Xeno Lithic

@PlathHunter @isaiah_bb It's because the AI will agree with you

@isaiah_bb It's fascinating how we reached this massive stage of absolute distrust in the media no matter what it says, but then somehow an ai that repeatedly gets things wrong deserves absolute credulity at all points

Incredible.

@mousquitwo @isaiah_bb If you have specialist knowledge it's pretty obvious. ChatGPT Pro consistently hallucinates when I ask it questions about Molecular Docking.

@isaiah_bb but that's just correct? anyone who actually uses LLMs knows they barely ever hallucinate now. More often than not if the robot says something that seems ridiculously wrong it's me who's ridiculously wrong

@kderosa @hydrogeoscience @dense_evi Whats the cause of the current temperature anomaly that we observe, then? Why is said anomaly increasing at an unprecedented rate? Why does no other source other than anthropogenic effects adequately explain the current anomaly? Again, for good measure are you fucked in the head?

@hydrogeoscience @cherry_xeno @dense_evi An observational study, yes. Such studies are incapable of informing on causation. Associations, sure, but you’re making causal claims which are unsupported.

@kderosa @cherry_xeno @dense_evi Observational how? Explain. If you mean via paleoscience proxies, then other findings findings associated with rapid CO2 increases (e.g., mass extinctions) are also observational.

@kderosa @hydrogeoscience @Similar89 @dense_evi Plants then adapted to the lower concentration. They are not CO2 starved. You're spouting shit that you *clearly* do not understand.

@hydrogeoscience @Similar89 @cherry_xeno @dense_evi No baseline? Plants evolved at 1000-4000+ ppm CO₂, today’s 420 ppm is starved by geological standards. 800k years of ice-core stability followed temp, not led it. Current rise is fast but life thrived in far higher levels without ‘mass extinction’ rates.

Botulinum toxin is fatal at 0.0000000001% body weight Iodine is 0.00002% of body weight. Without it, you suffer severe disease Ozone makes up 0.000003% of the atmosphere, blocking lethal UV radiation. Without it, we would live underground, or die Fake climate scientist👇

@kderosa @hydrogeoscience @dense_evi So you understand that trace gasses can have an effect on the atmosphere? Why do you drop kicks always say the same asinine shit as though it's profoud? Yes, life existed with a higher concentration. Current life evolved with a lower level. The higher level is bad for said life.

@cherry_xeno @hydrogeoscience @dense_evi we’ve had 10-20x higher concentrations in Earth’s past with lush life, not catastrophe. Your ‘same is true’ is the real head-fuck.

@kderosa @hydrogeoscience @dense_evi Are you fucked in the head or something? Here's one for the atmosphere: at its peak, the concentration of CFCs was on the order of a part per billion. Despite that low concentration, it caused damage to the ozone layer. The same is true for the greenhouse effect and CO2.

@hydrogeoscience @dense_evi Because they do in the human body? You’re kidding, right?

@ThatKingFred @JamesSurowiecki You don't see any political messaging in a model about every country on Earth banding together to solve a common problem?

@JamesSurowiecki What's the political message? You Americans will find a political message in sliced bread

It's a movie about a guy who's a member of a multinational crew, sent into space thanks to a global scientific effort, who then gives up his chance to return home in order to save a literal alien who looks like a rock, and who ends up spending his days in a foreign land happily teaching alien kids. And you think there's no political message there?

@blue_cheesse @0__INFIDEL__0 @SimplyShae13 Female sexual development also requires active upregulation. It isn't just males.

@cherry_xeno @0__INFIDEL__0 @SimplyShae13 At a certain point we have the sex difference process when a gene releases extra hormone to make It a male. Woman that are born woman don't receive that hormone in the womb.

Oh you do not wanna go with the line "sex is determined at conception" cus by that definition 50% of the world is now trans...

@blue_cheesse @0__INFIDEL__0 @SimplyShae13 No, they don't. Both male and female sex development is an active process. Male foetuses don't start out as female, both sexes start from the same template.

@0__INFIDEL__0 @SimplyShae13 Every vertebrate in develop as a female they just received extra hormone dose to make the difference to male while still in the womb.

@pee_buzz @FemmeNb @ohdangitsmimi The fucking irony

Also this discourse reminds me of when I was talking with a college class about SW and a girl asked "I think sex is an intimate and sacred act that should only be shared with people you love, how do you reckon with that?" -

@AlexCutter86 @DrSusanOliver1 It is not laypeople who are making most medical and scientific discoveries. It is scientists

@DrSusanOliver1 So by your standards, as cited in your condescending image, we'd never ever have any major medical breakthroughs. There should not ever be any advancements in medicine or science because "the world's top scientist's missed it." Go back to spouting shite on YT. That's your level.

A recent Letter to the Editor by 2 engineers is being touted by supporters of nurse serial killer, Lucy Letby, as new research that overturns the expertise of paediatric endocrinologists. In fact, the authors have just not understood the papers they’ve cited. /1

@RyskanTheHealer @fuyoshimin @MakoFukasame Imagine you lived 200 years ago. You get a mole that would cause skin cancer at age 30, and you'd die in 20 years. You die of cholera at 35. We live longer than we used to. We've cured most of the diseases that were primary causes of death. That leaves cancer et al as a killer.

@fuyoshimin @MakoFukasame Of course, but I think it’s only gotten more common in the last 100 years, tbh

This sunscreen joke only works when the person is from the UK lmfao the sun barely blushes at you up there, down here it rips ass all over you and sunscreen is sold by the litre, lest you turn into your leather-bound aunt sheryl

@RyskanTheHealer @MakoFukasame There is a causal link between getting sunburned and getting skin cancer. UV damages your DNA. Normally your cells will kill themselves when their DNA is damaged. That causes sun burn. Sometimes they dont just die and those mutations sometimes lead to cancer. Sunscreen blocks UV.

I know sun screen helps with not getting burned, but I wonder about the efficacy against preventing skin cancer when it’s full of chemicals itself. I also read somewhere that going outside without sunglasses makes your body produce some kind of stuff that reduces chances because of the UV rays and your eyes doing stuff. I’m trying to find the research right now

@SkyeSharkie @10ebrousConcord I prefer functioning ecosystems

@cherry_xeno @10ebrousConcord Do you prefer being eaten by alligators?

What? Legit can someone explain why this image would make anyone feel existential dread?

@SkyeSharkie @10ebrousConcord Same, man. I love decimated, barely productive ecosystems that have a tiny minutae of the biodiversity they once held!

You people have never lived close to actual nature have you? I grew up in a place where we had to be constantly vigilant about not going near the edges of fresh water, lest a giant reptilian monster would eat you. The depopulated beauty of the west with very occasional bears, mountain lions and snakes is a paradise compared to what was there before and what is still in places where the ecosystem is exploding/thriving. Worlds of endless murder.

@corsaren @typebulbit We've been simulating atoms and molecules for decades. Why would you need to simulate atoms to the planck scale? We don't know what the degree of accuracy required to simulate consciousness is, but we certainly don't need need level of granularity to simulate a cell ab initio.

I’m not sure physics is computable. If it relies on the real numbers at all, then there are non-computable reals. And there’s the somewhat related fact that computation is inherently approximate. A taylor series is only equivalent to its function in the limit. That everything in our universe is *computable* to ~arbitrary precision, does not mean that the underlying ontology/nature of our universe is *computational*. I mean, just consider the amount of computation needed to accurately simulate an atom and all of its interactions down to the Planck length? Then compare that to how many bits of information that atom can actually represent/hold? That doesn’t even remotely line up. The computational simulation seems a lot more complex than the thing it simulates, which seems at odds with the notion that the fundamental reality of the thing is the computation. This is sometimes used to argue for simulation theory, but the counterpoint is that it implies that it’s explosive growth in computational complexity “all the way up” so to speak. I kind of run into a barrier here re: my understanding of the deeper mathematics of physics, but it definitely isn’t clear to me that physics is computational. And, ON TOP OF THAT, it’s not clear that consciousness is physical! Take the emulated brain example: if consciousness is non-physical then the brain emulation won’t actually behave like you. Now, some people will say “okay but that means there has to be something non-computable about consciousness, because if it were computable, we could include it and it would behave identically again”, and look, there’s plenty of good reasons to believe consciousness (qualia) might be noncomputable even if cognition and intelligence and physics are. Moreover, even if consciousness is computable, that doesn’t actually recover the argument for the emulation being conscious! If consciousness is this separate ontological, non-physical substance, then it is by its very nature substrate-dependent, so the fact that we can simulate its behavior in a computable object on a different substrate and plug that into our brain emulation does not mean we’ve emulated consciousness.

All this talk about consciousness and computational functionalism has unfortunately convinced me that most of the ML/comp sci folk who venture into these conversations (see: all of LessWrong) have a bad case of “everything is computer”

@Risichad @rcolidba @francoisfleuret Wait until you find out what physicists and chemists have been doing for decades lmao

@rcolidba @francoisfleuret That "if" is like magic to me because it is impossible. How can you simulate something that is a particle and a wave, a spin ? What is a spin ?

I know I am opening a can of worms here, but there is something I have always found very bizarre is that philosophers refer and debate about [famous] philosophers' theories and opinions as if they were some actual properties of reality. 1/2

@paulsanderson @EricMamajek @mattkenworthy Occam's Razor. Is it technologically advanced aliens building giant structures using technology we don't yet understand? Or is it dust, stellar activity and other natural processes that we haven't fully uncovered in the last few decades of continuous space observation?

@EricMamajek @mattkenworthy Interesting, but what about the other 53 candidates referenced in the second paper?

@duchess_brown @OliCansdale @jack_turban @jk_rowling I doubt you have a strong interest in Middle-English as you should know the Old Norse impacts on English. (Hint: thei, their, theim_ "As in their birth (wherein they are not guilty, Since nature cannot choose his origin)" - Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 4, Lines 28-29.

@Xeno_Lithic @OliCansdale @jack_turban @jk_rowling I am quite knowledgeable about languages. I can speak Gaelic and I have an avid interest in Latin, old english, middle English etc. And your wrong. In the 1700s English was still different to english now and the rich spoke mostly french. Woke, singular they is still bad grammar

Men defining what a woman is, what women should and shouldn’t fear, what women should and shouldn’t say, what rights women should be fine with giving up and, of course, what constitutes ‘real’ misogyny: get a bloody mirror. That’s real misogyny, looking right back at you.

@duchess_brown @Broduck2 @RCraft911 @OliCansdale @jack_turban @jk_rowling “A person can't help their birth.” - William Makepeace Thackeray, Vanity Fair, 1848. Is this plural? William Caxton, after 1475 used it as a grammatically singular antecedent in England after he introduced the printing press.

@Broduck2 @RCraft911 @Xeno_Lithic @OliCansdale @jack_turban @jk_rowling Singular they..??!! When did some putz change the English language. A language that has been spoken by millions in many countries. They is not singular and never had been. They is a group so it's plural How can it be otherwise? Hahaha....they didn't have this crap in the 1880s