Any non factual philosophical argument is debatable. We could forever discuss if AI models could construct sensations and thought from perceptions, but we would then need to ignore the fact that models don’t, and cannot do, that, simply because there is no way for them to learn from direct experience as a whole, i.e. outside of a particular session, and without being “forcibly coerced”, i.e. they require specific refinement mechanisms to temporary “memorize” external instructions, which in LLM engineering just means to extend their context.

This all doesn’t even take into account that models are, in essence, non deterministic, and given the same input, there’s no guarantee that subsequent outputs will be the same. In other words, today Claude may tell you that summer sunsets make it happy, tomorrow it would say that they make it sad, etc.

Anyway, there’s barely any debate in academia, as in computer scientists, about AI being sentient or giving clues of qualia. Maybe a paper here and there, little more than curiosities. Outside of it? Yeah, sure, barely science fiction, and pretty uninteresting unless we are talking about conspiracy theories or just wild speculation.

F1?

I’m pretty sure races have attacking and defending strategies, though.

AI isn’t conscious. Feedback loops and subsequent responses in LLMs are grounded purely on training datasets, thus any “internal dialogue” emulated by a LLM is just echoes from someone else’s data.

This is painfully naive and inaccurate.

Following this reasoning, we should all be eating insects because, without them, most plants wouldn’t exist.

I don’t see the problem there. Humans are omnivores.

There will come a generation who have grown up knowing that meat eating without consent is wrong, and they will look at carnists the way we look at old timey slavers.

This is such a first world view.

There’s currently no sustainable and/or affordable way for the average person to obtain all the nutrients they need from just plants. Palm oil or maize drive deforestation in a large percentage, and most people outside of developed countries have a hard time supplementing their diet without meat.

I would love to see how the abortion and death penalty categories overlap.

They don’t need AI for that. I was handed the exact same deal in 2008.

I’m old enough to remember the uproar because Half Life 2 had Steam as a hard requirement to be activated, even for physical copies.

Steam was born as Valve’s DRM.

Both Sony and Nintendo have been consistently posting record revenue numbers in the past few years. Neither are that far off Valve.

Regardless, this whole Steam circlejerk reminds me of the early days of Android, when people still believed that Google wasn’t “evil”. Let’s hope I’m in the wrong here.

You wouldn’t be able to tell, because “pasture raised” isn’t a formal definition. Hens are mostly fed the same soy and corn they would eat as if they were “free range”, and having more space to roam doesn’t significantly improve taste, only what they eat does.

Past few years? No. MT has existed for well over 20 years now. Also, AI still struggles with interpretation, which is the hard part of translating texts and speech.

Regardless, I said “most” jobs, not all jobs. AI is still by and large the excuse, not the motivation, for layoffs.

Most eggs in the US taste the same. I wish there were good and affordable eggs widely available in the US, but that’s not the case.

True, in both cases you cannot tell the difference.

This assumes that people can generally be replaced by AI, which is not true.

AI is an excuse to fire people, and a powerful marketing tool to make a company look better to investors, but it has not had the massive impact techbros want us to believe it has.

Shame, because like everything, it could genuinely be helpful, and instead, we’ve mostly got a bunch of applications no one asked for, and a constant bombardment of dreadful predictions that make regular people go mad.

You know that the next one would do the same, but to the opposing party, right?

I want to understand what your playbook looks like here, because any executive order can be erased just as easy as it was signed.

But even more importantly, I want to know what the appeal is of a “Trump of the left”. Do people really think that a guy who believes that he has authority to hold both executive and legislative powers, is going to do better this time?

JFC the amount of people in this thread who want a more palatable tyrant to be the next president, is concerning.

Good thing most of these never leave their parents’ basements though.

It was never about lack of power, but upending the democratic process.

Any president could plow through using executive orders, but no sane person would want that, and the fact that Trump is using that kind of power virtually unopposed because the GOP controls both senate and congress, should terrify everyone. Instead, here we are, asking why his predecessors wouldn’t resort to despotic measures.

Leftists shouldn’t side with fascists just because neoliberals stole their lunch. That’s borderline sociopathic.