• 0 Posts
  • 13 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 17th, 2024

help-circle




  • I don’t think you understand exactly how theses machines work. The machine does not “learn”, it does not extract meaning from the tokens it receives. Here is one way to look at it

    Suppose you have a sequence of symbols: ¹§ŋ¹§ŋ¹§ŋ¹§ŋ And then were given a fragment of a sequence and asked to guess what you be the most likely symbol to follow it: ¹§ Think you could do it? I’m sure you would have no trouble solving this example. But could you make a machine that could reliably accomplish this task, regardless of the sequence of symbols and regardless of the fragment given? Let’s imagine you did manage to create such a marvellous machine.

    If given a large sequence of symbols spanning multiple books of length would you say this pattern recognition machine is able to create anything original? No… Because it is simply trying to copy it’s original sequence as closely as possible.

    Another question: Would this machine ever derive meaning from this symbols? No… How could it?

    But what if I told you that these symbols weren’t just symbols: Unbeknownst to the machine each one of this symbols actually represents a word. Behold: ChatGPT.

    This is basically the general idea behind generative AI as far as I’m aware. Please correct me if I’m wrong. This is obviously oversimplified.






  • I’ve seen the label “tankie” be thrown around to describe so many different things to the point that it has lost all meaning to me. I’ve seen it used to describe fascists, I’ve seen it used as a way to discredit someone’s argument without engaging with it, I’ve seen it used used to invalidate arguments because they were to the left of the person throwing the label.

    The definition presented uses the word “authoritarian” which, in my eyes, falls on a similar category of “used on so many things it lost all meaning”. (Example)

    Using the words authoritarian and communist simultaneously doesn’t really make a whole lot of sense to me: As far as I am aware, a communist society is a stateless society. However, Wikipedia defines “authoritarian” as

    Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of democracy and political plurality. It involves the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting.”

    Notice the words “strong central power”. Isn’t that a contradiction of what communism is? Please do correct me if I’m wrong.

    I’ve seen in the comments people saying that de-federation is not an option because of .ml’s large communities, but, in my eyes, that doesn’t make much sense. .world is a big instance, just recreate the communities from .ml that you don’t want to miss out on. Everyone on .world will be forced to use them, since they can’t post on the .ml version any more. If .ml is as awful as people make it out to be, everyone will de-federate and move to the .world alternatives.



  • Define tankie. I’ve seen that work be used in so many different contexts that it seems to have lost all meaning. This are word has been used to describe so many different things by people that don’t know what it means that now it has lost all meaning.

    Similar case for the word "Authoritarian"

    Same story goes for the word “authoritarian”. I’ve seen that word being defined as “When government uses it’s authority to stop you from doing something”, but by that logic any society with laws and law enforcement is authoritarian. This are word has been used to describe so many different things by people that don’t know what it means that now it has lost all meaning.


  • So you are trying to argue that slavery is a RIGHT? This looks like and argument of guilt by association. Authoritarian is seen as bad, by giving the abolishment of slavery the label of “authoritarian” gives of the idea that you want to associate it with being bad.

    If having a law that restricts one’s ability to do something is “authoritarian” then any law is authoritarian, because laws, by definition, determine what behaviour is and isn’t allowed within a society. On that note, morality determines legality, not the other way around.

    Slavery means that, if you’re rich enough, you should be allowed to revoke the rights of others. This is refutable at so many levels. If someone were to “willingly” agree to give up their rights, then just you’re just taking advantage of someone who was born in an unfavourable position and have no other choice other than to accept (and maybe not starve) or starve.