whaaswijk

8 ms·

1.
by whaaswijk 1y ago
What makes it so much harder to publish a CL game on Steam versus a C++ game?
2.
by whaaswijk 2y ago
Legalese seems to me a different category more akin to technical writing. I wouldn’t classify difficulty understanding a legal document as a general lack of reading comprehension. It requires specific domain knowledge.
3.
by whaaswijk 3y ago
I’m not sure I should start a conversation on metaphysics here :-D Still, I’m struck by your use of words like “should” and “goal”. Those imply ethics and teleology so I’m curious how those fit into your scientistic-sounding worldview. I’m
4.
by whaaswijk 3y ago
I don’t understand your position. Are you saying it’s okay for computers to kill humans but not okay for humans to kill each other?
5.
by whaaswijk 4y ago
I think it would be “sphericles”.
6.
by whaaswijk 4y ago
I think that’s right. The analogy for straight men would be that they may want to love and sleep with many women but that it’s still wrong unless within a marriage.
7.
by whaaswijk 4y ago
AFAIK original sin does teach that all men are fallen and require salvation. This doesn’t mean that human nature is all bad and it’s indeed not the same as total depravity. However it’s also not true that men are born holy.
8.
by whaaswijk 4y ago
What’s the “something else” you’re currently using?
9.
by whaaswijk 4y ago
While I agree that simulation theory pushes the question up a level, that is not the case for the God of classical theism.
10.
by whaaswijk 4y ago
I think a key difference with humans is that ChatGPT doesn’t know that it doesn’t know.
11.
by whaaswijk 4y ago
This is surprising to hear. From my perspective as accomplices scientist being a doctor strikes me as one of the few jobs where you are obviously and directly helping people, thus “making the world a better place” (as we CS folks sometimes
12.
by whaaswijk 4y ago
So there can be no redemption? I can’t, off the top of my head, think of any endeavors where someone can never participate again once they’ve cheated. Certainly not in sports.
13.
by whaaswijk 4y ago
I hope you’re joking because that actually sounds like a terribly impoverished life for a human consciousness.
14.
by whaaswijk 4y ago
I have some anecdotal evidence against this. Learning how to write automated proofs using Isabel and HOL definitely improved my ability to write proofs with pen and paper. Also, I wonder what is meant by “traditional activities”. Unfortunat
15.
by whaaswijk 4y ago
Thanks, that sounds like a good strategy. I’ll have a look at the Accelerate book. > how can you be expected to do better than practices espoused by industry leading research and companies? True, but not everyone has reasonable expectati
16.
by whaaswijk 4y ago
I think the “doing your work well” part is often the question. Am I really doing all I can? Could I do better/more? This then leads to working more and being busier. Maybe the problem is that it’s hard (for some of us) to know what “we
17.
by whaaswijk 4y ago
I mostly agree with your post. I’m just curious about which variables people care about most and how accurate your “far and away” statement is. For example, a quick google search suggests that if we take race/ethnicity, the following s
18.
by whaaswijk 4y ago
That’s actually not clear to me. Anecdotally I have often experienced the saying “opposite attract” to be true. I have had discussions with friends who hold your point of view. Of course it could also depend on how we define similarity (e.g
19.
by whaaswijk 4y ago
Is there a mechanism in place to stop people from laundering money with ethereum? This is a serious question, I’m a total noob when it comes to crypto.
20.
by whaaswijk 4y ago
I’m not sure the analogy to gravity works. At least in the case of gravity we have a model which (largely) explains the planetary orbits. As far as I know, we are not even close to a model in the case of consciousness. And even if we had a
21.
by whaaswijk 4y ago
What explanation are you referring to though? Just saying consciousness is an emergent property is not an explanation. Rather it is an assertion.
22.
by whaaswijk 4y ago
Grass and trees and such. Perhaps bushes and animals too.
23.
by whaaswijk 5y ago
:-D
24.
by whaaswijk 5y ago
Are there any experts that can ELI5 this “breakthrough” for us? How much closer does this bring us to a useful number of logical qubits?
25.
by whaaswijk 5y ago
I guess this is where we differ. I don't see a sufficient reason to believe that increasing computational capacity/complexity alone gives rise to consciousness. Moreover, I think there are common sense reasons to believe that cons
26.
by whaaswijk 5y ago
Well, as far as I'm aware notions of feeling or experiencing are not accounted for in our current physical models. Does an electron feel anything? On the one hand, if it does, it seems to me like physical models have to be extended to
27.
by whaaswijk 5y ago
If I understand correctly, you're referring to the "easy" problem of consciousness, i.e. the "mechanistic" explanation of how a self could be constructed by the brain. That's an interesting question and I think
28.
by whaaswijk 5y ago
Serious question: how can consciousness be an illusion? I’m not even sure what that would mean. One could argue that many things are illusory (e.g. the external world). But it’s quite hard to dismiss the notion of actual experience occurri
29.
by whaaswijk 5y ago
I think many people are reluctant to use non-traditional pronouns. I’m not trying to condemn or condone that, just pointing out that to me this example seems unrelated to autism.
30.
by whaaswijk 5y ago
Would you like to say a bit more about why that's not a valid argument. To be clear, I'm not saying it is (I don't know enough about the subject to do so) but it doesn't seem that far-fetched to me. Isn't similar pr

More ›