• 0 Posts
  • 10 Comments
Joined 5 months ago
cake
Cake day: June 8th, 2024

help-circle


  • Stupider or wiser relative what? If we measure against a what it takes to live a wise life at the time then people are definitely getting stupider (and you are absolutely correct). The wisdom required is rising much more quickly than the wisdom possessed.

    Perceptions are also easily swayed because we’ve been on an unusually long objectively (not relative) downward slope. Some think technology of communication the last nail in the coffin, that we will never begin to become wiser again. They may be right. You may be very, very correct. But, hope is an important thing. In this, I think one should believe what’s necessary for personal morale.

    You made me think more about pot smokers. I think you’re correct. Even in my own observation they’re a much more diverse group than I present. And, I bet a lot of them keep their habit totally private.

    I came down on you pretty hard there. I think you saw I wasn’t attacking you personally. You received it so well you even changed my perspective. This is why I’ve faith in humanity. We’ve still got the special sauce.


  • Your perspectives suck and no one’s told you. This was maybe a time when you should’ve only asked a good question.

    That’s not a judgement of you as a person.

    Handjob McVape chose a ridiculously gerrymandered district. This is middle class wage slaves, rural property owners, and the employees of rural property owners (incl. oil workers on rented rights).

    Pot smokers worldwide lean hard left or are unengaged with their political and activist proceses.

    It’s not COVID making people stupid. They’re just stupid, always have been, and don’t know it. Humans have been choosing kings to conveniently let another reason and choose for them since the beginning of humanity. They’re not changing. You are.




  • I’m not actually asking for good faith answers to these questions. Asking seems the best way to illustrate the concept.

    Does the programmer fully control the extents of human meaning as the computation progresses, or is the value in leveraging ignorance of what the software will choose?

    Shall we replace our judges with an AI?

    Does the software understand the human meaning in what it does?

    The problem with the majority of the AI projects I’ve seen (in rejecting many offers) is that the stakeholders believe they’ve significantly more influence over the human meaning of the results than exists in the quality and nature of the data they’ve access to. A scope of data limits a resultant scope of information, which limits a scope of meaning. Stakeholders want to break the rules with “AI voodoo”. Then, someone comes along and sells the suckers their snake oil.