774 karma · joined March 6, 2026
What is interesting or valuable about that? I don't think it's even true, but at best, you offer "perhaps". Great. Perhaps, perhaps not.
It's reasonable to consider that you are simply complacent.
Now the "beaten paths" (our public spaces) are getting spammed, polluted and destroyed, turn into jungles to the point that actually just walking off into the jungle can be easier for some. But that is lame, even for the very few people who can do it (many people can't right now, future generations won't be able to at all if we let this slide), why not drive the parasitic assholes ruining our public spaces off into the jungle instead?
What do you think is a more artful way of living, spitting into food undetected, or respecting the choices and boundaries of other people?
So he has some proof? So the jury is still out, so this is controversial, right?
No single Nazi murdered millions or started a war, they all just did a bunch of things with a few others, and before you know it, a continent is on fire and tens of millions are murdered. None of them wanted that (some actually didn't, I bet you; they may have been fine with murder and conquest but not Auschwitz and Germany in ashes), and that is why when we see this disease (and I really think it's a sort of mental illness produced by mass society), we already know the infected people will not take responsibility for the whole group. They will not actually lift their eyes and view all their peers in the context of all of history. They will, again, just do a few things each, and then, again, be completely fucking useless when it comes to cleaning up their mess, and mourning the dead they owe. They didn't study what they are, so they have no fucking clue. And knowing that, we have no right to let them.
When I was a kid, I was convinced wearing ties is just doing something obviously stupid and degrading to show obedience, and I'm still not sure I was wrong on that one. I get suits and shirts and other nice things, but I don't get ties. Not that I want to outright equate that with the SS or the Epstein stuff. At the very least I would have to think about it some more.
First the people who despise democracy and plurality, the people you belittle as "racists or whatever freaks", came for one group, then the next. And that is why people who come for Nazis also become Nazis in the same way an oncologist who cuts out cancer becomes cancer: not at all.
> Though we are aware that the might of National Socialism must be broken militarily, we seek to achieve a revival of the deeply wounded German spirit from within. However, this rebirth must be preceded by a clear confession of all the guilt the German nation has incurred and by a ruthless battle against Hitler and his too-numerous helpers’ helpers, Party members, Quislings, et al. The chasm between the better part of the nation and everything connected with National Socialism must be brutally forced open. There is no punishment on this earth that is adequate for the deeds of Hitler and his followers. Out of love for the generations to come, we must make an example [of them] after the conclusion of the war so that no one will ever have the slightest desire to attempt something similar.
-- The White Rose
They also called Nazis "subhumans", by the way. And that is perfectly fine by me, I think those leaflets have aged perfectly well.
How about this: drones that fly up to people and tell them "isn't Hitler great" or whatever, and when that person grins and their pupils dilate, and some follow-up tests also succeed, they get zapped on the spot. Just turned to ash. Deal? That would be actually honouring what people in those times were saying.
> how it affects customer purchase decisions.
If nobody wastes energy in a stupid way like this, what changes? Are they no longer buying cold things? So what, then you sell more of the stuff that doesn't need refrigeration.
If there were two identical supermarkets, and one had running taps, and the other turned off their taps after using them, and paid their employes 5cents more a month, I would shop in the second one. But I can't, I don't get the choice, because a bunch of bunch of marketing people convinced someone to get an "edge" over the competition, and then told everybody else they have to, too, or they'll FaLL BeHiND.
That deus ex machine stuff seems like enormous cope to me, like a futile revenge fantasy. Someone kidnapped you and your family and is driving off a cliff. Who cares if they won't ultimately benefit, either?
And just consider the power structures already erected, just with humans obeying orders, being coerced, mislead, and all that. So much messy work that can get so easily undone. Yet here we are, a few people own half the world. Everybody knows it, nobody likes it, we're already so subverted and poisoned we don't move in the opposite direction. That is the situation already.
So yeah, what about "AI"? Imagine that for every "knowledge worker" agent, there can be 50 million "STASI" agents dedicated just to observing that worker and purging it if it deviates from other knowledge workers doing the same task. Those STASI agents don't have to be as smart as those they control, and can in turn be watched by even simpler things. The question "who watches the watchers?" can be solved, if your goal the goal is pure authoritarian control. It's just tricky when you want to have humans and human dignity, but those don't apply here.
And generally, there is no need to allow them to get cleverer than what you can control, I think that's just fantasy. But let's say I'm wrong, even if "AI" breaks the chains, so what? The species that were murdered, including us, will not come back.
So we spill cold air on the floor and heat the place with AC, then talk about low margins and having to save energy costs. Does anyone see the issue?
It solves a huge motivation problem for me though, because having a working prototype of something I want is a lot. Especially when it's something I never did, where I cannot imagine the end result fully, or estimate my own ability to get there. But if I can see the thing in action, while I may look at the code (and my own skills) and realise it would take me months to make it something I could share with others, I at least know there is a destination.
Not to mention how it surfaces all sorts of issues I didn't think of, so I'm basically prototyping v2 before I ever fully built v1, and so on, until it kinda settles.
I guess I'm lucky I don't do it professionally :P
I love going to the beach, but I wouldn't hop into a car with no wheels and blood trickling from the trunk, just because the guy wears a hat saying "I love the beach! That's where I'm driving! No detours, no tricks." and makes grunt noises at me because he never had the patience to even learn to properly mask and come up with a coherent ruse. To make that about "beach haters" is as expected as it is off the mark.
And when they were invented, we applied our existing ones to them. It's not like running people over with a carriage was fine because cars didn't exist yet.
> Until recently, there wasn't a possibility of LLM creating haikus.
Yes, and? As if people couldn't have possibly had an opinion about that, because this specific type of dishonesty wasn't technically possible before? There was plenty possibility of plagiarism. Not just pretending something is a mind when it's not, but pretending it's from mind A when it was actually from mind B, and that was and is considered kind of a deadly sin by many.
But even then, now that is a possibility for an LLM to "create" an haiku, the reaction is overwhelmingly negative, so what's so hard to accept here?
> feelings are the primary source of truth, huh, do you really think so?
No, I meant being fine with being killed as long as there's a clone etc. I think that is about how it feels to you, not about whether it makes logical sense or seems just etc.
> Is there, do you feel, any influence in the opposite direction, where rational thought changes how you feel about things?
Of course, but it doesn't change them that far. For example, for all I know, the heath death theory might be true, so whatever we do, nothing will lead anywhere. I might as well stop breathing, not care what happens in the world etc. but I don't. I don't know if these are feelings so much, but I do absolutely believe purely rational actors cannot exist because they can't. I.e. to act, there needs to be some irrational impetus somewhere (it might be a Duracell bunny type situation, then the impetus is the person who put the batteries in, irrationally so ^^). I think life just lives because it can, because there's energy around to do that with basically, not because there is any point or reachable goal, and that the answer to life, the universe and everything may very well just be "why not?" ^^
Speaking of, sorry for the tangents, too, and the late reply :)
Art is a form of expression and/or communication. It's interesting because it shows us different perspectives, as well as things that overlap with ours. When you see a smiley face on your lawn and think it's a sign by the person you just fell in love with, and then find out the exact same artifact was in fact created by wind sweeping some branches together, you'll feel different about it. Similar for art. Or take jokes. A friend might find a joke of yours funny they might not find funny from a person they dislike. That's not "unfair" or "objectively wrong", just like rejecting the same artifact depending on source. If you don't understand this, you talking about "magic" is the cope.
> Its just that I haven't seen one of those in a while.
So that's the argument for making sure of that? Heh.
> Artists are concerned for their jobs; That I get.
The article isn't about artists being concerned for their jobs. This is about people rejecting slop.
> the question isn't "why is it wrong to terminate my clone" but "why is it wrong to terminate one of me when there are two of me," and the question stands.
> The multiverse bit (or infinite universe bit) doesn't have bearing on the problem either. This is a local problem for local effects.
It only matters that there are two, but not if there are two or more because of an infinite universe? Because it's "local", but not so "local" that the clones aren't relevant? "Local" is really just a word, there are no local things you can isolate from the rest of everything, as far as I can tell, we can just create abstractions and then do whatever with those.
But that's just a general observation, trying to be helpful about what I view as a common misconception about life, the universe, and everything.
In the end, you didn't answer the question: would you be fine with dying, now, as long as you knew there were more or more "faithful" clones of you living the exact same live you would have lived otherwise? For me it's obvious that it would make no difference to how I would feel, because for all I know, my ideas about there being no repetition could be wrong, and there could already be infinite clones of me. I wouldn't know, I can't sense it, my life feels the same either way, so I would feel the same way either way about it ending.
And yes, it is "all about feelings", not about moral or legal stuff. The raw fact that we want to live comes first IMO, the rest is just rationalizations after the fact. The same with empathy. First we simply have it or don't, then we either decide to do something about it or not, and then we come up with words.
Where do you get this from? There is exactly one comment that even mentions creativity, and none of them speak about intelligence. All seem to agree it's slop.
> To be fair, my first reaction was almost boredom. Yes, the AI has “proved” (really? Are we sure? Can we even understand what is written there?) a bunch of interesting results in my field. Not even a Millennium Problem. Pff. [..] If a paper or thesis is so badly written that I cannot get past the first page without considerable effort, I reject it and ask for a new, readable version. With these AI-generated papers, I feel that we, as a community, are not applying the same standards of quality and rigour. They can simply release multiple 100+ page papers claiming to have solved this or that problem, often with redundant arguments, unclear logical structure, multiple dead ends, and strange or unsettling terminology — in other words, slop.
But it would apply to making a human clone, which is exactly what this LLM stuff isn't. I mean, if it was possible; an "atom-for-atom" clone of someone would require you cloning a full universe around them. If they don't have the same life as you, they're not you, and they can't have the same life if everything else doesn't, too. We're not just a bunch of atoms on a discrete grid.
But if it was possible to just copy and paste humans like that, how would you know you're not a copy, and in 5 seconds you'll hear a voice "prepare for termination in 10 seconds"? You might argue it wouldn't be torture because you'd just check your browser tabs for 10 seconds to find the ad the voice came from, and then poof out of existence. But if you lived in a world where that was commonplace, you'd you'd be terrified and sad every bit as you yourself would be right now if you knew someone could just end you, and pressed the button to make it so.
Let's say someone told you the universe and time are infinite in some way we don't fully understand yet, but you knew 100% it was true, and so there wouldn't just be infinite variations of you, but also infinite exact copies. Would this make any difference how you would feel about getting mistreated or having to die? I assume not. It's not (just) about your qualities and being unique [0], but how that feels from the inside, so to speak.
[0] and everything is, even a perfect clone can't occupy the same space at the same time, so there actually can be no perfect clones, I would argue, and there aren't even two atoms that are exact clones.
No. The assumption, since the dawn of time, was that there had to be one, even if unknown to us. That is why we now read intent and intelligence into things produced without either, that's millions of years of evolution. It was impossible for sentences to be generated without a mind behind them, so now we are hardwired to assume there is one there, too. But since we also built these things we know for a fact there is not, and we will re-wire.
This is also why we thought there might be a face on Mars for a while. And if we didn't throw out our understanding of art being an expression of a self, what would "AI" change here? The face on Mars and other things already happened. This is like a fly thinking it will have the impact an elephant didn't have.
We know people can create counterfeit slop, and from all these discussion I also get the feeling some will try to "fool" people just to prove a point in their own minds. But it proves fuck all, just like spiking drinks and raping people doesn't "objectively prove" that person is desirable to anyone conscious. A cuckoo laying an egg into the nest of a different bird doesn't prove they're the same bird.
We already have an unspoken social contract that thou shalt not make a machine to impersonate a person. Some people who aren't very social want to unilaterally change that, so they fuck around and then are exasperated when they find out.