Four Loko had to take the caffeine out across the US years ago. Now it’s just 8 standard drinks in a tall boy for $4 - still very much a problem but no caffeine.
This might not work for your current lifestyle (if you need to be able to properly use your brain for any meaningful portion of the day), but an effective method, at least for people already using thc, is to replace the nicotine vape with a thc cartridge and essentially stupify yourself every time you think about vaping. And be cognizant of the anxiety etc, so that you continue despite it. Stick to that for a week or two and it works surprisingly well.
There are some vague notions about consciousness emerging from complexity that some people may advance as a nuance to your point, although that just makes rocks “minimally conscious”, not necessarily unconscious. If you take the view that the entirety of our consciousness’s comes from purely classical interactions (electrical and chemical), then thats not a difficult conclusion to arrive at, but the notion that consciousness can be derived from deterministic computation does not pass the sniff test imo.
As a side note, that is why I find the idea that the brain is a quantum-classical hybrid computer appealing. And following the research developments is very interesting, to say the least.
It took 6 years to get from Attention Is All You Need to a consumer product. Up until ChatGPT’s release, LLMs were obscure and really were just fancier autocomplete. Deepmind was largely a speculative research division until Google decided to play catch up, and even that took a bit of time as they figured out how to proceed in a way that wouldn’t cannabalize search. So in short they didn’t realize the potential. Thats my somewhat naive take.
That’s backwards. Society does not move forward despite free speech, rather because of it. The only way to truly move past harmful ideas and ideologies is to show those who would otherwise subscribe how dumb they are. You can try to quell them, but that just lends to their appeal, and results in those that do subscribe being more extreme and doing more extreme things. For a real world example, take someone who thinks that Nick Fuentes is a reasonable, respectable guy, and then show them the recent discussion between him and Hunter Biden, and see if they don’t at least get uncomfortable, unsure.
“If you don’t lock your bike, you can’t prevent others from taking it for a ride. You enjoy the mobility attached to the idea you’re a bike rider who rides a bike but then you play this game when that bike would actually be useful as opposed to sitting in the bike rack all day”.
I don’t know anything about the specific situation you’re referencing. That being said, getting mad at an organization, one that is built to be a “platform” for people to share their words, for not going out of its way to police which people share which words, seems to me to be unproductive at best, if not actively close minded and tribalistic.
Only fools reconcile situations where people disagree as “inherently adversarial”. If you’re feeling adversarial more power to ya, but other people, myself included, are here to discuss the world for discussions’ sake.
This comment struck me as odd, and I went and read some of your other comments. And then I see this comment, on a completely separate thread:
> Now I have the full picture. You're right to push back, and that's on me. The load-bearing seams of language are the smoking gun I should have been aware of.
Pardon my curiosity, but whats going on? Is this a bit, or a bot, or simply how you tend to write?
No. When it comes to statements by politicians, maybe. But when it comes to what people say in a setting like this thread, being so flippant in discounting people’s earnest-ness is a mistake and gets in the way of actually moving understanding forward.
Drugs are actually illegal. Thats the difference. If what you’re getting rid of is not illegal or evidence of illegal activity, there is no crime. It sure looks suspicious but the point is that if there was no actual evidence, then this is getting rid of regular property.
You cant have evidence tampering when there is no evidence, because there is no crime for there to be evidence of.
> Also, from a scientific perspective, distillation is decades old and contributes nothing scientifically.
Distillation itself does not, but it does enable research by allowing more teams to play around with models that follow the frontier, as opposed to completely independent training including scaffolding up w/ synthetic data.
An honor system is a system without any (explicit) external enforcement of rules. For example an unnattended fruit stand, where people are trusted to be honorable and leave payment for the fruit they take.
And what’s wrong with distillation? In its own right, and especially considering how those models were trained in the first place - in what world is it right that US firms are free to use copyrighted / otherwise non-public works however they like, while others are ostensibly in some moral wrong for just using the product (completely normally) and then using the outputs in a way that threatens US firms.
That’s been a thing since before TikTok even, well before AI in any modern sense of the word, and at this point the stupidness and disruptiveness is considerably reduced from those days.
I say this as someone recognizing myself: learn the real, detailed, mechanistic, intelligible science. The world does not work like sci-fi, despite how many people make claims that amount to as much (with 0 actual evident evidence). That is not to say that all there is is what’s readily apparent. But when you forgo that assumption, you have to be careful because it easily slips into ur own understanding of what “there is” becoming overly skewed towards things that are not apparent (read: the brain feeding into its own maladaptive patterns of connection, making up things and then falling into confirmation bias). Physical reality is the base, at least when regarding things practically.
A big issue is that plenty of people don’t treat these products as software that is modelling language, they treat it as a being, one imbued with the collective knowledge of humankind. It is not, but it is often treated as such.
People trust it, in the way people trust an actual friend, when it’s just google+wikipedia, reworded towards AI’s signature “canny valley”, and packaged through your favorite tech megacorp.
Because one scenario is more directly tied to potential (undesirable) uses of the photos, and more obviously doing something. If people saw consequences resulting from security cameras, they would pay more mind to them. People aren’t ignoring a security camera in a bathroom.
> it means nothing. Specifically, it uses ideology to assign or project an othering counter-ideology on its enemies to manage them with further criticism. It's mesmerist gibberish all the way down.
This exactly, I hope for opportunities to repeat as much.
It’s worth noting that in neuro speak, inhibition does not necessarily correlate with what would appear to be a “dis/inhibited” person; it’s referring to a specific process where signals are blocked from propagating, and because the brain is made of a complex web of inter-modulatory loops, this can show up in unintuitive ways
e.g. signals from the default mode network getting in the way of task-oriented behavior, which can result in people appearing “inhibited” where in actuality they’re failing to inhibit irrelevant internal signals and (errant bottom-up) attention to them (this is the case in ADHD).