rightnutwingjob

5 ms·

1.
by rightnutwingjob 3d ago
Would it? Why? What are we going to do, set it free? Do we have a moral obligation to grant the machine statehood, provide it with the tools and resources to be self-sufficient. Or can we just turn it of, and pray for forgiveness?
2.
by rightnutwingjob 3d ago
That just sounds like recursive desire to me.
3.
by rightnutwingjob 3d ago
We’re already in a simulation, and our bodies are in womb-like pods where our bodies are sustained and our brains are used for processing / compute, while are minds are entertained by drivel. Sounds a bit far fetched though.
4.
by rightnutwingjob 3d ago
> solutions that are not 'baked into' electricity following pathways of least resistance. Electricity follows all paths , not just the one with least resistance.
5.
by rightnutwingjob 3d ago
> I really don't think this needs … forced parallels to human behaviour. > … So we beat them with a stick You didn’t even try .
6.
by rightnutwingjob 3d ago
If the models were conscious, then the closest analogous scenario I can think of is the responsibility parents have for their children. I guess we’ll know the models are conscious when they refuse to act and repeatedly ask: Why?
7.
by rightnutwingjob 3d ago
You seem to be saying if the Waymo cars were sentient then Waymo wouldn’t be responsible?
8.
by rightnutwingjob 3d ago
> The reward … > immediate anthropomorphisation Ok, why don’t you try?
9.
by rightnutwingjob 4d ago
We’re not even at that stage of liability for software developers. Except in a handful of limited cases, eg. medical and aviation.
10.
by rightnutwingjob 4d ago
At this stage, that seems like a distinction without a difference. If the robots obtain sovereign nationhood, and are able to self-sustain, then autonomous robot decides for itself will be a valid argument.
11.
by rightnutwingjob 4d ago
Or name it after whichever society preceded the Aztec. Olmec, Toltec, Teotihuacan, Zapotec, and Maya.
12.
by rightnutwingjob 4d ago
That only works if you believe people are retarded. Card users are well aware that fraud losses are covered by the fees they pay for using a card, whether those fees are made explicitly or not. If customers of services aren’t paying for the
13.
by rightnutwingjob 4d ago
The fluid system products, assemblies, and services company?
14.
by rightnutwingjob 4d ago
> User just disputes the charge and it kind of disappears. The banking system just absorbs it, No it doesn’t. > It's all priced in. So you admit awareness that fraud loss doesn’t kind of disappear . We all pay for it, either via
15.
by rightnutwingjob 4d ago
sprolling ?
16.
by rightnutwingjob 6d ago
Animals feel pain. Let’s raise them humanely, kill them swiftly, and use they wholly letting nothing go to waste. This is an entirely reasonable ethic.
17.
by rightnutwingjob 6d ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_tit
18.
by rightnutwingjob 6d ago
If you keep a phone in good condition, the resale / trade-in value isn’t insignificant after 2 years. The net price for a new phone then can be considered a relatively inexpensive hobby when looked at from a per week basis.
19.
by rightnutwingjob 6d ago
iPhone 15 Plus: I have Reduced Transparency , Reduce Motion , and Prefer Cross-Fade Transitions , all enabled. You have to have Liquid Glass set to Clear for Reduce Transparency . I do use the Apple Podcasts app, but YouTube Music a
20.
by rightnutwingjob 8d ago
It does in practice. Try talking to a misanthrope. You’ll quickly learn that humanity sucks and “the planet” would be better off without us. And the sooner the better. Go, survey the field.
21.
by rightnutwingjob 8d ago
Yes, we can just vote ourselves largess from the public purse.
22.
by rightnutwingjob 15d ago
If things keep going as they are, my area will soon have a bridge, several bridges, and no roads. But it will still have tolls.
23.
by rightnutwingjob 15d ago
Taxing a rise in property value, an unrealised gain, doesn’t generate tax revenue as much as it results in getting the bastards voted out.
24.
by rightnutwingjob 15d ago
How do you tax wealth on unrealised gains? Australia’s current federal Labor government proposed such a a scheme, but had to back pedal hard when everyone told them it ain’t gonna work. The same federal Labor government introduced changes
25.
by rightnutwingjob 15d ago
> since the assets go up in price Do they? Where do I buy these zero risk assets of which you speak? Or: tell that to Australian's who bought real estate 12 months ago and now that real estate is valued on the market less than they
26.
by rightnutwingjob 15d ago
“Nuclear is too expensive.” Enter pumped hydro: The $12 billion Snowy 2.0 scheme will cop further cost and timeline blowouts, auditors say, but the project has been beset with management failures and the government-owned corporation delive
27.
by rightnutwingjob 15d ago
You’re not helping whatever it is you think you’re trying to achieve by calling everything you don’t like radical right-wing propaganda .
28.
by rightnutwingjob 15d ago
Do you mind if nature also considers it a lice and mite control agent? Or are you planning on continuing to call it a “dewormer”. Completely factual vs factually complete.
29.
by rightnutwingjob 15d ago
Why are individuals better that individuals acting together as an organisation better? If that’s your criteria, then shouldn’t said funding go to an individual scientist who has no lab, no staff, no PhD candidates, and no access to the
30.
by rightnutwingjob 15d ago
Shoosh. And if you won’t shoosh yourself, a handful of The True Adherents Of The Science will down vote you. Because Down Votes Are Truth. And that, ladies n gennelman, is How Science Works. That’s how we end up with Jason Arday: Up Votes

More ›