I love me some Five Guys…
But yes, small fries from Five Guys is a large from almost anywhere else
I could see there being a lot less demand for marriage officiants, especially when they get this running on a sex robot.
this is exactly what we should do regarding these people planning this crazy shit
no longer the right to bare arms
3 Likes
pro move is not ordering fries and loading up on free peanuts. (may not be available at your location)
technically he still has the rights. he just doesn’t have the arms
1 Like
Oh right. I’m dumb.
I mean he does have the constitutional right to acquire bear arms as replacements.
Here’s an article I read the other day, coincidentally, about the commercial uses GPT-3 is already being put to.
Weird thought. What if the resources of a country belonged to the people of the country. Seems insane right?
https://twitter.com/DanielBleakley/status/1533752558367682561
3 Likes
Gotcha. I think there’s a difference between a situation where Trump claims Italian satellites stole the election and where a crazy guy thinks his computer is haunted. The first story is obviously newsworthy, it’s just a question of whether you report the claims and rebuttals objectively or take a side. In the second case, the story only exists at all if the guy’s story is credible. I’m more tolerant than most here of the VfN when the existence of a disagreement is newsworthy on its own. What seems especially bad about it here is that the existence of a crazy Google engineer isn’t a news story.
I find a good way to identify clueless people is how significant they think the Turing test is. As the quote notes, humans are profligate meaning constructors. They will create order out of any data. This is why conspiracies exist and why Trump was elected. People are dumb. Hell, Daniel Dennett’s idea of the intentional stance is about treating entities, from humans to thermostats to cars, as rational. See also the principal of charity. Turning was obv smart, in his autistic way, but the Turing test is is just a hangover of behavioristic psychology.
This is literally like a cargo cult, where the fake exterior, like a dirt runway, is constructed because the underlying reality is not understood. See also religious practices generally.
Am I supposed to think this is expensive? It’s more than 5,000 calories of food. That’s ~7 meals.
1 Like
Definitely agree. Funny thing is, building large scale almost middle class housing is how the Trumps got their money. That and fraud in managing them.
While claims of “sentience” are indeed silly, google has been getting into dustups with their AI team over the last few years, shitcanning any ethicist or engineer that dares speak up, and people have been speaking up quite a bit - both in skepticism about google’s claims around AI, concerns about its military contracts, etc.
I have played with chatbots that are supposed to pass a turing test and they totally can and will freak you out occasionally. I do believe within 5 years we’ll have chat bots that are indistinguishable from a person, and I think there’s gonna be societal ramifications there that are a bit tricky to predict.
1 Like
and yet there are people who can’t figure out why norwegians are not immigrating to america in droves.
Lol, in Massachusetts maybe. This dude is from Iowa.
4 Likes
this was true a couple of years ago but the last few times I’ve been to five guys they’ve been basically filling the paper cup with fries and that’s IT. no more bottomless greasy bag of fries.
1 Like
Fucking 8% infrytion.
Just to elaborate on my point above about the principle of charity and the turing test. This is from the wiki, Principle of charity - Wikipedia
Willard Van Orman Quine[5] and Donald Davidson[6] provide other formulations of the principle of charity. Davidson sometimes referred to it as the principle of rational accommodation. He summarized it: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimises agreement. The principle may be invoked to make sense of a speaker’s utterances when one is unsure of their meaning. In particular, Quine’s use of the principle gives it this latter, wide domain.
Since the time of Quine, other philosophers have formulated at least four versions of the principle of charity. These alternatives may conflict with one another, so which principle to use may depend on the goal of the conversation. The four principles are:
The other uses words in the ordinary way;
The other makes true statements;
The other makes valid arguments;
The other says something interesting.A related principle is the principle of humanity, which states that we must assume that another speaker’s beliefs and desires are connected to each other and to reality in some way, and attribute to him or her “the propositional attitudes one supposes one would have oneself in those circumstances” (Daniel Dennett, “Mid-Term Examination,” in The Intentional Stance, p. 343).
Find poetry interesting, like associative music lyrics? You’re assigning/interpreting novel linguistic formulations based on background semantic knowledge. It can be pretty promiscuous.
’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Again, the Turing test is libertarianism for computer nerds.
The principle of charity also partly explains how cults and bullshit philosophies succeed. If they are scratching an itch, the scratchee often doesn’t question the manner of scratching. Thus, eg, it can be fair to say that racism or theocracy is behind much conservative rhetoric, because that’s the real itch that being scratched by bullshit about “elites” or whatever.
Also, the corollary to the principle of charity is the idea that all events are planned, the universe is orderly and “rational”. Life isn’t perfect? Well, it must be bankers/jews/lizard people, etc. intentionally ruining things.