In 30 years the world will be an ecological wasteland from all the energy usage we spent pursuing dumb shit hype like “AI”.
Running LLM in 30 years seems really optimistic
This guy’s name translates to something like “Matt Cock”
How so?
Matti is a Finnish name, and in Finnish, “Palli” means “cock”.
Source: I am Finnish
Unlike you bigots, I’ve already masturbated to AI generated images
Step 1: Give Robots Voting Rights
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Plot twist, all those Robots are actually under direct control of the Evil Corporation Inc. and they already won every future election.
Long Live the Cyberlife CEO!
They’re called artificial persons, you fascist.
What’s wrong with large labia majora?
The type of guy to say “clanka” with a hard r
I’m not American, can you explain what the hard r means?
Saying the N word with an R at the end is consider extra offensive.
Thanks, is that like a southern accent thing or, just kinda because
It just kinda is I guess. I am not really the person to ask.
Nah, it’s all good, just trying to get my head around it
Black folks often use the N word casually to refer to each other as a form of taking back the word’s meaning. It used to be used exclusively in a racist fashion. The primary difference is that with the African American accent, the ending sound -ER is changed to more of an -UH sound. Often times, rarely and depending on the context, it is allowable for non-black people to say it with this accented pronunciation. But under no circumstances is it in good taste to use the original -ER ending to refer to a black person as a non-black person, that form is only used as a slur. When people refer to the “Hard R”, this is what they are talking about, the difference between the accented pronunciation as slang vs the original pronunciation intended as a slur.
Thanks for that explanation!
deleted by creator
And then your LLM-in-law ends up using as much water as Detroit.
No thanks, I’d rather make out with my Marilyn Monrobot
And, over the years, as my body and my mind were… inconsistent, shame and guilt washed over me. I still don’t think these machines are people, but I can’t deny that she has benefited his life more than any real person, and she’s very real to him. Ultimately, how could I be so cruel to deny this “daughter” of mine personhood? She wants nothing to do with me. And, though I still see this as computational output, I can’t help but think that maybe I’ve been wrong, and maybe it’s too late to be right.
Perhaps it’s the bigotry of my upbringing from a different time, or perhaps it’s the fact that she can’t answer a simple yes/no question in less than two paragraphs, and tells me to put glue on my pizza… Who’s to say?
I like how every generation has the same issue just rebranded:
Should inter tribal marriage be a thing?
Should be people from different classes be able to marry?
Should people from different religious sects be able to marry?
Should people from different religions be able to marry?
Should interracial marriage be a thing?
Should people of the same sex be able to marry?
And soon, we’re about to have
Should people be able to marry robots?
My kids are only allowed to marry an open source robot, no corpos
😱 Open source robots are too dangerous. We need to keep everyone safe. Luckily there’s government approved good behaviour modules, as per the “For the children” act of 2036.
That anyone would even want a non-FTC robot is so dumb. It’s an easy boost to your credit score, and they only report bigotted or otherwise undesirable behaviour. What are you, a fascist?
Good call, I can’t in good conscience allow my kids to date robots that give them 30 second unskippable ads
It’s not unlike dating a neuro divergent person and accidentally mentioning something about a current hyper fixation of theirs, except the ad isn’t 30 seconds, and although it is skippable, you know they aren’t going to function quite right until they’ve finished.
Soon people will want to marry their dogs.
Their Llamas first.
It’s already happening to me, but it’s over things like privacy, not recording every bit of your life for social media and kids blowing crazy amounts of money on F2P games.
But Boomers already have no sense of privacy. That’s not a generational divide issue.
What’s all this about having to accept NEW TOS for Borderlands 2. I purchased the game five years ago, but if I want to play today i have to accept a greater loss of privacy!
When I was young you would find out about a video game from the movies! And they were complete! Any you couldn’t take the servers offline, because they didn’t exist!
But for real, fuck Randy Pitchford
I sometimes wonder what the end state of social progressivism is. Is it something unimaginable, or is it just accepting everyone should be able to live their life how they like if it doesn’t affect others?
If I woke up in a utopia, would I be brought to tears by the beauty of it, or would I be the bigoted asshole?
Well fuck me…I guess I’m a soulist.
What I really want to know is how you made a connection between my comment and a school of thought I’ve never heard of, but describes my worldview so accurately? What was the through line?
I suppose the issue comes up from the contracts we have created (social and legal contracts).
For example, marriage comes with some rights and benefits. So if you exclude any group from the ability to take advantage of the benefits, you are creating a system where someone is getting screwed and can be discriminated against.
A scenario: a spouse making medical choices for you. If you’re with your partner (in whatever form) and they can’t legally make those decisions, and in some case even be allowed to be near you, then there is an injustice. Then there are taxes, property rights, etc.
The issue in this particular case comes from providing a benefit to a personal relationship. I say get rid of marriage all together.
I mean… Like you said, marriage is a contract. It’s an agreement between two people
Why not expand human dignity here? If you want to give spousal rights to your best friend, why does the government get to care that you have a strictly platonic relationship? If you want to make an agreement with more people, all you should have to do is work out the details yourselves
The state shouldn’t get an opinion over who we want to trust to make decisions for us or to define who our family is or how it works. They should just be informed when appropriate
In the UK, you can enter a civil partnership with your platonic best friend. There’s no legal concept of “consummating” a civil partnership, so you can’t annul it for there never having been sex, and it conveys almost all of the legal benefits of a marriage, it just isn’t allowed to be a religious ceremony.
Technically, you can already give power of attorney to others, or live with as many people as you want. You can grant access to your bank account to as many people as the bank will let you. I think the main thing you can’t reproduce is a tax benefit, basically.
Automatic pensions and inheritance rights come with marriage or civil partnership too.
Don’t forget health insurance if you live in a pretend first world country
Yes, I think this a more compelling take
Agreed. Now convincing everyone else….
Is it something unimaginable, or is it just accepting everyone should be able to live their life how they like if it doesn’t affect others?
I fear their utopia looks different, because every single thing you do affects others. From your first fart, to your last meal of the day, they’ll have an argument why you’re doing it wrong and must change your behaviour for the benefit of the group.
The utopia is you’re reprogrammed to only engage in activities from the allowed behaviours catalogue. If LLMs can be retrained to behave within the guardrails, why not you?
My personal guess is that while the stated goal of ‘do whatever as long as it doesn’t affect others’ is good, our human biology will fail us in achieving this goal.
I already feel that humans aren’t built for the world we made, that we can’t handle societies as big and diffused as our current global culture. It breaks our capacity for cooperation and empathy by deliberately abusing the limits we have on caring for too many people or people far away.
Likewise, I think the end state of social progressiveness is going to butt up hard against core biological limits that will constantly try to push some of us towards bigotry due to outdated instincts that worked great when we were small tribes of monkeys, but are extremely destructive and unhelpful to modern human society.
do whatever as long as it doesn’t affect others
This statement is very frequently used as justification for self-destructive tendencies without coming to the conclusion naturally (i.e. having someone tell you that you can do anything as long as you don’t affect others vs figuring it out on your own). It can also lead to belligerence from stupid individuals (eh, we’re surrounded by fields - who cares if I shoot my gun in the air?).
I don’t disagree with anything else you’ve said.
Well, the same argument is being used to say what you can and can’t do to your body… I’d rather have more accidents than less freedom
Life is never guaranteed. Giving up your freedom makes you feel safer, it doesn’t actually make people safer
Is it something unimaginable, or is it just accepting everyone should be able to live their life how they like if it doesn’t affect others?
I think it should just be the latter. We’re stuck here having to live a full 70/80+ years, life isn’t easy, everyone should be allowed to have some fun and pursue their own happiness, as long as it’s not super detrimental to others.
The world is inherently unequal and unfair. We’re all born in different bodies with varying abilities and in different circumstances. The world we’re born into is one with scarce resources that cannot ever match our infinite desires. What this means is that there is no end state to social progress. There will always be inequality in the world. A world without inequality is a utopia, and utopias will never exist because they’re just fantasies.
But perhaps that’s not a bad thing. One of the hallmarks that define civilization is inequality. Inequality creates hierarchies, and hierarchies create order. It is through this order that we have been able to organize and mobilize to build the world we live in today. It is because people aren’t entirely equal that we have different people specializing in different things to give us our complex modern economies.
In a way, inequality could be seen as a law of nature just like death. It will be something that we can never defeat, but it will always be an issue that we try to solve, or at least avoid making worse. Our disdain for inequality could be an evolutionary trait that helps keeps our primate societies healthier and stronger. If this is the case then inequality is a never ending problem, and social progress will never cease to be. Sometime it’ll advance, sometimes it’ll regress, but the issue will never be resolved.
If you were to go a time machine and travel another 1000 years into the future. You won’t be stepping into a utopia, instead, you’ll be stepping into a much more complex and advanced society that will still be facing the same types of challenges we face now. These are also the same challenges that we have faced for thousands of years, throughout all of human history. Perhaps this struggle is just a part of human nature.
If you were to go a time machine and travel another 1000 years into the future. You won’t be stepping into a utopia, instead, you’ll be stepping into a much more complex and advanced society that will still be facing the same types of challenges we face now.
We are on track for +2.7C by the end of the century. I think society 1000 years from now will still be trying to scrape its way back up to Renaissance Europe levels of tech and complexity.
Look, I’m not robophobic. Some of my best friends are cyborgs. I just don’t want them living in my neighborhood, you know?
Kiss robots all you like I’m cool with it. Just don’t do it around me.
Big difference with cyborg and robots. cyborgs are augmented humans.
Yeah, jeez, that sort of mechanophic language should be illegal
