![](https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/94fcfe58-c404-42bd-befb-4de8df8da45d.jpeg)
![](https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/bae905b8-0357-4d8f-aeee-8c3227e76c8c.png)
A man with one sight knows where his target is, a many with many sights it’s never quite sure
A man with one sight knows where his target is, a many with many sights it’s never quite sure
There’s a difference between someone-needs-to-coordinate-and-manage-complex-undertakings “authoritarian” and line-the-dissidents-up-against-the-wall “authoritarian”. Tankies are the latter.
Lots of people say lots of silly things, nonetheless Trump is worse for the proletariat than Biden, and turning your nose up at the lesser evil endangers real people when the greater evil wins. You don’t have to vote for the greater evil to help tip the scales in their favor. Accelerationism is authoritarianism with extra steps and no one in the driver’s seat.
A tankie is, broadly, someone who wants to effect left-wing ideology using authoritarian methods. It originally referred to those who defended the USSR using tanks to suppress the Hungarian Revolution, but it could be aptly used to describe those who defend China’s actions in Tiananmen Square. It’s rightfully used as a perjorative, since authoritarian enforcement is antithetical to leftism, particularly communism.
Tankies are hypocrites who didn’t understand their self-proclaimed ideologies. If someone’s idea of communist praxis is lining up dissenters for the firing squad, you’re dealing with a tankie.
Then, this begs the question - What other structures might be similarly equipped?
I also think this theory is plausible, and if it is true I assume it’s stayed under wraps precisely because they didn’t want future terrorists to be able to just trigger the conveniently pre-installed explosives.
Once again, I said none of that. Scroll up to verify I didn’t call you out at any point.
This is a public forum, when you make a statement people are free to comment. You made a statement I disagreed with, and all I said was that the statement was questionable. All the rest of this “calling beliefs out” happened purely in your head. Feel how you wish about your choices, but don’t implicate me in your projection.
Uh, you do know it’s possible to focus on fruits, which are freely given, right? You volunteered your perspective in the first place, and you’re the one throwing your hands up instead of finding an ethical diet. You’re the one trying to justify your choices based on subjective distinction. You’re the one calling yourself a hypocrite. All I said was that your absolute claim was questionable.
I eat, primarily, botanical fruits (which includes cucumbers, squash, and a surprising quantity of other vegetables freely given by plants for our consumption) as well as meat which would otherwise be thrown away. Once the animal is dead, it is far more respectful to consume it than let it be wasted. I typically buy meat on clearance, at the end of the night, on the expiration date.
I have no desire to “gotcha” people who sincerely want to make a better world, but hypocrites who call out others while justifying their own ethical blind spots are typically more interested in self-righteousness than actually improving the world.
Consciousness is an open question. A potato does not perceive the same way as a pig, but a pig does not perceive the same way as a human. Plants communicate and make rudimentary decisions. Once you start getting into questions of degree, you subjectively decide where to draw the line. If you can argue that the line is between animals and plants, then someone else can argue the line is between animals and humans.
It’s intellectually dishonest to pretend our understanding of sentience and sapience is simple and unambiguous.
Plants have no concept of pain without a brain, nervous system or even nerve endings.
Ehhh, questionable.
Was vegan, not anymore. Meat takes a little while to readjust to but eventually it’s fine, dairy is the real problem.
You haven’t really looked into multi-agent setups at all, have you? Basically any system of multiple agents can double-check themselves.
Additionally, none of this conflicts with my original point. If you train a human on bad data, they’ll GIGO too. I know plenty of humans who have confidently told me objectively false things because they had bad training data.
LLMs are AI. They are not AGI. AGI is a particular subset of AI, that does not preclude non-general AI from being AI.
People keep talking about how it just regurgitates information, and says incorrect things sometimes, and hallucinates or misinterprets things, as if humans do not also do those things. Most people just regurgitate information they found online, true or false. People frequently hallucinate things they think are true and stubbornly refuse to change when called out. Many people cannot understand when and why they’re wrong.
Eugenics was an awkwardly popular movement not that long ago.
Comic Sans is better than other sans serif options because letters like b, p, d, and q are more rotationally distinct
It’s apparently pretty dyslexic-friendly
Move fast and break things, I guess. My take away is that the genie isn’t going back in the bottle. Hopefully failing fast and loud gets us through the growing pains quickly, but on an individual level we’d best be vigilant and adapt to the landscape.
Frankly I’d rather these big obvious failures to insidious little hidden ones the conservative path makes. At least now we know to be skeptical. No development path is perfect, if it were more conservative we might get used to taking results at face value, leaving us more vulnerable to that inevitable failure.
The environment is toxic, pathogens are ubiquitous. Immune systems protect us from most pathogens, which only present a serious threat to the immunocompromised. The toxicity of the Internet and social media is indicative of compromised social immune systems.
Her is set in 2025
Uh huh, and historically violent authoritarian transitional regimes are always so willing to step aside after the transition.