@sun_the_second's banner p

sun_the_second

could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 October 31 11:26:45 UTC

				

User ID: 2725

sun_the_second

could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 October 31 11:26:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2725

I think having an insubstantial connection is just a useful excuse to go get drunk together and maybe find more connections, not to only talk about that one thing. At least that's how non-autists seem to do it.

I keep hearing about how people are totally sure grass-touching can cure many ills, but never the accounts of it actually curing them.

That viewpoint seems to privilege the peoples who have shamelessly genocided other peoples from what is now their homeland before it became uncool.

I've reached the extent of what's currently written FWIW.

Understanding one's best interests doesn't mean they're aligned though! If only one body can achieve Fang Yuan's goal, then the best interest only goes as far as "cooperate until we must betray each other to gain eternal life, or merge if possible", which works well enough until all enemies are defeated and eternal life is in reach, yet at no point does FY or any of his clones seem to consider what is to be done at such a juncture. The problem of sharing non-fungible resources is so innate to any clone story in my opinion that it's a travesty for such an otherwise thoughtful author writing such a cynical story to ignore it and just treat the clones as free powerups.

Caugh up to Reverend Insanity. @self_made_human might be interested in this.

Biggest hangup (aside from things like bad prose, which I've reached the stage of acceptance with):

I think Fang Yuan's clones' alignment ought to have been addressed more. Do they not want eternal life, and if they do, are they not afraid that the original will not share? If they don't want it, why? Did Fang Yuan prune their will on creation so that they were effectively enslaved to the goals of the original? Is he simply substrate-agnostic enough to not care which one of him reaches eternal life? Are split souls magically loyal to each other and the original? There is no way he had not considered that he might betray himself, but there's nothing in the text regarding it.

To what, if any, extent should LLMs produce a mixture of races in their responses to race-neutral prompts?

Fully generalized: if training data has a large proportion of rubes and a small proportion of bleggs, the LLM ideally should reproduce that proportion of rubes and bleggs in its outputs (not rounding up or down in every output, but averaged out over several outputs).

I don't have the data but I heavily suspect that it currently prefers to output the most likely object (a rube) every time, especially if it suspects rubes are more desirable. I've seen a youtube short (epistemic level: youtube short) where they showed a diagram demonstrating that human output was fat around unpredictability while every big LLM family's output was fat around the average in the same way. It would explain why it feels like slop.

Having power over others is the only way to balance out others having power over you.

Cats do have loyalty, which is different from bred servility because it's not unconditional.

If it's clear to you, you can hire a bunch of junior engineers for your project and have them become greybeards for half the wage. Then you get more than a cookie.

Otherwise you only get a cookie, which is still more than being unclear (a whole cookie), so I don't know what injustice you see here.

Doesn't look like the youths are spending so much more on eating out that it is a big factor, the way I read this.

There is a difference between the kind of conscription where no one really wants to be the first to volunteer, yet will acquiesce if/when voluntold, and Ukraine. Men of apparent fighting age are being ganged up on and forcibly packed into buses by recruiting officers. Either the people do not want to fight or the government is being very stupid by overreaching where a gentler hand would work.

Also, it being a "normal" or "legitimate" thing to do or not has nothing to do with whether the people want to fight or not. You asserted they do. I see little evidence of such, and ample evidence to the contrary.

unless the people wish it (which they don't).

How do you figure that? I do not think the brutal extent of conscription in Ukraine is currently deniable. If the people wish it, how come volunteers are so insufficient? And it's not like you can ask them because elections were suspended.

Perhaps it is a noble and un-futile fight, but from what it seems, the people (as opposed to the leadership) are sorely lacking the will to fight it.

Property is something you can own.

Parents (including adoptive parents, or legal guardians) do not own their children.

It is possible to own a person extralegally (such as through enslavement by human trafficking), but this is not an inherent part of surrogacy.

Thus I figure surrogacy does not make children into property. Not any more than being able to waive parental rights does.

How do you define surrogacy as selling children if at no point does the child become the new parent's property?

That argument applies to surrogacy 1:1.

Perhaps in the world before, when children were factual property of the head of the house. Today, as some lament, we do not own our children.

What does it mean to "not be Christian enough"? This sounds more like a political division than the faith that all are saved if they follow Jesus Christ.

Marriage was a contract historically, at least until it's become more like a suggestion in many countries.

That was pretty much my first thought. If you sign up for surrogacy, by all means keep the baby even if they're gonna be half-braindead, but don't expect to be paid for the job.

If anything here can be called demonic (as in, driven by alien forces beyond mere human wickedness), it is not the act of purchasing a child from a woman individually (rather than in lifelong contract), but the use of courts to arbitrarily litigate sums in vast excess of the original contract from, as far as I can tell, thin air.

I liked the sequel more, actually. "I guess we'll just have to kill 'em" is far more honest. Every atheist who's talked to smart theologists knows there can be those who can beat you in an argument even when they're wrong.

I do not put triumph over sickness, infirmity and hunger in the same box as deciding that you don't need to consider fellow humans either.

As theistic debates go, this appears to be a particularly crude one on part of Lewis. Not only being inherently deficient because he writes for both his side and his opponent, but also writing his opponent's side inarticulately. This is the equivalent of drawing the christian as the chad and the atheist as the soyjak.

I do not believe the sort of people you exalt is an improvement. Certainly I do not wish to see them anywhere near power, especially power over me or any number of my kids.

I want to see leaders who have paid and continue to pay for leadership in sweat and/or blood. Even the most venal and corrupt of leaders today do pay, although some of them pay insufficiently and that makes them complacent and fattened on power.

There is also the thing where you deny that you see yourself among the elite of the new world order, but the plausibility of that denial strains my credulity. You display exactly the same mindset that you believe should be empowered and you're frankly displaying the worst of that mindset. When I imagine the world you're portraying I imagine a world where potential men like you have been given power by a thought experiment god (since you're unfit to seize it). It's a deeply contradictory world.

There is plenty of discontent in Russia about how the war is going, included among the opinion makers. It does not rise to unrest because unrest is outlawed and the law is enforced.

(The discontent among the opinion makers is, admittedly, primarily of the "we should be having this war but the leadership are thieves, morons and cowards" kind rather than "we shouldn't be having this war" kind because expressing discontent of the latter kind as a public person is extra no bueno.)

I do not believe Putin has memories of Operation Barbarossa, he wasn't there. Invocations of WW2 sentiments just sound extremely fake and contrived to me.

That's closer to what hubris means, unlike your initial attempt to apply it to what I said.

I think the word you're looking for is "selfishness".

Hubris would better describe someone who seeks the fruits of power with profound ignorance of how power is claimed and held.