I don't see why you chose to fixate on the word "great" when I was only referring to a common saying.
What does a giant stack of conclusions add up to if it is acknowledged that it adds up to nothing?
A conclusion is something, so I don't understand what you mean? If I use philosophy to conclude that abortion is murder and therefore wrong and hence decide not to abort my child, that is most definitely "something" other than "mental masturbation".
I doubt you liked hearing [my thoughts] or got the slightest enlightenment out of them
You're right I didn't get the slightest enlightenment out of them but perhaps I misunderstood and they just need to be explained better.
People are the problem, and they're also the solution. For sure people's discomfort can drive them to do something useful. But it can also drive them to do nothing if they think there's no hope. So I tell them that the situation is really bleak but there is still hope if they and others like them act. You're welcome to join me over at c/StopTech.
Read Luke 2:
And when the time of purification according to the Law of Moses was complete, His parents brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord...And when the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for Him what was customary under the Law...When Jesus’ parents had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee...[leaving out a lot more references here]...When His parents saw Him, they were astonished. “Child, why have You done this to us?” His mother asked. “Your father and I have been anxiously searching for You.”
Also Luke 4:22
All spoke well of Him and marveled at the gracious words that came from His lips. “Isn’t this the son of Joseph?” they asked.
You seem lost. This is c/Conspiracies, not c/AIfrogposting
Philosophers do come to conclusions, it's just that other philosophers don't agree with those conclusions. That's because great minds don't think alike - they think independently. This is the same reason there are lots of Christian denominations, especially within Protestantism and other categories of Christianity where people are encouraged to think for themselves more rather than accept tradition without much criticism. The fact Roman Catholicism has less schisms can be explained by their beliefs about tradition and their hierarchical structure which gatekeeps positions of teaching and doctrinal authority. So agreement is not necessarily an indicator of truth.
Scientists also disagree with each other all the time over fairly recent theories, and science in fact came out of philosophy - theories about the world which were then tested empirically. But you'll find a lot more agreement between scientists than philosophers. Is that because their beliefs can be tested empirically, or is it due to a conspiracy controlling the direction of science, or non-conspiratorial financial incentives or reasons similar to why Roman Catholics are in agreement?
There is a famous quote by Physicist Max Planck:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
A study in 2019 found some evidence this may be true: https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/science-really-does-advance-one-funeral-at-a-time-study-suggests/3010961.article . Philosophers of science also had a debate about how science progresses, with Popper arguing it happens by theories being disproved by new evidence but Kuhn countering that it's by new paradigms which gradually gain more support than the old ones. Kuhn's view is potentially consistent with Planck's quote.
To the person who thinks scientists find agreement because they use empirical tests to find the truth, they would need to explain why scientists have also agreed on things which weren't backed by the evidence of the time, like phrenology or COVID vaccine safety. To the person who thinks scientists find agreement through non-evidentiary means, they would need to explain how science has been able to build on itself and develop technologies that work and also why other fields like philosophy don't find agreement through similar non-evidentiary means.
Looks like they're going to use graphene for a wide variety of biological sensors both invasive and wearable: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6580932/
Adding to the surveillance problem, graphene-based nanomaterials are known to be cytotoxic. Nanoparticles are often genotoxic as well.
As GO can be easily transported by air and water from hazardous waste the possible negative aspect of a GO pollution of all living creatures is unknown and cannot be excluded. Enhancing effects of GO on the endocrine-disruptive capacities of Bisphenol A have been observed in adult male zebrafish. Sharp edges of GO that can penetrate cell membranes might facilitate the penetration of microplastics and other unknown substances into organisms.
But perhaps worst of all they think graphene will be "of enormous value for implementing Artificial Intelligence", accelerating the headlong rush to human extinction.
I didn't get a notification even though you mentioned me in this post. I think you'd need to mention everyone in a comment instead.
I'm in favor of moderation of this community, obviously avoiding censorship of particular views and instead just enforcing the existing rules and keeping things somewhat civil and on topic (both posts and comments), removing trolls. Good posts can also be stickied if it's not done excessively.
I support u/Thisisnotanexit's application to be a moderator as well (if that's worth anything).
Legalman's articles were the best. Unfortunately he stopped writing and his website is no longer online so I have to point people to archives instead: https://web.archive.org/web/20200225103240/http://www.thetruthaboutthelaw.com/how-it-is-done-to-you/ I wish he went back to writing because I find his spoken arguments are much weaker and longwinded.
In this podcast he pretty much explains my own view that ordinary people should be able to go after criminals just like police do. The problem is with exactly how this is implemented, which he barely addresses. Legalman seems to hold my view that a legal system should still try vigilantes to check they were in fact responding to a crime and their actions were proportionate. But he seems to think if you kill someone who wronged you then you should get a standard criminal trial where evidence beyond reasonable doubt is needed that not only did you do the killing but that it was unprovoked or disproportionate.
But it's really easy to create a shred of doubt about that by saying the person you killed did something bad that nobody else witnessed - they raped you, threatened you, reached for your gun, stole your wallet. The prosecution would then have to prove that something didn't happen, which could be much harder than proving something did happen. So this system would allow criminals (posing as vigilantes) to get away with so much by making up excuses that can't be disproved. It might still be better than the current system, but not great.
An alternative system would be to make the vigilante prove that the crime they were responding to happened - not beyond reasonable doubt, just according to the preponderance of evidence. But how do you prove someone raped you, threatened you, reached for your gun or stole your wallet? Most crimes would have a decent amount of evidence that could be used to attempt exoneration of the vigilante but sometimes there wouldn't be much evidence at all. So this system would result in good vigilantes being punished. Furthermore if only a preponderance of evidence is needed then vigilantism becomes a way to inflict serious punishments on people without evidence beyond reasonable doubt needed, albeit with risks to the vigilante.
I think a more nuanced approach would be needed. For example, the vigilante needs at least some small amount of evidence to corroborate their story unless their story is one which is unlikely to have left evidence, in which case the vigilante has to be beyond suspicion - there is no evidence the vigilante had a motive to harm that person and they are not thought to be of bad moral character by the community.
The quality of posts here has definitely been very low. I don't see a lot to do with Trump but a lot of very speculative and unprovable assertions and brain damaged posts. I don't think wild speculation and bad ideas should be banned or deleted but not enough people are downvoting them.
Also we could do with more high quality posts. The highest quality posts would assert a conspiracy or similar claim and explain it in detail with links for support. Or it could be a link post to an article that does this. Other decent quality posts could be links to news articles and other pieces of evidence to support conspiracy claims.
How does EL imply ALL? Is there a Hebrew lexicon which suggests that?
I don't think vessel and vassal are related etymologically, nor to the word "all":
This has always been their excuse for taking away more freedoms.
You may as well give the website your phone number because it can already recognize you from your browser fingerprint (but not across browsers or connect you to a phone number and other people with your number in their contacts). And then you may as well tell them your name. And then you may as well give them your personal details because they can already find out from the government or credit reporting agencies. And then you may as well upload your government ID. And then you may as well do the live selfie (with your consent for police databasing and AI training in the small print) because they already have your photo.
Let us ban carrying guns outside because you're not allowed to open carry or take them into gun free zones anyway. Give us your guns because you're not allowed to take them outside anyway. Let us criminalize harming burglars because you don't have weapons anyway.
You may as well get digital ID because you already have physical ID (where the government doesn't know when/what you use it for and isn't able to make it stop working in certain circumstances) anyway.
If you asked for those "thought processes" after it had given you its conclusion then they in fact have nothing to do with how the LLM arrived at its conclusions. LLMs have no way to look inside themselves and understand their own processes. They just make up words they predict you want to hear. So the explanation of its reasoning after the fact is simply lies - a post hoc rationalization of an irrational process.
If instead you asked the LLM to reason one step at a time and refrain from drawing any conclusions until the end, then it would be generating the next bit of text based on the earlier ones and you would in fact get an idea of how it arrived at its conclusion. But you wouldn't be able to drill down on how it made any of those individual steps - it's just based on a giant matrix of numbers. You could reset it and ask it to do the same thing again in more detail, but it would come up with different steps and often a different conclusion and you wouldn't learn much about the first time you asked it.
This is assuming we're talking about an LLM that generates text linearly and doesn't have an internal process of generating its answer first then refining it one or more times before presenting it to you. Otherwise you wouldn't have a good way to make it show something akin to a reasoning process.
Lots of non-Jews had already expressed interest in AI and trying to make it, like Alan Turing and Christopher Strachey. It's debatable what the first AI was and who its inventors were anyway. So AI would have been a thing by the 1960s with or without Jews.
Technological progress refers to technology getting more advanced. I'm not saying it's a good thing - far more often than not it's bad.
The imp is right for once