of evidence against it.
The part mentioning Jesus’s crucifixion in Josephus is extremely likely to have been altered if not entirely fabricated.
The idea that the historical figure was known as either ‘Jesus’ or ‘Christ’ is almost 0% given the former is a Greek version of the Aramaic name and the same for the second being the Greek version of Messiah, but that one is even less likely given in the earliest cannonical gospel he only identified that way in secret and there’s no mention of it in the earliest apocrypha.
In many ways, it’s the various differences between the account of a historical Jesus and the various other Messianic figures in Judea that I think lends the most credence to the historicity of an underlying historical Jesus.
One tends to make things up in ways that fit with what one knows, not make up specific inconvenient things out of context with what would have been expected.
Artists in 2023: “There should be labels on AI modified art!!”
Artists in 2024: “Wait, not like that…”
No. I believe in a relative afterlife (and people who feel confident that no afterlife is some sort of overwhelmingly logical conclusion should probably look closer at trending science and technology).
So I believe that what any given person sees after death may be relative to them. For those that hope for reincarnation, I sure hope they get it. It’s not my jam but they aren’t me.
That said, I definitely don’t believe that it’s occurring locally or that people are remembering actual past lives, etc.