It sounds like we agree, and are merely haggling over the meaning of words.
The powers that be love to redefine terms, and then use one definition as a straw-man to ridicule the term when used with another or the original definition, in order to make the term itself and any discussion of it taboo. And as such, they like to make "racist" conjure up images of Cleetus from Alabama (itself a malicious stereotype) who is borderline retarded, hates people because of the color of their skin (unsubtly insinuating that skin color is the only possible difference between races), and can't interact amicably with any individual from a different race.
If you take 1000 of any race, a racist will count all 1000 as the same.
That's not how statistics work, and it's the Cleetus version of "racist". I'm sure such people exist, but that's beside the point.
Statistics also don't tell you anything concrete about individuals; only probabilities. If you know nothing about a specific black and a White individual, and statistics say the black guy is 20X more likely to randomly murder you, that doesn't mean he will.
Secondly, if I give my 13-year old daughter to anyone that I don't know, I am a bad parent.
Obviously. Also dodging the rhetorical hypothetical situation, although you made your position clear afterwards.
From what I can gather, your definition of a racist is someone who is aware of group differences, and perhaps even their genetic underpinnings, but doesn't understand statistics. And my definition is someone who does understand.
We are both aware of group differences and understand statistics. You just shy away from the taboo-label that goes with such forbidden knowledge, and I suppose that's fair enough. I obviously do the same in society at large, because that'd be a pointless uphill battle I don't need.
Today, if you don't disavow the mere notion of more than cosmetic group-differences, you are labelled RAYCISSS, which is a BADWORD that instantly shuts down conversation.
Was I off the mark?
otherwise you turn into a racist
Being a racist simply means understanding statistics. If you pick 1000 random White Americans, and 1000 random black Americans, the there's going to be more violent criminals in the black group, regardless of economic status. If you pick 1000 random ethnic Japanese, and 1000 random Indians or Pakistani, there'll be more people with high intelligence in the Japanese group. If you pick a group of Japanese vs a group of Indians from outside of their home country, we both know which group is more likely to use the beach as a toilet.
Statistics don't say anything about individuals or outliers. But outliers are just that - different from the norm.
If you for some reason needed to entrust the care of your 13 year old daughter to a random man you knew nothing about, and could pick from a White American, black American or a Somali or Indian, and you pick the White guy - congratulations, you're a racist! (And your daughter thanks you.)
No, their rulers have been subverted by our enemy, and their country is being filled with the golems of our enemy. The British themselves are us, and it could happen anywhere, to anyone. In fact it already is, at different paces, everywhere in the west.
If I were creating a sparse/lazy simulation, I'd allocate the most cycles/fidelity to the part of the state that seemed the most chaotic, where the smallest changes would have the largest long-term effect.
A child is far more chaotic than someone older, stuck in a rut, going nowhere fast. Enjoy your existential crisis.
You build that much compute capacity when you intend to process, monitor and enforce rules on every transaction in a programmable financial system
A simple back-of-the-envelope calculation of number of cpu cycles in those datacenters divided by number of transactions in the world rules that out. Completely.
Zeus is Lucifer. Thor is Lucifer. That little CGI dog with a russian accent is Lucifer. Insert Oprah meme (who almost certainly DOES belong to that group) with "EVERYBODY'S LUCIFER!"
It started out interesting enough, but then he went off the rails...
Yes but also no. There's answers at different depths here.
LLMs are what every normie call "AI", and those obviously don't think. They are essentially the statistical correlate of all text produced by our civilization. Like a playback mechanism for surface-level knowledge. There will be isolated areas where their statistics actually do capture the underlying model and as such are real "knowledge", but we currently cant control this and barely detect it. However, slight magic does happen when they are folded back on themselves, as agents, writing an output, then correlating that with the statistical grand total of human knowledge to create a response, repeatedly. How many "new discoveries" truly aren't the combination of patterns already known from other contexts? Not many.
Then there's other architectures. Go was considered the prime example of games that couldn't be beaten by algorithms, but after AlphaGo, humans will never beat the machine again. Science made no headway with predicting protein folding, until AlphaFold swooped in and did it (something so much more significant than fcking LLMs). Those weren't solved by processes analogous to human thought, but to call it fake thinking would be not entirely different from accusing airplanes of fake flight.
Various forms of fake thinking will continue to do increasing amounts and types of real work.
That doesn't cure their cancer or Alzheimer's or age-induced incontinence. I don't think the "elites" give much of a fuck about "us" either way. Most people on average don't give much of a fuck about random strangers they'll never interact with. Most people who claim otherwise lie.
But if the elites pin their hope on something saving their lives, and perceive you as getting in the way, then yeah all of a sudden they are going to form strong and very specific opinions.
AI will speed up and complete the research on curing aging and disease. Everyone pouring infinite money into AI know this, regardless of whether they acknowledge it in public. They are most likely not wrong.
As for all the questions about what they'll do with this and what the consequences will be, I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.
Just a gram of the stuff is capable of destroying the entire planet if I remember correctly. They claimed they transported a 100 atoms of it.
Allow me to calm your nerves :-)
An 1g antimatter-explosion would be the equivalent of 3 Hiroshima bombs, or 1/10 of a Tsar Bomba. So not world-destroying.
They transported 92 protons. One proton has a mass of 1.6726 × 10⁻²⁷ kg, so to get 1g of them you'd need around 600.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 protons. They do make a lot of them, but at the current rate it would take 200 million years to make 1g.
Isn't that basically that people enjoy doing things they enjoy, and are demoralized if they only do tedious tasks? It doesn't seem like AI plays any real role? Same effect if it had been pajeets or coworkers doing those enjoyable tasks?
If given the environment to develop, any race can become as smart as another as shown with history.
Now you are correct. However that environment doesn't mean having schools or living on magic dirt. The pressure needed would be to mercilessly cull the dumbest part of the population for a hundred generations. That's how nature did it, and its what happened to the people who settled the frozen north and died off in massive numbers when they failed to to manage winters. Evolution is a death-engine, and IQ is bought with a gigantic pile of corpses of (other peoples) ancestors.
Genetic IQ is a ceiling, and 80% of actual intelligence. The remaining 20% is about avoiding or suffering from stunted growth, nutritionally and environmentally. No matter how many vitamin pills you eat or how much education you get, this will never raise your maximum potential intelligence.
Same, but my projection is different.
You know how Monte-Carlo tree search coupled with ML state evaluation completely conquered board- and card-games and large classes of adversarial situations in general. That was basically one simple but fundamental algorithm. It's not thinking, and its never going to move outside of its domain, but it has solved that domain.
Now Transformers and variants, also a simple algorithm, extract patterns from text, or really any sequence of symbols, and is able to synthesize new sequences that conform to those patterns. It's not thinking, and people read way too much into it because they can make it emit impressive or clever-seeming sequences (ignoring that they basically fed it those sequences to begin with), and it's never going to play board games well or move outside of its domain. But it has solved its ill-defined domain of playing back something not unlike knowledge.
There's a couple more I can think of, but lets skip those. These algorithms plateau because they've solved their domain. What comes after that, is someone inventing one more fundamental algorithm, and another, etc.
The thing is, there's only so many domains that humans operate in, and "general intelligence", at least as displayed by humans, is the ability to work across those domains. We don't have all the algorithms we need for that, and it's impossible to put a timeline on new ideas. People have historically loved to indirectly argue that we'll never have new ideas, everything that can be known is known, and if we can't do it now we never will. Those people tend to lose bets.
You're all failing to see the opportunities.