nednobbins

@nednobbins@lemm.ee

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

TIL in the Carboniferous Period, no fungus existed to decompose trees. They just grew on top of each other up and up.

The weight of the trees was so great that the ones on the bottom got squished and became coal. That’s where coal is from. Bonus fact: the whole time this was happening, sharks were hunting in the oceans. Sharks are older than trees and fungus!

nednobbins,

It would depend on how well we can control it.

Ideally the material would be completely nonreactive for as long as you’re using it and then instantly degrade into component elements.

The faster things degrade, the higher the chance that they’ll degrade when you don’t want it to.

nednobbins,

There are approximately 330 million Semitic people in the world. Around 15.7 milllion (around 4.8%) of them are Jewish.

If the common usage of “anti-semitic” excludes the vast majority of Semitic people, it’s an outdated, racist term.

We should either drop it from our vocabulary or use it in an inclusive way.

nednobbins,

That’s fine. If we don’t want to use the word we don’t need to. If we’re going to use it then let’s use it in a non-racist way.

It’s kind of bizzare to say claim that we shouldn’t use the term “Semite” because it’s outdated but then continue to use “antisemite” and claim it’s only about a tiny subsection of the people that “Semite” used to refer to.

nednobbins,

If we’re going by current usage rather than historical precedent, it doesn’t matter that “antisemitc” was originally coined to refer to hatred of Jews.

In that case we would look to the very common usage that includes hatred of all the other speakers of Semitic languages.

Or we could use the extremist definition of, “Any criticism of Israel.” If we go by that definition a whole lot of people (including many Jews) would also qualify.

nednobbins,

Why is that better? It may not be ideal but governments have at least some accountability.

nednobbins,

What makes governments any more susceptible to corruption than a private organization?

I’m not actually talking about governments having absolute control. That’s a pretty extreme scenario to jump to from from the question of if it’s better for a private company or a government to control search.

Right now we think Google is misusing that data. We can’t even get information on it without a leak. The government has a flawed FOIA system but Google has nothing of the sort. The only way we’re protected from corruption at Google (and historically speaking several other large private organization) is when the government steps in and stops them.

Governments often handle corruption poorly but I can rattle of many cases where governments managed to reduce corruption on their own (ie without requiring a revolution). In many cases the source of that corruption was large private organizations.

nednobbins,

This is why actual AI researchers are so concerned about data quality.

Modern AIs need a ton of data and it needs to be good data. That really shouldn’t surprise anyone.

What would your expectations be of a human who had been educated exclusively by internet?

nednobbins,

That’s my point. Some of them wouldn’t even go through the trouble of making sure that it’s non-toxic glue.

There are humans out there who ate laundry pods because the internet told them to.

nednobbins,

Haha. Not specifically.

It’s more a comment on how hard it is to separate truth from fiction. Adding glue to pizza is obviously dumb to any normal human. Sometimes the obviously dumb answer is actually the correct one though. Semmelweis’s contemporaries lambasted him for his stupid and obviously nonsensical claims about doctors contaminating pregnant women with “cadaveric particles” after performing autopsies.

Those were experts in the field and they were unable to guess the correctness of the claim. Why would we expect normal people or AIs to do better?

There may be a time when we can reasonably have such an expectation. I don’t think it will happen before we can give AIs training that’s as good as, or better, than what we give the most educated humans. Reading all of Reddit, doesn’t even come close to that.

nednobbins,

A bunch of scientific papers are probably better data than a bunch of Reddit posts and it’s still not good enough.

Consider the task we’re asking the AI to do. If you want a human to be able to correctly answer questions across a wide array of scientific fields you can’t just hand them all the science papers and expect them to be able to understand it. Even if we restrict it to a single narrow field of research we expect that person to have a insane levels of education. We’re talking 12 years of primary education, 4 years as an undergraduate and 4 more years doing their PhD, and that’s at the low end. During all that time the human is constantly ingesting data through their senses and they’re getting constant training in the form of feedback.

All the scientific papers in the world don’t even come close to an education like that, when it comes to data quality.

nednobbins,

It can’t be that hard to make a chatbot that can take instructions like “identify any unsafe outcomes from following this advice”

It certainly seems like it should be easy to do. Try an example. How would you go about defining safe vs unsafe outcomes for knife handling? Since we can’t guess what the user will ask about ahead of time, the definition needs to apply in all situations that involve knives; eating, cooking, wood carving, box cutting, self defense, surgery, juggling, and any number of activities that I may not have though about yet.

Since we don’t know who will ask about it we also need to be correct for every type of user. The instructions should be safe for toddlers, adults, the elderly, knife experts, people who have never held a knife before. We also need to consider every type of knife. Folding knives, serrated knives, sharp knives, dull knives, long, short, etc.

When we try those sort of safety rules with humans (eg many venues have a sign that instructs people to “be kind” or “don’t be stupid”) they mostly work until we inevitably run into the people who argue about what that means.

nednobbins,

They could have left out, “for LGBTQ+ people” and it would have been just as accurate.

nednobbins,

Hidden? That’s literally the main argument when anyone surfaces a complaint about Biden. It’s always some variation of, “If we let Trump into the White House again our democracy is over.”

The hangup isn’t awareness, it’s acceptance. People aren’t questioning that he’d try to be dictator for life, they doubt his ability to succeed. Once you’ve seen someone try something and fail it’s reasonable to think they’re just too incompetent to succeed.

Whenever I see people ask for support for the claim they’re typically met with a hail of downvotes and name calling. That may feel righteous but it does absolutely nothing to recruit that person. Instead they’ll walk away with even stronger convictions.

nednobbins,

It’s true. Hamas is posting rookie numbers. They’ve got to up their death count by around 10x before they can be in Israel’s league.

nednobbins,

Lindt is pretty good as packaged chocolate goes. You can always find some fancy artisanal chocolatier if you can afford to spend a few bucks per chocolate but for a HS student Lindt is pretty high tier.

nednobbins,

That’s the sister. Anon sounds like he has limited means. No need to make fun of them for being poor.

nednobbins,

The girls themselves are mostly “all for it” when it’s people roughly their age. There are exceptions but most girls that age see 30+ year olds as lame old dudes. Most 30+ year olds aren’t going after high school girls either. That’s why we all cringed at David Woodson’s line in “Dazed and Confused”.

The people who don’t want them to “exert this right” are the responsible parents, friends and community who know that a 30+ year old dating a teenager is creepy AF.

The few people who actually support this are mostly rationalizing.

nednobbins,

There’s not much to discuss. The vast majority of the time it’s creepy grooming and we all know it. It’s technically legal and there may be cases when it’s genuinely a case of consent and mutual attraction but those are the exceptions.

Attempts to find the exact line are futile. “Half your age plus seven” is a rule of thumb, not a clear border.

nednobbins,

There is no single reason. It’s the sum of many reasons. They’re too many to list exhaustively but when we see a concrete example the vast majority of people come to the same conclusion on creepy vs appropriate.

When there isn’t a clear line, trying to define one is misleading. You can always find some couple somewhere on earth with an arbitrarily large age gap where people will agree that it’s the result of informed consent. People then try to make the argument that this justifies all relationships with that age gap even though most relationships don’t have whatever extenuating circumstances made the one example palatable.

Large age gaps are creepy. Whenever someone has to ask if a particular age gap is also creepy the answer is almost always, “Yes.”

nednobbins,

I honestly never understood the attraction to Seinfeld.

There were a few good jokes in there but the whole show was about them being assholes and proud of it.

They’re selfish, judgemental and entitled. They’re constantly mocking and bullying other people and each other. The final episode even lays it out explicitly.

Shows like “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia”, “Married… With Children” or “Breaking Bad” have various unsavory characters but we’re invited to reject these flaws or at least identify with them as flaws.

Seinfeld is shameless about being an asshole and pretends the rest of us are just too dumb to understand his genius.

nednobbins,

That’s exactly my point. None of the characters in these shows are role models. We can sympathize with the Bundy’s or their neighbors but the show makes it obvious that nobody wants to emulate them. We can understand why Walther White did the things he does even if it’s clear that he shouldn’t have. The gang in Philly is all about showing us the worst possible decision in any given situation.

Seinfeld, on the other hand, celebrates their behavior. It canonizes our intrusive thoughts as though they were a more authentic form of expression.

nednobbins,

I think you have a fundamentally different view than I do on the characters. That’s clearly true :)

Even when the characters behave reasonably I always felt that they were motivated more by the potential for public embarrassment than by moral concern.

It’s hard for me to think of George as a fundamentally nice. This is the guy who shoved children and elderly out of the way when he saw smoke, goaded an alcoholic into relapsing because he felt left out, constantly lied to get advantage in situations and even tried to kill a guy out of jealousy.

nednobbins,

TIL about John Wolf.

At the time, it never would have occurred to me that each one was different or that there was beatboxing involved.

nednobbins,

They’ve already started shooting into Rafah. That was the safe zone they told everyone to go to.

What push or shove are we waiting for? The start of the full scale invasion? The conclusion of a full scale invasion? Is there some number of civilians deaths that would be too much?

nednobbins,

Sorry. I wasn’t paying attention to the timestamps.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • megavids
  • InstantRegret
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • modclub
  • everett
  • rosin
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • ethstaker
  • mdbf
  • kavyap
  • osvaldo12
  • DreamBathrooms
  • anitta
  • Durango
  • ngwrru68w68
  • tester
  • khanakhh
  • love
  • tacticalgear
  • cubers
  • GTA5RPClips
  • Leos
  • normalnudes
  • provamag3
  • cisconetworking
  • JUstTest
  • All magazines