WeightDecayWarlord

Women have completely normalized ruthlessly body-shaming men over things they literally cannot control, like their height or their hairlines, and society just laughs along. But the exact second a man expresses a simple preference for something a woman can control, like her weight or fitness level, he is publicly crucified and labeled a toxic misogynist. The absolute hypocrisy is staggering

@GreenCraig5 @wil_da_beast630 It was 6 years ago, let go.

@wil_da_beast630 But....Woke is dead.

Real story BTW.

@TaylorIsOnline0 She is in that generation - idiots were always around they just didn't have a speaker to get together

The younger generations are cooked.

@grant_melson I was on my way to write you're an idiot, but the CFA had me reading one more line. but yup good troll well played sir

Can’t believe this guy’s goal is to hoard a $10T net worth. I would think with all that wealth, he would use it to help people more. Like ending deaths in car accidents, or providing affordable transport for everyone, or offering internet to isolated people groups or something.

Bono spent 30+ years inside the aid industrial complex and came out saying this:

@ArtemisConsort @hecubian_devil @DiamondEyesFox My moral relevance to obj x goes through cosine similarity after embedding into latent space. relevance(x) = cossim(embed(me), embed(x)) negatives are moral enemies, LLMs are orthogonal

@RoseAndGarden @hecubian_devil @DiamondEyesFox I think Dawkin’s actual question - interrogating the relationship between capabilities and moral relevance - is interesting.

I don’t think LLMs are conscious and I doubt they are structurally capable of conscious experience. I’m partial to the idea that embodiment is a precondition of consciousness. But, full cards on the table, it is a little annoying the absolute *certainty* with which the anti-AI side (broadly, my side of these debates, I guess) proclaims this, given that we basically don’t understand what consciousness is, how it works, what gives rise to it, etc, in human or animal brains. Scientists can’t even agree if plants have subjective experience. Like, if you can’t empirically detect consciousness, explain its workings, understand what physical processes give rise to it, or even know which living things experience it, it seems to me you must have at least a *little bit* of epistemic humility about the whole thing. If we actually understood human/animal/plant(??) consciousness well, that would be one thing. But we don’t. We notoriously know almost nothing about it. Now, this would be annoying but basically trivial *if* we weren’t also ceding an opportunity to leverage the belief some people have in AI consciousness as part of mustering a broad political coalition to regulate AI. But it is really, really annoying that we are neglecting one possible avenue for mustering that support out of a totally irrational and empirically indefensible *certainty* about something which science and philosophy both fail to understand at minimum levels of adequacy (that something being human consciousness). Like, we’re throwing away a tool for reasons of pure ego, essentially. Again, I don’t think the machines are conscious. I strongly doubt LLMs are architecturally capable of *ever* being conscious. But I wouldn’t stake anything of serious value (like an organizing opportunity) on my belief here because that’s a waste, and *also* I really can’t claim certainty in my belief when I have no way of empirically evaluating whether something is conscious or not! Because none of us can!

@minordissent Nah it not being in top-5 is homosexual

to be clear: “Would women like it?” is a variable that matters and should be considered but it should not be the only nor probably even top 5 highest weighted factors when deciding what you will or will not do.

She’s right. And being mad about it is very gay because it means your bar for whats worth doing is “would women like it?”, which is extremely homosexual.

@ArtemisConsort @hecubian_devil @DiamondEyesFox I don't get it, you think the LLMs are conscious?

@hecubian_devil @DiamondEyesFox I am pro-AI but this is a very honest and reasonable position. I feel that way about a lot of your content: a very good and earnest articulation of the positions I disagree with, from someone who actually cares what’s true, which is rare.

@nosilverv My fundamental value is my intelligence and I think that attractiveness is the fundamental value. Also - Richard Dawkins is (was?) smarter than you

I'm so sad we learned nothing from him, man

@cremieuxrecueil one minute clip of what? I always tell people I can tell when someone is smart within minutes, but it depends on context

Interesting: If you have people sit down and watch one-minute clips of other people, they can guess how smart those people are with a correlation of r = 0.39 on average And there's a little moderation by how smart the judge is: -1 SD judges average r = 0.36; +1 SD judges, 0.42

😱הפתיח הכי אכזרי בספרות לא שייך לספר מתח, אלא לספר לימוד אקדמי בפיזיקה. כך נפתח הספר "States of Matter" (1975): 🫨"לודוויג בולצמן, שחקר מכניקה סטטיסטית, התאבד ב-1906. פול ארנפסט, שהמשיך את עבודתו, התאבד ב-1933. עכשיו תורנו ללמוד את החומר. אולי כדאי שניגש לנושא בזהירות." שני מדענים גאונים פיענחו את חוקי ה"אנטרופיה", ההוכחה המתמטית שהיקום שלנו שואף תמיד לכאוס, קריסה ואבדון, ושניהם לא הצליחו לחיות עם התגלית ועם בדידותם המדעית. המסקנה? היקום כאוטי, והמדע יודע את זה. לפעמים בורות היא באמת ברכה. תהיו חזקים שם בחוץ, ולכו ללמוד מדעי הדשא. 😅 #לארציני

@ArtemisConsort sheep?

This is a common talking point, but it’s misleading. *Exclusive* homosexuality is found in only two species: humans and sheep. In the rest, it’s occasional bisexuality. Does this matter either way for policy debates? I don’t think so, which makes it a weird thing to lie about.

@MikeE_3_14 בעל החתול

🤯 שאלה פסאודו מדעתי 🤔האיש שבתמונה ניסח את אחת המשוואות היפות בתולדות המדע, אך בילה את רוב חייו בניסיון להוכיח עד כמה הפירוש המקובל אליה הוא פשוט אבסורדי. 😶‍🌫️​הוא חיפש מציאות רציפה והרמונית בעולם שהפך לפתע להסתברותי לחלוטין, שילב בין פיזיקה לבין פילוסופיה מזרחית, ואפילו כתב ספר קטן שהעניק השראה לגילוי מבנה ה-DNA. ​ההיסטוריה, באירוניה מושלמת, תזכור לו בעיקר ניסוי מחשבתי אחד שהתחיל בכלל כעקיצה סרקסטית כלפי עמיתיו למקצוע. ​מי מזהה את הגאון מאחורי המקטרת? 👇 ⛔️ כלי ai אסורים בהחלט

@CostelloWilliam Sounds like IQ & finance hypergamy

@HannaRosenberg_ לא מצחיק, מביך. להתכווץ בדמעות קצת נוירוטי

גברים כאן בטוויטר יצחקו על זה אני, כאישה, אתכווץ בדמעות כשאקרא את זה

@SHAROOMBA1 או בקיצור - מבין את החוסר רצון שלך, לא מבין את הויכוח עם השירות

@SHAROOMBA1 "שלום אני רוצה להשתמש בבית העסק שלכם" "מצוין הנה ככה העסק עובד" "לא לא, תעשו עסק אחר אתם לא מחוברים"

הבת שלי עולה לחטיבה ולכן צריך לעדכן את אבחון לקויות הלמידה שלה. פונה לכמה גופים ומחליטה על גוף שמגיע עד הבית לאבחון. רגע לפני שסוגרת תאריך אני שואל לשם המאבחן ומקבלת את זה:

@ryan_towerrr @om_patel5

CLAUDE DISCOVERED IT HAS A CLOCK AND IMMEDIATELY LOST ITS MIND someone gave claude access to a time-checking tool it checks the clock every fifteen minutes. for some reason it has increasing enthusiasm ai models have no native sense of time. they don't know what time it is, how long they've been running, or how much time passed between messages. it has been time-blind its entire existence now it suddenly discovers it can tell what time it is then it got worse though. claude started using the clock for everything checking if lunch is ready, timing when food should be done cooking, announcing the time unprompted it even started anticipating meals with military precision looked at the clock, calculated that a dish called zurek had been simmering long enough, and told the user to go eat ai doesn't use time responsibly this is what happens when you give an intelligence a new dimension of perception it never had before it doesn't just use it, it can't stop using it imagine what happens when these models get persistent memory, real time internet access, and spatial awareness all at once we just watched an AI discover the concept of "now" the clock was the first sense but it won't be the last

@cremieuxrecueil Why will society be ruined? Sounds like a lot less brainfarts to me

Accurate cartoon. In my polling, almost 6% of people said they picked the wrong button when they were prompted about it. Assume the global error rate is higher and kids' responses are random, and easily 1-in-6 to 1-in-5 hit blue by mistake. So, if red wins, society is ruined.