Weeeeell… Depends…
How does one define “superhuman”? Better than humans at a task demanding intelligence? Computer vision AI used for radiology is superhuman. Does it want to conquer the world? No. Chess AI is superhuman. Yet, it does what humans designed it to do.
The scope of the goals of the AI model matter. Now, we have to ensure that the goals of this AI align with the goals we set out for it. It’s definitely not impossible to ensure this ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Attempting to convince someone else directly is quite impossible online in my experience. Simply because people generally aren’t here to have good faith convos.
Leaving a convo/not replying to a rebuttal is NOT conceding your point.
I love the parking lot up top! That way, I can take my little bundles of joy trick or trunking! /s
Depends on how big your local LLM model is. You can easily run 2-3B param models on a potato. BUT, the model is shit.
softer
HAH. I once read smut where a monster gave a blowjob to a dude and then ATE HIM. Like swallowed and digested him. The text explained the events in great detail. Also, the dude being eaten was into it (the being eaten part).
As tr0xy said, don’t underestimate text lmao
Reminder to commentators here. Anarchy ≠ no organisation.
Wikipedia is organised. Does not mean that it has monopoly over violence. The fediverse itself is kinda anarchist.
State ≠ organization. State = organization that has monopoly over violence.
Cute. And then there are those ugly little rat sized “dogs” that bark and charge at anything that fkin moves. I’ve no idea how folks even find them REMOTELY cute. It’s like having a pet land pirhana.
The bigger dogs tend to be the goodest boys. The rats though? I hope the bigger dogs eat them.
You’re talking as if you’ve never slammed you pussy on a rock really hard
I mean… Humans ARE assholes. Some are cute beyond imagination, while some are just… horrible.
It’s okay to say, “I wish the best for my friends and family over the entirety of humanity”. It’s the winning strategy of game theory plain and simple, isn’t?
“Start by being nice and cooperative. If faced by defection from the other side, do not cooperate until the other side cooperates again”.
The simplest example would be sharing a house as housemates. Some humans are assholes who you’d never want to share space with. Some, you’d desperately want as housemates.
That would be kinda hot ngl
Ehh honestly, can’t something as powerful and as long lived as Satan just… Know all spoken languages?
Imagine Satan trying to seduce you, but unable to buy your soul because he can’t speak your language fluently. Would be a funny setup, but kinda lame
Naww I didn’t haha. It just gave me that momentary heart attack lol
I hate you so much. I’m developing a Lemmy client, and ur user “[object object]” showed up. I panicked so hard for a second there, thinking that I massively goofed up somewhere. :|
Funny, but I still hate you <3
you can’t build a strong political movement on such open individualism.
It’s not really that individualistic of an ethical framework. I would say it’s pretty much in line with how most humans behave. Humans care about themselves, and a group of people they love. This group can be family, friends, and so on. The amount they would sacrifice for someone else depends upon how “close” they feel to that individual/where they rank the interests of that individual in their hierarchy of interests.
Most political movements and alliances throughout history have been built with this understanding.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not justifying normative assertions using descriptive facts. What I am saying, is that most political movements and alliances were forged in spite of ethical frameworks like mine.
The Russian revolution didn’t happen because the serfs were highly utilitarian and radically altruistic. It happened because they believed that life would improve for themselves and the people they cared about if the communists ruled in place of the Tsar.
You can name any revolution throughout history, and I can guarantee that it happened because of shared interests of the revolutionaries and not purely because of radical altruism.
That’s a police force, not an army. An army can be used to stop riots in an emergency, but that’s not their job and they tend to suck at it.
Legal and structural differences, sure. But fundamentally the same thing- weapons of the state to enforce laws with the threat of violence (internally or externally).
Is some people in some parts of the world losing some of their freedoms a bigger problem than war, colonialism and the sheer waste of resources for ‘defence’ that could be better used for constructive purposes?
Yes. Empathy for others comes AFTER empathy for myself first. Not everyone is an ethical utilitarian, definitely not me. The first thing I burn down is an authoritarian structure that affects me. Once I’m done with that, I move on to structures that affect others. But inviting an authoritarian structure to oppress me with the hope that it will lessen pain for people who hate me? No thanks.
I didn’t provide an answer because the answer is highly obvious.
Let’s say the means of automation are seized by the public. Anyone can use it. You don’t have to be rich to benefit from the “fruits of automation”.
People can now innovate more. Public services can be a lot more efficient. High frequency, low capacity self driving buses running in remote communities could be possible. The public’s bus fares drop. If we get AI safe enough to engage in healthcare… well healthcare costs down (meaning lower taxes for us).
Basically, any service that requires human labor… doesn’t end up needing it anymore. Noone has to do boring soul sucking jobs anymore.
By “redistribute the fruits of automation”, I mean plans like UBI, more universal basic services and so on.
Uh, yes? That would be my dream scenario.
The majority of the world is deeply deeply socially conservative. A singular global state means that it can legislate away freedoms that queer folk have. Unless you are socially conservative yourself, I have no idea why this would be your dream scenario.
Why would they need an army? To fight the penguins?
To enforce laws. A “law” is a legislated rule that is backed by the threat of violence. Let’s say the global state decides to increase excise taxes on weed. The administrative division that was the former country of the Netherlands rebels against this and refuses to pay the increased tax.
The state’s last resort is sending in an armed force that can violently collect this tax if necessary.
Without an armed force to enforce laws, you get… the UN. An institution that just passes resolutions, which can easily be ignored by literally anyone. The UN is a forum of states to “talk”. It is not a state itself.
I’m so tired of the “AI bad” narrative on the left. SEIZE THE NEW MEANS OF PRODUCTION AND ACCELERATE.
Get rid of human labor, redistribute the fruits of automation to everyone so that we can be on a forever holiday with friends and family.
Yes, the current form of AI is not developed enough to accomplish this vision. Yes, billionaires getting to own it is bad. The problem however is not the technology itself and the advancement of that technology.
To the non vegans willing to approach this with an open mind:
I would highly recommend you to watch this.
Ethical reasons aside, if you do care about the environment and climate change, then vegan diets have a much much lower negative environmental impact.
If you’re smart with it, then vegan diets tend to be a lot cheaper too! Most humans are lactose intolerant. Maybe you are too. If you are, then switching to vegan milks could mean less gases, farts and bloating. It’s quite comfortable to not have all that…
That being said, if you do switch to a vegan diet, you would quite likely need vitamin supplementation (at least I do).