chronofar

7 ms·

1.
by chronofar 4mo ago
More interesting than arguing a jumble of electrochemical reactions have taste? That may seem more readily familiar but is no less strange if you prod at it. Nonetheless it’s difficult to argue either don’t produce output that has qualities
2.
by chronofar 5mo ago
Perhaps you answered your own question. I think our confusion sometimes stems from assuming those in charge must want to benefit that which they are charged with stewarding.
3.
by chronofar 2y ago
> And yet people overwhelmingly prefer to work for these non-employees owned companies instead of working in cooperatives - how do you explain that? Easily: there are far more non-employee owned companies than employee owned. Thus this i
4.
by chronofar 2y ago
I think the evidence is that, on the whole (since we’re broadly referring to “people” and obviously there is tremendous diversity contained within), people do not hate each other, they hate the “other” team (whatever that may be). We’re wir
5.
by chronofar 3y ago
> but regulation and liability has made it impractical to develop a modern engine. Can you go into more detail about this? What regulation/liability specifically has stifled modern engine development? And is the answer deregulation?
6.
by chronofar 3y ago
I’m at the other end, I think the show suffered due to its insistence on querulous characters as a means to pathos, but was kept afloat by its wit and humor (much of it indeed “wacky”). That is of course very much a personal preference thin
7.
by chronofar 3y ago
I believe this was likely referencing your topic of confusion there to at least some degree: > Historically I think Svelte went too far into magic territory, where it's not 100% clear why things work a certain way, and that's s
8.
by chronofar 3y ago
Yes I noted it doesn't answer the "hard" problem explicitly in both of my replies here on this thread. Indeed, the very reason it is called the "hard" problem is b/c it very well seems perhaps unsolvable (thoug
9.
by chronofar 3y ago
Sure, none of what you said there would lead to the conclusion that the "experience is not something that really happens," though it's also possible there's a just a failure of communication here and I'm not underst
10.
by chronofar 3y ago
Completely sidesteps which question? It answers very clearly these questions posed by the person I was responding to: > why I am currently occupying the body that I am as an observer, and not another one, or perhaps even none. It definit
11.
by chronofar 3y ago
The experience is internal, the body (the limb that's missing) is external to the experience. The confabulatory experience of "I don't want to move" is an internal experience and cannot itself be an illusion, it's s
12.
by chronofar 3y ago
Materialism, which by my reading has the most evidence going for it, solves these particular questions rather easily. Your experience as an observer is the result of your brain. It's not another one or none b/c those aren't y
13.
by chronofar 3y ago
> So, they think they are having one experience, but they are wrong about their own internal experience: in fact, they are not moving that limb because they can't. I think it's rather the opposite, they aren't wrong about
14.
by chronofar 3y ago
> not because it "thinks" but because the way it's wired it's (nearly - barring solar radiation, I suppose, which incidentally also goes for cells) inevitable that it will react to a stimulus in a predefined way (even
15.
by chronofar 3y ago
I don't think they're as small as you're saying. There have been multiple well documented incidents with 737 MAX that have not been with the A320. Maybe you think it's small enough to not worry about, said incidents are
16.
by chronofar 3y ago
I played Cyberpunk 2077 after BG3, and though the production values and story are very strong it feels a bit like a walking simulator after the gameplay richness BG3 offered. The RPG elements feel more or less meaningless in comparison, as
17.
by chronofar 3y ago
> My point is it has no more depth than "I will earn money and give it to causes that make the most good", which is just "do good" with a materialistic twist. This is just one particular angle some folks take. It&#x27
18.
by chronofar 3y ago
> And what evidence can one really collect of how to do the most good? This is indeed a central question to EA, one various proponents attempt to answer in various ways. > Someone claims (let's say to simplify they are not lying)
19.
by chronofar 3y ago
Well I don't think that's really an interpretation so much as it is a strategy certain people may take, and as you're alluding to a very fallible one at that. It certainly could be a reasonable strategy to amass wealth and po
20.
by chronofar 3y ago
I find 2 (dangerous) scenarios to be most likely, one easier to reason about than the other: 1. Access is not uniformly distributed, thus some entity uses it to create immense inequality. 2. The AI becomes sufficiently intelligent and power
21.
by chronofar 3y ago
Not really at all, if we were to try and reduce EA to a pithy one-liner it would be more like "if one aspires to do good (altruism), one should use evidenced based data to determine how they can do the most good with their limited reso
22.
by chronofar 3y ago
Babies and bathwater. The philosophical underpinnings of AI Safety and Effective Altruism absolutely have merit and warrant consideration. Of course as with most things human group/tribal tendencies can tend to overwhelm such underpinn
23.
by chronofar 3y ago
As I attempted to make clear, none of what I said was judging you or your life or choices or anything of the sort, it was simply a reflection on a turn of phrase (a semantic nitpick as I said, but one I thought worth exploring because of th
24.
by chronofar 3y ago
> But they got married we got married, jobs, moving to new houses, life happened. You focus shifts over time to work and family. It gets harder. Life didn't "happen" here, you designed divergent paths. This is I know large
25.
by chronofar 3y ago
> they don't fully consider the actual ramifications of those policies. This is the generalization that started this thread and is wrong. On the contrary I believe you're showing evidence that you're not considering the fu
26.
by chronofar 3y ago
Just because a 2 can represent different values doesn’t mean there’s not a system, it just means the system is configurable. This is a good thing, you just have to know how the tool works. Even if I don’t know what specific values m-2 may h
27.
by chronofar 3y ago
> OK, so it is a coherent argument then and just one you don't agree with? No, it would only be coherent if you also accept the other premises I put forth (which I'm fairly certain you don't, but you haven't really ac
28.
by chronofar 3y ago
> Why does the fact that hard drug addiction hijacks the reward circuitry of the brain and is bad not a coherent argument? Well forgive the repetition here, but because that’s both an incredibly vague definition and because it’s incompat
29.
by chronofar 3y ago
> How about we try to avoid the really harmful stuff that ruins lives and kills people like drug addiction? Hard no. Alcohol ruins many people's lives, but that shouldn't interfere with my ability to imbibe if I so choose, it m
30.
by chronofar 3y ago
What did I make up and what did I say that requires evidence? And what responsibility do you imagine I’d require to have the opinion I relayed? Of course nothing is simple if given a close enough look, but there are also rather straightforw

More ›