It’s not like Zorin is easy to install because the devs made their own simple installer. Almost every modern linux distribution ships with one of two or three prebuilt installer tools, with very few exceptions (one being arch, though if I recall correctly even arch has an option to use an installer)
You will most likely have the same or a very similar experience installing mint or bazzite or endevour or whatever else you choose.
strengthens the idea that life’s molecular ingredients formed in space before reaching Earth
Yeah, I’m not buying this. All this is saying is that the building blocks of life are surprisingly easy to form, a lot easier than most people realize. The hard part comes afterwards, which is the reason it took like a billion years for single celled life to develop once the earth cooled down enough and another billion to perfect the replication chemistry.
It’s the same conclusion to draw when we found amino acids on asteroids a while back.
Yeah, some people (who don't understand how LLMs work) think that LLMs can grow into AGI. The fact is that neurobiology is many, many orders of magnitude more complex than any AI we have. Even if we did try to model a new AI after biological neurons, I still don't think it would be a good solution for AGI, since it will probably get things wrong as often as a human would. But LLMs are just fundamentally not going to get us to AGI, in the same way that building a taller ladder will never get us to the moon.
But that's just because LLMs lack the complexity required to exhibit emergent behavior (beyond what it was specifically designed to do), and even if it did, or we found some other framework that could lead to AGI, I'm not sure we'd ever have the compute to facilitate such emergence.
But that also doesn't mean that emergent intelligence cannot exist. So no, I disagree that that is where my reasoning leads.
Humans are more than just biological computers
I never said anything about computers, you did. I'm just talking about the biochemical substrate from which our bodies work. I'm very curious, though, about what you mean by "more than biological computers". I'm going to assume it's consciousness, awareness, whatever. Is it some part of us that doesn't have some roots in our biochemistry?
I'd like to know which part of us you think that mind-altering drugs act on. Alcohol inhibits activity in the frontal lobe, and our decision-making capability is diminished as a result. Psilocybin, LSD, and other hallucinogens affect how we perceive the world. SSRIs and other antidepressants generally tend to improve mood. Xanax alleviates anxiety. Anesthetics cause a loss of consciousness (as do a lot of things).
I agree that humans are more than the "biological robots" I mentioned, but I am not sure we agree on why. I would say it's because of emergent complexity, but if you say it is something else, then I'd like to know how you explain the effects of the drugs I listed (majority of which we know the biochemical mechanism) on human cognition. Or how we can detect changes in brain activity for different scenarios or neurodegenerative disease in fMRI.
That’s a theory, without enough evidence to confirm
Yes, it is a theory, but it has mountains of evidence behind it. It's not "confirmed reality" but it matches and explains all of the data we have. It's the theory of evolution by natural selection. The only thing that matters is the gene. Everything else is to help the gene's existence persist. You eat energy-rich foods, that helps your survival, and your genes make sure you feel good for it. You make friends, that's forming a social bond, helping your survival, and your mental health improves. You have sex, that's propagating the gene, and so the gene makes sure your body is organized in a way that makes it feel good.
Framing it as “turns out actually that” ignores the facts. Presenting a hypothesis as if it’s some confirmed reality is anti-scientific.
And saying "humans are more than just biological computers" isn't presenting a hypothesis as confirmed reality?
No idea how you got to the LLM conclusion, as they operate on completely different principles.
Sounds to me like your argument now is that you wouldn’t feel special, because humans would be “nothing more” than computers. Turns out actually that humans, and every other organism that we know of, are just biological robots built by our genetic material for the purposes of its safety and propagation.
Doesn’t necessarily mean we don’t have free will though. Although I’m almost certain that if the abrahamic god exists, we definitely do not.
And which part of you is the “you” making that final choice? Which part evaluates all of the conditions to make the decision, the part that isn’t determined by your hormones and brain chemistry at the time?
Surely you’re not going to tell me it’s the soul, unless you have evidence that it exists at all.
You are the one misunderstanding. When you are sitting there with the menu in front of you, what is doing the “choosing” in the end? What is causing you to rule out this dish or that?
Got food poisoning from eating salmon that one time? Better not order that then, you’d get nauseous just looking at it.
Grew up eating tamales? Of course you love them, but mostly the ones that taste similar to the ones your parents made.
Your parents fed you a ton of sugar as a kid? Well now you’re gonna want something sweet for dessert.
You had a bad day, you’re gonna want some comfort food.
You have a lifetime of experience behind you dictating your preferences, beliefs, values, epigenetic state, hormone balance, and current state of mind.
Note about god, they are supposedly the ones who set this whole sequence of events into motion. God would know that, given an initial state that they set up, the series of events of the universe would eventually lead to you picking tamales on the menu. Or pasta. Or honey glazed chicken. But that is more of a question of determinism, whether starting over at the same initial state would lead to the same current state of the universe. But given god is supposedly omniscient, they should know all the branching possibilities from the initial state in addition to which one the universe will tumble down.
In other words, if god is real, and they are omniscient and omnipotent, then literally everything that happens is their fault.
That’s exactly what he did. He informed them that the front line is simply a meat grinder, that by signing the contract they would be guaranteeing their deaths.
How you interpreted this as a threat on their lives instead of a warning that would save their life is beyond me.
You don’t get to choose whether you are in the trolley problem. Once you’re standing in front of the lever, choosing to not intervene is still a choice.
Alright man. Let’s say, hypothetically, that I tell you “everything in the universe is matter”
Then I proceed to tell you what matter is, that it’s made of protons, electrons, and neutrons, which are further comprised of subatomic particles.
Then I explain how this theoretical approach is applicable to anything and everything and how incredibly useful it is to think of stuff in this way. And how its basic composition allows for many different configurations and interactions of matter. Incredibly hot plasma caused by nuclear fusion in stars. The insane density of neutron stars. And how this is the most correct model we have to date.
Now you may respond in one of a few ways:
You can say “huh, that’s really neat” and move on. Or maybe learn more about it.
Or you can say “that’s really cool, but I only care about the stuff that we can see on earth” which is totally reasonable and which is what many people are doing in this thread.
You could also say “that’s dumb, only the stuff we can see on earth should be called matter” which is similar to the preceding response, but is not reasonable at all and is what OP is doing.
Or you could say “that’s dumb, if everything is matter then the term is meaningless” which is just an arbitrary semantic application of a phrase which, for some reason, you and OP are treating as a universal maxim and completely leaving out all context and nuance pertaining to the situation. Syndrome can say “when everyone’s super, no one will be” in the Incredibles because that is a difference of degree, while this is a categorical difference.
I explained that a meme is any piece of information that can be transmitted with or without modification, because that is the definition. If you want to stop there and say that “if everything is a meme, then nothing is” that’s your prerogative. But I am not over-intellectualizing, you are under-intellectualizing.
That is the working definition we have and it’s useful because all the rules of evolution that apply to genes also apply to memes, and so it tells us a lot about how humans interact with and exchange information. It would not work if the definition were any different. If you want to change the definition to eliminate things you don’t like, or that don’t fit within a specific community, I guarantee you will leave out things that you would say are memes unintentionally.
If you don’t want lazy text screenshots in a meme community, that’s fine. But that does not mean they are not memes.
See, that’s the thing. They are still memes. Bits of information that are transmitted with or without modification.
If a copypasta isn’t iconic, that doesn’t mean it’s not a meme. It’s just a less successful meme than the navyseals meme. Same thing with greentexts, images, comics, reddit posts.
It’s not like Zorin is easy to install because the devs made their own simple installer. Almost every modern linux distribution ships with one of two or three prebuilt installer tools, with very few exceptions (one being arch, though if I recall correctly even arch has an option to use an installer)
You will most likely have the same or a very similar experience installing mint or bazzite or endevour or whatever else you choose.
Yeah, I’m not buying this. All this is saying is that the building blocks of life are surprisingly easy to form, a lot easier than most people realize. The hard part comes afterwards, which is the reason it took like a billion years for single celled life to develop once the earth cooled down enough and another billion to perfect the replication chemistry.
It’s the same conclusion to draw when we found amino acids on asteroids a while back.
Yeah, some people (who don't understand how LLMs work) think that LLMs can grow into AGI. The fact is that neurobiology is many, many orders of magnitude more complex than any AI we have. Even if we did try to model a new AI after biological neurons, I still don't think it would be a good solution for AGI, since it will probably get things wrong as often as a human would. But LLMs are just fundamentally not going to get us to AGI, in the same way that building a taller ladder will never get us to the moon.
But that's just because LLMs lack the complexity required to exhibit emergent behavior (beyond what it was specifically designed to do), and even if it did, or we found some other framework that could lead to AGI, I'm not sure we'd ever have the compute to facilitate such emergence.
But that also doesn't mean that emergent intelligence cannot exist. So no, I disagree that that is where my reasoning leads.
I never said anything about computers, you did. I'm just talking about the biochemical substrate from which our bodies work. I'm very curious, though, about what you mean by "more than biological computers". I'm going to assume it's consciousness, awareness, whatever. Is it some part of us that doesn't have some roots in our biochemistry?
I'd like to know which part of us you think that mind-altering drugs act on. Alcohol inhibits activity in the frontal lobe, and our decision-making capability is diminished as a result. Psilocybin, LSD, and other hallucinogens affect how we perceive the world. SSRIs and other antidepressants generally tend to improve mood. Xanax alleviates anxiety. Anesthetics cause a loss of consciousness (as do a lot of things).
I agree that humans are more than the "biological robots" I mentioned, but I am not sure we agree on why. I would say it's because of emergent complexity, but if you say it is something else, then I'd like to know how you explain the effects of the drugs I listed (majority of which we know the biochemical mechanism) on human cognition. Or how we can detect changes in brain activity for different scenarios or neurodegenerative disease in fMRI.
Yes, it is a theory, but it has mountains of evidence behind it. It's not "confirmed reality" but it matches and explains all of the data we have. It's the theory of evolution by natural selection. The only thing that matters is the gene. Everything else is to help the gene's existence persist. You eat energy-rich foods, that helps your survival, and your genes make sure you feel good for it. You make friends, that's forming a social bond, helping your survival, and your mental health improves. You have sex, that's propagating the gene, and so the gene makes sure your body is organized in a way that makes it feel good.
And saying "humans are more than just biological computers" isn't presenting a hypothesis as confirmed reality?
No idea how you got to the LLM conclusion, as they operate on completely different principles.
Sounds to me like your argument now is that you wouldn’t feel special, because humans would be “nothing more” than computers. Turns out actually that humans, and every other organism that we know of, are just biological robots built by our genetic material for the purposes of its safety and propagation.
Doesn’t necessarily mean we don’t have free will though. Although I’m almost certain that if the abrahamic god exists, we definitely do not.
And which part of you is the “you” making that final choice? Which part evaluates all of the conditions to make the decision, the part that isn’t determined by your hormones and brain chemistry at the time?
Surely you’re not going to tell me it’s the soul, unless you have evidence that it exists at all.
You are the one misunderstanding. When you are sitting there with the menu in front of you, what is doing the “choosing” in the end? What is causing you to rule out this dish or that?
Got food poisoning from eating salmon that one time? Better not order that then, you’d get nauseous just looking at it.
Grew up eating tamales? Of course you love them, but mostly the ones that taste similar to the ones your parents made.
Your parents fed you a ton of sugar as a kid? Well now you’re gonna want something sweet for dessert.
You had a bad day, you’re gonna want some comfort food.
You have a lifetime of experience behind you dictating your preferences, beliefs, values, epigenetic state, hormone balance, and current state of mind.
Note about god, they are supposedly the ones who set this whole sequence of events into motion. God would know that, given an initial state that they set up, the series of events of the universe would eventually lead to you picking tamales on the menu. Or pasta. Or honey glazed chicken. But that is more of a question of determinism, whether starting over at the same initial state would lead to the same current state of the universe. But given god is supposedly omniscient, they should know all the branching possibilities from the initial state in addition to which one the universe will tumble down.
In other words, if god is real, and they are omniscient and omnipotent, then literally everything that happens is their fault.
Fair enough
Of course it does. If you understand probability, you won’t do it.
That’s exactly what he did. He informed them that the front line is simply a meat grinder, that by signing the contract they would be guaranteeing their deaths.
How you interpreted this as a threat on their lives instead of a warning that would save their life is beyond me.
You don’t get to choose whether you are in the trolley problem. Once you’re standing in front of the lever, choosing to not intervene is still a choice.
You are absolutely right! The problem is not you, in fact it is everyone else.
Did you respond to the wrong comment? Because I’m having trouble imagining what you could possibly be referring to
RRR is fantastic
I don’t see how but go off I guess
Alright man. Let’s say, hypothetically, that I tell you “everything in the universe is matter”
Then I proceed to tell you what matter is, that it’s made of protons, electrons, and neutrons, which are further comprised of subatomic particles.
Then I explain how this theoretical approach is applicable to anything and everything and how incredibly useful it is to think of stuff in this way. And how its basic composition allows for many different configurations and interactions of matter. Incredibly hot plasma caused by nuclear fusion in stars. The insane density of neutron stars. And how this is the most correct model we have to date.
Now you may respond in one of a few ways:
You can say “huh, that’s really neat” and move on. Or maybe learn more about it.
Or you can say “that’s really cool, but I only care about the stuff that we can see on earth” which is totally reasonable and which is what many people are doing in this thread.
You could also say “that’s dumb, only the stuff we can see on earth should be called matter” which is similar to the preceding response, but is not reasonable at all and is what OP is doing.
Or you could say “that’s dumb, if everything is matter then the term is meaningless” which is just an arbitrary semantic application of a phrase which, for some reason, you and OP are treating as a universal maxim and completely leaving out all context and nuance pertaining to the situation. Syndrome can say “when everyone’s super, no one will be” in the Incredibles because that is a difference of degree, while this is a categorical difference.
I explained that a meme is any piece of information that can be transmitted with or without modification, because that is the definition. If you want to stop there and say that “if everything is a meme, then nothing is” that’s your prerogative. But I am not over-intellectualizing, you are under-intellectualizing.
That is the working definition we have and it’s useful because all the rules of evolution that apply to genes also apply to memes, and so it tells us a lot about how humans interact with and exchange information. It would not work if the definition were any different. If you want to change the definition to eliminate things you don’t like, or that don’t fit within a specific community, I guarantee you will leave out things that you would say are memes unintentionally.
If you don’t want lazy text screenshots in a meme community, that’s fine. But that does not mean they are not memes.
I have been looking for something like this for ages. I could kiss you rn 😘
The carbon-silicate cycle. I suggest everyone watch The Deadliest Pattern in Nature on youtube.
See, that’s the thing. They are still memes. Bits of information that are transmitted with or without modification.
If a copypasta isn’t iconic, that doesn’t mean it’s not a meme. It’s just a less successful meme than the navyseals meme. Same thing with greentexts, images, comics, reddit posts.