Ok is not ok

Have done this, it’s good. Excessive but good.

I’m aware. I find sometimes wrapping things up in a single word doesn’t get the full story across.

You’ll see them respond two ways. Either they will argue a child can pull a trigger the same as an adult or that a child today is a soldier tomorrow. Ultimately they see them like any perpetrator of any genocide sees their victim, as a disease. Mental separation is really the only way people can cause harm to one another. We don’t kill father’s with children in war, we kill the enemy. The language around every genocide essentially revolves around the other group being a disease. They aren’t men, women, and children, they are rats or cockroaches or something to that effect.

It was mid, not a cluster fuck like the last season of game of thrones.

Not a single gps but multiple, the same trick could be done with this theoretically

Flatpak?

In the last few years it has taken on that connotation but the term artificial intelligence is much older than that and has a linguistic use. If for instance we digitize a full fruit flies brain that’s artificial intelligence or similarly if we develop other models with equally complex behavior. We can even go all the way back to mechanical automaton although mechanical systems are quite limited in performing dynamic and complex behavior.

Why? Nuclear power is amazing for actually producing enough energy for global society and being clean. Renewables are amazing where they can be used.

True, it’s just a tool and should be used where it best provides a real benefit. That’s essentially the core of my argument.

This doesn’t really have anything to do with what I’m talking about. Nuclear energy is awesome, nuclear bombs not so much. AI in applications where it works and makes the world better is awesome. AI in applications where it’s stealing, dehumizing, monitoring, degrading society not so much. It’s fundamentally just a mathematical structure with no intrinsic behavior on its own. What we use it for is up to us collectively.

That’s one use of neural networks we do need to react to accordingly as a populace but it’s not the only use of those algorithms. I gave the example of alpha fold which has essentially solved the very hard problem of protein folding unlocking the door to developing cures for many diseases. The issue isn’t the tech, the issue is in some cases how it is being used. Think of nuclear power. We could have functionally limitless and clean power or we can end life on earth. The problem isn’t nuclear power, the problem is the actions of people.

It’s a tool like any other. It can be used in a destructive and immoral manner or used where it works to improve the lives of people. Think about the alpha fold project and other such use cases.

Honestly we just need to divide the internet into three sections. The human only content and posts section, the human and AI section, and the AI mainly section.

There’s some loopholes to jump through depending on hardware but that’s also because of windows.

Kinda reminds me of WWII when we had Japanese American soldiers and likely their families in camps with all of their assets seized.

How about we don’t duplicate George Orwells 1984 irl?

How would you prefer people talk technology that allows machines to think, learn, and perform tasks that usually require human intelligence?

We could encode some behavior with mechanical automaton but we can encode far more behavior and more complex behavior with electronic computers. There’s no known strict limit beyond computation to the complexity of behavior we can encode. Now with a fully digitized fruit fly brain one can theorize about a fully digitized human brain. What would we call this if not artificial intelligence? How about other models that encode approximate behavior to human level intelligence?

The term has linguistic meaning and isn’t just marketing nonsense like calling food products all natural. That said there’s definitely been a ramp up of people calling essentially if-else chains artificial intelligence, lots of abuse of the term.

Sure, you know the term existed long before it became a financial buzz word right? Anyways in which sense are LLMs or NNs fundamentally flawed? I still believe your chief complaint is about the actions of people and not some mathematical structure much in the same way arguments about engagement algorithms on social media platforms is more about people and their choices than C++ or a binary tree.

I’m not saying the use cases that some have chosen for certain tools is neutral. Their behavior is indeed bad and should be called out. Ai for instance is at it’s core just a mathematical structure that has no intrinsic behavior, same for the concept of algorithms for social media or algorithms for drones or algorithms for the internet. Yeah some people use the internet to cause a lot of harm or even guide the outcomes of nations but is it the fault of html, CSS, and JavaScript? Not really. The problem is some companies, some people, some government officials and their choices.