Well when you put it that way, we have lots of regulations surrounding gambling for precisely the reason that a significant fraction of people hopelessly "fall for it".
1,163 karma · joined May 1, 2020
> Proving the current state of your system isn't using your hardware against you. It is showing that your system is secure against cheats.
Complete doublespeak. It is using your hardware against you such that you will be denied service if the operating state of your system isn't to the service operator's liking. I want nothing to do with it outside of employer controlled devices being validated by the employer or my own devices being validated in such a manner by me.
> > Neither will I accept opaque anti-cheat kernel modules
> If they aren't opaque they will be instantly bypassed
Makes no difference to me. There aren't going anywhere near my kernel and I strongly recommend that other people take the same stance. The developers of such modules (and more generally just all software developers) are inherently untrustworthy as has been demonstrated on a number of occasions.
> Cheats are antiuser software that can kill an entire game. Software that combats this threat is prouser.
Cheats take advantage of buggy or poorly designed software. Software that combats that is pro-bad-developer. If it commandeers my machine in the process then it is decidedly anti-user. Write better software. Don't share state with clients if it's supposed to be hidden.
Other than all the downright uncanny output.
Personally I doubt current LLMs are sufficient for sentience but that's purely a hunch on my part. Many people such as yourself seem quite overconfident of something that feels like a form of human exceptionalism to me - the idea that such a simple bit of math couldn't possibly be sufficient for sentience. As far as I can tell such a belief is wholly unfounded.
He is saying neither. He is observing that OP has introduced the assumption that their brain is doing something that can't be done with matrix multiplication and is pointing out that there is no evidence to back such an assumption up.
> but now somehow the collective has moved on to believing that matrix multiplication is sentient
The OP clearly feels that matrix multiplication is insufficient for sentience. Presumably the OP views themselves and other humans as sentient. Therefore the OP is implying that human brains do things which cannot be reduced to or wholly represented by matrix multiplication (plus the various nonlinear activation functions and other implementation details of current ML models).
That seems like a highly suspect assumption.
Yes you can. Do what corporate firewalls do. MITM all TLS connections with your own personal CA. Don't allow any traffic streams that you can't MITM to leave your network.
You say this so confidently. But can you define in terms that are directly quantifiable what "understanding a concept" actually means?
I don't believe that anyone can (at present, anyway) although there are certainly some interesting theories and heuristics that have been put forward by various people.
Leaking user data to me is a betrayal of trust, incredibly distasteful, and probably borders on illegal (it ought to be imo). Note that this is fundamentally different than watermarking streaming content or other material that the user is not legally permitted to copy. Watermarking the game binaries themselves, for example, would be entirely different and perfectly acceptable from my perspective.
I also will never knowingly permit a program to run on my computer that performs remote attestation or otherwise uses my hardware against me. Neither will I accept opaque anti-cheat kernel modules. I don't want anything to do with malicious anti-user software.
When people say thing like "other people aren't interested in changing their minds" what they really mean is "other people didn't find my arguments convincing".
There's also an element of individual freedom involved here. If you choose to keep climbing into the boxing ring and then trying to have a reasoned discussion and failing, perhaps you are the one making poor choices. That doesn't necessarily mean that outlawing boxing rings or otherwise regulating who can participate when and how is either a good or workable solution.
Such platforms should probably not be permitted to promote in a general and unrestricted sense the content of particular speakers that make use of them. That's no better than clandestine government propaganda. An obvious wolf in sheep's clothing.
The public square is not in and of itself a trusted channel so I doubt you are talking about the same thing as the person you responded to.
This is you fundamentally misunderstanding what is meant by "speech". The statement itself is not illegal. The act of misrepresenting the transaction being agreed to is what's illegal.
A specific act that involves many components, only one of which happens to be speech, has been made illegal. The speech component itself has not.
There are certain situations where speech itself is restricted. This is not one of them though.
The overarching point still stands. That people being in favor of censoring "disinformation" (ie speech by private individuals) in certain instances but not others is an inconsistent stance that carries a distinct appearance of partisanship.
Which the parent was pointing out is nonstandard. There is no alt-gr key on a standard US keyboard. You can certainly remap alt-right to alt-gr but that is nonstandard and doing so does not mean that the key exists on the physical keyboard.
For example my caps lock key is mapped to ctrl-left. That is nonstandard.
It doesn't apply to cash or my bank account. I do not want that to change. I will not support a tool that would enable this.
> Food stamps can only be spent on food
Those are not cash. Those are effectively gift cards for use at a grocery store.
> you must meet specific criteria for tax credits, etc.
Yet the tax credit is paid in cash. You can do with it as you will once you receive it. I will not support a tool that would change that.
> Some businesses will absolutely not take your money without extensive KYC already
The fact that a problem already exists is not an argument in support of making it worse.
> Banks already arbitrarily shut down bank accounts with no recourse.
Once again that doesn't justify actively making things worse.
> The whole point of money is that it's the common means of exchange, it's not very useful as money if only some people use it.
Many countries apply controls when converting to or from foreign currency. China in particular is known for this. Does that mean that their currency isn't useful to the people who live there? If the poor aren't permitted access to traditional cash they would have no choice but to use the CBDC whether they wanted to or not. At least aside from outright bartering, which is even less flexible.
> > money that can have its spending and issuing rules changed quickly and easily by the current government of the day
> That's already the case today.
No, from the perspective of the individual it absolutely is not. If I have US cash or even a balance in a bank account in the US the government cannot "quickly and easily" modify the rules by which I can spend it. Particularly for paper cash their only options seem to be either to outlaw a particular sort of transaction and hope the police can enforce that (doesn't work, see drugs) or reissue the currency to force me to exchange it for something that they have more control over such as a CBDC.
You aren't seriously trying to imply that it would be feasible for a government to decide to seize 5% of everyone's bank accounts at present? Being able to do something in a targeted manner and being able to do that same thing to the entire population at once with ease are not at all the same.
This is actually where a lot of people's perceptions about government tyranny seem to break down somewhat inexplicably. Guns? The police can show up right now and outnumber you so it makes no difference if they're outlawed. Restrictions on movement? The government can already blockade roads if they want to so it makes no difference if checkpoints are allowed to be constructed. Mass surveillance? The government can already wiretap you without your knowledge so it doesn't matter if that process is allowed to be automated.
All of those positions are very obviously false and yet a significant portion of the population seems to struggle with the common underlying concept. Enabling a behavior en masse with little to no friction is not at all the same as something targeted that requires noticeable resource expenditure to carry it out in each individual instance.
yes my point was that this total failure to abstract (or slice or average or whatever it is that it usually seems to do) appears to me to be neither the intended nor typical mode of operation
> children under 1/10 of that age, who have seen only 10% of those images would not make the same kinds of mistakes
but then children aren't being fed a stream of unrelated images. they're receiving a wide array of real time sensory input from an environment they're actively operating in
consider your examples of the lack of higher level understanding about how the parts of a human "fit together". what practical experience do these models have that could actually convey such an understanding? deriving a proper understanding of mechanics in 3D from one million independent 2D still frames of human hands performing various tasks seems like it should be extremely difficult at best
> Could this be trained in? I expect so, but I think it would require multiple engines
I think it requires a different sort of training algorithm entirely. work such as https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.10122 suggests to me that there might be little difference between the human ability to abstract and lossy compression. at the same time work such as https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.11502 makes it apparent that in many cases this sort of generalization simply does not happen the way we'd like
> the neuron/synapse/neurotransmitter and brainstem/midbrain/cerebellum micro & macro-architectures are vastly different than the computer training models. So, I think we can be confident that something different is happening
something being architected differently doesn't necessarily mean that the higher level functionality is any different
moreover, in purely functional terms how do you propose to distinguish something that's different from something that's incomplete? ie a smaller piece of a larger whole? if someone constructs for example a passable digital model of the visual cortex of the mouse or human or other animal that's still only a single small piece of the whole
so who is and how are we to say that we either have or haven't achieved a meaningful form of abstraction versus merely averaging bits of the training set together? at this point I'm not actually clear where the line between those two things even lies
> it is assembling those from averages of the components found it's training set, not from some abstract imagination or understanding
how exactly are you so certain that the human brain handles abstract concepts any differently? please note that I'm not claiming that I myself know, but rather that you almost certainly do not know and thus are presenting an invalid argument
what is human imagination anyway?
> assembling those from averages of the components found it's training set
> slices of many items, more of a mash-up of the training items
> But give it something very specific ... it doesn't have enough input data variety to abstract out the person 'object' from the background
so is it abstracting or not? where's the line between that and a mere statistical mashup?
for now
> If you consider the risk of EMP
if you consider the risk of a bioweapon ...