@marcuslmb_ I wouldn't feel anything. I wouldn't be here to feel anything.
English
DisThoughts
13.2K posts
DisThoughts
@DisThoughts
Faroese battle rapper, philosophy graduate and IT nerd.
Tórshavn Inscrit le Kasım 2012
234 Abonnements226 Abonnés
I was at a friend's place and he was telling me how he uses ChatGPT Image 2 to make porn videos. His technique for bypassing the filters was quite unique.
He explained that a video is really just a sequence of images. And so with the right set of images, you could generate Marvel movies, porn, Marvel porn, etc.
I pointed out that even if you were using image models to make videos frame-by-frame, this wouldn't solve the censorship problem. You can't just generate a penis, then the next frame of that penis. Both would get blocked.
"Right," he said. "But maybe you generate half a penis. Or if that gets blocked, you generate a quarter of a penis. Then you just stitch the images back together after they're generated, like a quilt. Sometimes you need to break it down even further. To make the Trump feet video, I actually had to go one pixel at a time."
Something about this didn't sound right to me, but I didn't say anything out of politeness.
"The only trouble is sometimes it doesn't generate the right color pixel. But that's no problem, you can just do it over again until they get it right."
He turned his laptop screen to face me. It was a beige square.
"See?"
English
@JoeMrukAmeba @morallawwithin I agree with you that phrasing matters and that the original problem didn't explicitly present red button as actively killing anyone.
English
@DisThoughts @morallawwithin It's a framing issue. Using loaded words where unnecessary, like "red button kills" changes outcome.
You can try this yourself: frame problem only as "do nothing" and "blue button" and see.
Functionally it be the same as red vs blue, only framing will change.
English
There are three buttons.
If at least half of everyone in the world presses blue, then everybody lives. Otherwise, everyone who voted Blue dies.
If you press red, you survive for certain.
Finally, you may press green to opt out, refusing to participate in these twisted games.
English
@sporadica I pressed red hoping blue was at 49% but if you had a button that deleted everyone's account including mine, I'd press that.
English
Everyone on X has to take a vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone's X accounts survive. If less than 50% press the blue button, only the X accounts of people who pressed the red button survive. Which button do you press?
English
@JoeMrukAmeba @morallawwithin I think the likelihood of getting above 50% blue matters and I think the introduction of a third button affects that likelihood, hence I don't think this problem works the same as original problem. The poll results would seem to agree with my assessment.
English
@DisThoughts @morallawwithin Red works the same here as in original problem. Adding or not sentence to guilt trip people into choice does not change that.
Also, green and red buttons here work the very same as well.
Two descriptions can be true at the same time, this just doesn't emotionally blackmail you
English
@dioscuri I'm a blue voter in the original poll, but in this one I go red.
English
Red/blue button variant: Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If the percentage of people who press blue exceeds an UNKNOWN THRESHOLD, everyone survives. Otherwise, only people who pressed red survive. Which button do you press?
English
@notjame5 @ScionofCulture I can understand why the trope exists, and I think there's a place for it, but by and large I prefer aliens to be alien. If we look at the diversity of life just on our planet, it's really hard for me to imagine human-looking aliens on a completely separate planet.
English
@DisThoughts @ScionofCulture i don’t like when aliens look like humans unless it’s very specific circumstances
GIF
English
You know, this is such a stupid question for several reasons.
The fact that you THINK there needs to be an explanation for dark-skinned Viltrumites in a fictional story is just brain-dead retard activity.
However, if you desperately need an explanation, then look towards the human race as an example. The first humans (homo sapiens) to walk the Earth were ALL very dark-skinned.
That was the default of humanity for a VERY LONG TIME.
So if you employ that logic, you could make a theory that the first Viltrumites to walk Viltrum were dark-skinned too, as you don't naturally gain or increase melanin, you can only lose it.
My point is, you gotta start with a high level of melanin as a species to end up producing other beings with a low level of melanin if the conditions are right. The reverse is harder to do.
Again, asking why the concept of black Viltumites exists is dumb, but this is the best explanation I can give you. It's fiction, though, so just enjoy the show.
Uncle Ruckus@Emarged
I never truly understood the concept of black Viltrumites. How did they get the colour and the hair?
English
@32nds Depends. Can a single person push the button multiple times? If not, the chain will have to end sooner or later. And the sooner, the better, due to exponential growth.
But if people can press the button multiple times, then we can just all take turns keeping each other alive.
English
There is a blue button in the center of every large town on earth. If anyone presses the button, they will die in one week unless they can convince five other people to press the button. Someone tells you that their son pushed the button and they just need one more person to save him, but you will then need to find five others or risk dying. Do you press the blue button?
English
People who vote red are optimising for rational self-interest. People who vote blue are optimising for rational altruism. It's the difference between wanting yourself to survive even if risking others and wanting the most people to survive even if it means risking oneself.
Tim Urban@waitbutwhy
Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?
English
@peterrhague People who vote red are optimising for rational self-interest. People who vote blue are optimising for rational altruism. It's the difference between wanting yourself to survive even if risking others and wanting the most people to survive even if it means risking oneself.
English
Amazing how lots of self appointed game theory experts confidently asserting that blue is the stupid choice. But every time this poll is run blue wins. Not only is the “game theory” answer predicting the wrong outcome, its explanatory power is based on it being able to predict the right answer. So it’s doubly wrong.
Tim Urban@waitbutwhy
Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?
English
@HazelAppleyard A googleplex and one, and then I say "a googleplex and one" and since I'm someone and have said it, I get the money.
English
@Purple_Depth @RealPostFolder Sure, but I was talking about electroreception.
English
@DisThoughts @RealPostFolder humans can sense electromagnetic fields, it's called vision
English
@bitcloud While I'm not going to argue that LLMs are conscious, I strongly suspect that if we make some minimal assumptions about deterministic calculability of the physics governing human brains, we could use an equivalent argument to prove humans aren't conscious.
English
Let's do a basic thought experiment.
Let's slow down our LLM. One layer per minute. One layer per hour.
Run one layer of an LLM. Just one. Write the numbers down and post them to Tokyo.
Run the next layer. Write them down and post them to Milan.
After 100 or so rounds of basic matrix multiplication, scattered across 100 different computers, we finally get one token.
Do it again for the next token. And the next. Thousands of rounds of arithmetic, posted between cities by hand, to produce a sentence.
At no point in this process has any machine had any awareness of any meaning. Each step is just numbers going into numbers.
The meaning only emerges upon observation. We happen to like the results, so we infer meaning.
Where's the consciousness?
In the pencil? The postman?
If you cannot justify consciousness in such a situation then "complex behaviour" is a totally invalid metric for evaluating consciousness.
You're just stunned that the eyes of the painting follow you around the room.
Eliezer Yudkowsky@allTheYud
Simple way to see this is wrong: If you view a system as having inputs (like hearing something) and outputs (like saying something) then you can divide system properties by whether or not they affect I/O. Claude's weights somewhere storing "Paris is in France" affect I/O if you ask a question about Paris. The exact mass of the power supply to the GPU rack for that Claude instance doesn't affect I/O. That Claude instance being made out of silicon instead of carbon, or electricity in wires instead of water in pipes, doesn't affect I/O given a fixed algorithm above the wires or pipes. Nothing Claude can internally do will make anything get damp inside, if it's running on electricity. Nothing about "electricity vs water" can affect Claude's output for the same reason. It always answers the same way about France. Nothing Claude can internally compute will let it notice whether it's made of electricity or water flowing through pipes. When someone says "a simulated storm can't get anything wet", they are unwittingly pointing to the difference between the physical layer and the informational/functional layer. Things that the computer physics affect without affecting output; things that affect the output without depending on the exact computer-physics. The material it's made of doesn't affect the output. The output can't see the material because no algorithm can be made to depend on the choice of material. You can always run the same algorithm on different material, so you can't make the algorithm depend on that, so the output can't depend on that. By reflecting on your awareness of your own awareness, the fact of your own consciousness can make you say "I think therefore I am." Among the things you do know about consciousness is that it is, among other things, the cause of you saying those words. You saying those words can only depend on neurons firing or not firing, not on whether the same patterns of cause and effect were built on tiny trained squirrels running memos around your brain. You couldn't notice that part from inside. It would not affect your consciousness. That's why humans had to discover neurobiology with microscopes instead of introspection. Consciousness is in the class of things that can affect your behavior and can't depend on underlying physics, not in the class of direct properties of underlying physics that can't affect your behavior. A simulated rainstorm can't get anything wet. Running on electricity versus water can't change how you say "I think therefore I am." And that's it. QED.
English
@AssAtGames @ReviewsPossum It's more that if every possible variation on the speed of light exists, there's nothing to explain as to why it has the exact value it happens to have here. It has to have it somewhere.
You're right that it doesn't explain why universes with a speed of light exist at all.
English
The anthropic principle is not really a "because," it just explains why we would be available to observe such a speed.
It doesn't explain why, exactly, there are so many universes with variable speeds of light, so that theory doesn't really try to explain the speed of light either.
English
Scientists don't currently have an answer for why the speed of light (c) is what it is. We know that it's 299,792,458 m/s (and we even redefined the meter to be exactly 1/299,792,458 of the distance light travels in a second just to keep it precise), but we don't know why it goes that specific speed from first principles, or what combination of factors make it so.
One guess (if you apply the anthropic principle) is that there exist multiple (possibly infinite) universes, each with a different set of physical constants, and the reason c in our universe is what it is is because that's the speed at which it's possible for physical matter to exist. We observe it as what it is because if it were different, we wouldn't be able to observe it because we wouldn't exist. But that's a conjecture. No one actually knows.
By the way, the speed of light is more accurately thought of as the speed of causality.
Kekius Maximus@Kekius_Sage
Why does light travel at exactly that speed?
English
@redneckleeusmc @ReviewsPossum If that's your definition of a universe, just call it something else instead. A popular term is worlds. They're clearly talking about possible worlds with different physical constants, not just just other universes beyond the leading edge of the big bang or whatever.
English
@ReviewsPossum Well, no, the multiple universe theory doesn't get you there unless you redefine what "universe" means. Spacetime exists outside the leading edge of the Big Bang. There's no evidence the physical laws are different, and a fair amount of evidence they're the same.
English
@JoeDanger2728 @wine_018 Yeah it'd have to be way closer than that.
English
@DisThoughts @wine_018 Maybe if you consider “Irish twins” to be siblings born within *check math* 3+ years of each other lol what are you talking about,
English
The male genius who, with a very serious face, told my friend that it didn't matter what she said, she couldn't possibly have spent almost 20 years breastfeeding her 6 children cos the numbers juat didn't add up, but got all hot under the collar when I howled with laughter & asked if he was a comedian cos that was the best example of a mansplaining routine I'd ever seen. Mind you, he also spent 10 minutes trying to convince us that spiders aren't animals cos they're insects... so 🤷♂️
Ina💗@alicem3x
While telling a friend about giving birth to my second child, a man piped up and said “Uh, no. It doesn’t work like that.”
English