No, I get that, I’m not disputing that. I’m just saying that as I understand the technology, we have every reason to believe that we’re already pretty good at predictive algorithms and that we can become really, really, really good, but I’m not convinced that—regardless of how much processing power and data you feed into the algorithm—it would ever make the leap to being independently alive and aware.
In other words, I’m sure we can get something that functions like Skynet because someone, somewhere, fucked up and fed it training data or a query or whatever that led its algorithm to output “wipe out humanity.” But we assume because of the expository dialogue that Skynet is truly alive. It thinks, it reacts, it’s self-aware. I’m not sure we can ever get that.
The guy you’re talking to is a spamming troll who makes sock puppet accounts to talk about how much he wants a 12 year-old wife. Not really worth engaging with on any level.
You could certainly get a computer into the same zone of wondering if it's truly a unique being or not.
But could you really? Or would you just be getting it to return outputs that say it’s pondering? Cleverbot, right now, can be prompted to say “I’m thinking about [whatever],” and from a certain perspective it is looking up responses based on inputs related to that topic, but I don’t think any of us believe that what it’s doing really counts. I’m thinking of Searle’s Chinese Room, mostly with this.
But yes, obviously such a program could do something terrifying regardless of whether it actually thinks or it just happens to land on [proper response: deploy global neurotoxin] or whatever. The question of whether it’s aware is mostly moot at a certain point.
Are we sure that AI is possible? Really, really good predictive pattern recognition algorithms, sure. The application of those algorithms in such a way that it can be instructed to make something that is essentially new, probably. An actual consciousness that thinks and acts and takes initiative on its own? I’m not sure.
Well, in Frieren specifically, the point is that the demons are very much not human. They are intelligent, logical, they can think, they can reason, but on a certain level there are things (most emotions, friendship, the idea of a life having inherent value) that they can never, ever understand. It's just fundamentally not possible for them. The best you will ever get out of them is a sort of mutual acknowledgement that killing you would be more trouble than it's worth or doesn't align with their goals at this particular time. And ultimately, they're predators that prey on humans. They will do things like cry for mommy or act friendly because humans drop their guard for that. They don't even understand why it works, just that it does.
There are multiple plot arcs devoted to explicitly explaining all this, and the demons repeatedly prove the truth of it with their actions. The fact that OP was able to watch Frieren and walk away with the above take is a testament to how utterly leftism eats its adherents ability to consider other worldviews. (Or, alternately, proof of how utterly unable to consider other views one must be to become a hardcore leftist. One of the two).
In short, I'm 100% sure this guy talks about the importance of media literacy.
Their brains are fried.
I thought it was because vegetarians and vegans were bitching about not being able to eat the fries.
Shouldn’t (the circumstances around) a meat grinder discriminate more? Anyone in a constant, multigenerational, existential war like the Imperium is naturally compelled to start thinking about their reproductive bottlenecks.
What is “TBDesu”? Contextually, I sort of interpret this as “to be honest,” and I sort of understand what “desu” is as a piece of Japanese grammar, but I don’t really get how the two fit together.
Huh, I would have made the opposite prediction, since the appeal of Indians as I understand it was cheap quantity instead of quality. What I would have expected was that AI took over all the "cheap quantity" roles, thus directly competing with Indians. I suppose that was too optimistic.
or foreigners come and "johnny somali" the locals, Yakuza and Yakuza adjacent would coerce and intimidate an apology out of the moron to garner public sentiment.
Not that I think anyone should go test, but I imagine that’s overstated because as far as I know, they didn’t do anything about Johnny Somali, who you’re rightly using as the poster-boy for disruptive foreigner.
Clarity was not my complaint, no.
she make the cummies.
This seems more obscene than “she has a big orgasm,” or “you fuck her” or whatever exactly you’re describing.
Ah yes, the poor, victimized black people who definitely can't blame any of their current circumstances or reputation on their own behavior and culture....
Imagine being so obnoxious that Current Year Disney says “can you tone it down?’
It’s 50% if you’re not in their Partner Plus program, but she’s definitely big enough to be in there so her split is a bit more favorable.
Minimum would be something like $3.25/subscriber/month, but some percentage of those will also be higher tier subscribers that pay more money to get more emotes, and then I’m sure she also gets various additional donations from people.
Edit: actually, $3.25/month is simultaneously too low and too high. Twitch has a weird revenue share policy.
I clicked through and it seemed to want me to download zip files to dig through, which I wasn’t going to do.
Is that a hero shooter? The advertising I saw made me think it was closer to Destiny.
And here we see another bit of your chronic disingenuousness. The entire discussion is about what has been happening, what is happening, and what that implies for future trends. As soon as it becomes convenient, though, only the present exists for you. It doesn’t matter that white populations have been decreasing. It doesn’t matter that anti-white sentiment has been increasing. That can’t be extrapolated into the future! Trend lines aren’t real (unless they’re advantageous for you, of course), so since whites aren’t all being exterminated now (except the attacks in South Africa, but that, too, is not “bad enough”… yet, and of course, “yet” isn’t real.) then surely whites will not ever be targeted in the future!
You completely missed the point. The point was that your historical example (the Jews did fine) doesn’t work because this time, the ability to flee to other countries where a hypothetical pogrom isn’t happening may well be nonexistent.
The point was so explicit—and you have demonstrated that you aren’t enough of a moron—that you can only be considered intentionally disingenuous for having “missed” it.
Hahaha! Jews! That’s your counter example? Putting aside all the baggage on particular group, let’s just take their own history at face value: they got driven out of country after country after country through no fault of their own until most recently they got holocausted. Luckily, many of them escaped or were living elsewhere, and they got enough sympathy and influence in other countries that they were able to build their own state, so their position is a bit more secure now even though they have lots of people that hate them still.
Is that about right? Is that something you’d agree to, as a broad strokes sort of summary?
Great! Now, imagine a much much more globalized world, where the Jews get driven out of a nation or targeted for a holocaust, but no one takes them in because the same exact ideology has taken over (or at least exerts massive pressure on) all the other countries they might also live in or flee to. Instead of it being “Spain expels the Jews” in 1492 or whatever, it’s “every country in Europe expels the Jews all at once, and actually maybe instead of making them leave they formally round them up and kill them.”
How’s that work out for the Jews?
White people as a racial construct are not going to simply die out, that's not really a thing.
As evidenced by the fact that every race and ethnicity that ever has existed still exists, because it’s not really a thing that any of them die out or anything….
Is it anti-trust, then? I don’t know the exact proper legal terminology, but your suit alleges that they have too much market influence, essentially?