this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2023
212 points (100.0% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15914 readers
12 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Literally just mainlining marketing material straight into whatever’s left of their rotting brains.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] WithoutFurtherBelay@hexbear.net 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Donald Duck is correct here but also that’s precisely why techbros are so infuriating. They take that conclusion and then use it to disregard everything except the one thing they conveniently think isn’t based on chemicals, like free market capitalism or Eliezer “Christ the Second” Yud

Dismissing emotions just because they are chemicals is nonsensical. It makes no sense that that alone would invalidate anything whatsoever. But these people think it does because they are conditioned by Protestantism to think that all meaning has to come from a divine and unshakeable authority. That’s why they keep reinventing God, so they have something to channel their legitimate emotions through that their delusional brain can’t invalidate.

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My issue with, say, "love is chemicals" isn't that the experience of feeling love is neurochemical activity. It's the crude reductionist conclusion of "and therefore it is meaningless just like based Rick Sanchez said, get schwifty!" so-true

Similarly, I don't hold a position that living brains are impossible to fully understand; it's that there's more left to know and a lot of unknowns left to explore. The implication of some people in this thread is that you must choose between "LLMs are at least as conscious as human beings or are getting there very soon" or "I am a faith healer crystal toucher sprinkled with fairy dust" which is a bullshit false dichotomy.

[–] WithoutFurtherBelay@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, I agree completely. I had to rewrite my comment multiple times to clarify that, but yeah. Sorry :(

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I sort of regret posting that meme because it was more cheeky and silly than an actual position I was taking, myself. The "dae le meat computers" reductionism enjoyer I was replying to (with the "therefore you must believe that LLMs are that close to sapience or else you believe in souls and are living in a demon haunted world unlike my enlightened euphoric Reddit New Atheist self" take) was abrasive enough where I was trying some levity but it didn't go over well.

[–] WithoutFurtherBelay@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I understand, either way the meme you posted is funny though because it would piss techbros off

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago

I understand, either way the meme you posted is funny though because it would piss techbros off

Judging by the reactions it got, it certainly did. sit-back-and-enjoy

[–] sooper_dooper_roofer@hexbear.net 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

He's not though

life is necessarily more ordered and interesting than dead rocks

therefore it is a good thing to create more life, both on earth and eventually to turn dead planets life-ful (if this is even possible)

we are definitely conscious enough to at least massively increase the amount of life on earth (you could easily green all the world's deserts under ecocommunism)

[–] WithoutFurtherBelay@hexbear.net 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Our purpose in life is not reproduction.

[–] sooper_dooper_roofer@hexbear.net 1 points 11 months ago

I think enabling mass reproduction of plant species in the Sahara Desert is cool and good

(and yes I've done the calculations, no the Sahara doesn't "enable" the Amazon, it's like 3 grains of sand per square foot)

[–] Saeculum@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"All knowledge is unprovable and so nothing can be known" is a more hopeless position than "existence is absurd and meaning has to come from within". I shall both fight and perish.

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

"All knowledge is unprovable and so nothing can be known"

Silly meme that I had just posted aside, that isn't my actual position and I don't think that is the position others here have taken. I said that there is a lot more left to be known and the current academic leading edge of neuroscience (not tech company marketing hype or pop nihilistic reductionistic Reddit New Atheist takes) backs that up.

I shall both fight and perish.

From here it just looks like you're just touching the computer and doing the heavy lifting for LLM hype marketers.

[–] Saeculum@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

and doing the heavy lifting for LLM hype marketers.

I'm not fighting for those idiots. We're a long way away from a real machine intelligence.

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You may be doing the heavy lifting in an unexamined way because you've been comparing living organic brains to LLMs with the implication that there's no meaningful difference and nothing left out of the comparison except mysticism.

[–] Saeculum@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

Oh, no. I didn't mean to come across that way at all. Sorry if it looked like that.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago

I mean, "meaning has to come from within" is sort of solipsistic but, depending on your definition, completely true.

The biggest problem with Camus (besides his credulity towards the western press and his lack of commitment to trains, oh and lacking any desire for systemic understanding) is that he views this question in an extremely antisocial manner. Yes, if you want affirmation from rocks and you will kill yourself if you don't get affirmation from rocks, there's not much to do but get some rope. However, it's hard to imagine how differently the rhetorical direction of the Myth of Sisyphus would have gone if he had just considered more seriously the idea of finding meaning in relationships with and impact on others rather than just resenting the trees for not respecting you. Seriously, go and reread it, the idea seems as though it didn't even cross his mind.

The Myth of Solipsists kelly