Cheers fellow nerd! I like to pronounce it so that it rhymes with Parmenides, and then imagine that they have a society full of aquatic philosophers (I'm a bit out of step with Tchaikovsky's view on that front).
One reason I've hesitated to firm this kind of relationship is the fear that, were I to accidentally trigger a violent / startled response from the bird, it could gouge on of my eyes before I could respond.
One thing I'm curious about re: Citizens United...
Do people have a problem with the validity of the legal reasoning, or with the court's wisdom in their final decision?
IANAL by a long shot. But I wonder if the constitution is pretty clear on the matter, but flawed in the sense that it sets us up for the current situation.
> Do people have a problem with the validity of the legal reasoning, or with the court's wisdom in their final decision?
Not familiar with the case, but Citizen United was a 5-4 decision, so the dissenting opinions are probably the first place you should look at if you're looking for issues with the legal reasoning and/or the court's wisdom.
Not to mention, we now know that many on the court (and particularly those among the majority) have been accepting undisclosed gifts for years as well as their spouses accepting significant business dealings with those who at the time or subsequently had dealings with the court.
Take with a grain of salt, of course; N is about 1000 and they were contracted by what I assume was a PAC trying to pass an anti-corruption state issue in Montana.
But that seems to be a significant, bipartisan moiety that disagree with parts of SCOTUS’ opinion.
The decision was legally sound. Most every supreme court decision is, even those that have been overruled. People forget that for a case to reach the supremes there has to be sound legal argument on multiple sides. Their decisions are therefore rather arbitrary but that is OK. The legislature can bypass any scotus decision through new laws or even a constitutional amendment. Our present difficulty is that the legislative branch has all but abandoned that role.
Right now, is a robot get incorporated, it can be recognized legally as a person and Ai can theoretically control it . and that is because of poor decision by the justices.
"People", in the broad sense implied by a national poll, don't make that distinction (though if you asked them directly, they would have an opinion). They care about outcomes, not rationale. That actually makes perfect sense - that should be a typical person's point of view.
Of course this is orthogonal to the tribalism overlay that distorts everybody's perceptions, but I'm speaking about the foundation underneath that.
For 90%+ of the comments I see in only discussions that complaining about Citizens United the complaint is actually about something that has nothing to do with Citizens United.
Obviously there is a problem. It has upgraded corporations to speak as people and allowed them to spend as much as money as they want for elections and it has distorted the already distorted electioneering process to a farce.
Who are people ? the AstroTurfed versions that claimed to be people that got the thing through the courts or real people? Are real people familiar with cause and affect given the media presentations.. I don't know.. You have to ask them.
Was the given judicial ruling based on some sort of logical reasoning? No.. not just in my opinion; there are many that see it that way and they can tell you the exact legal reasonings. In my opinion though, the courts bases were preloaded for the game to deliver and they would have required extended hacking to get it loaded.
I like to study rhetoric, and appreciate folks asking for specifics. There's a lot of generalities thrown around on this forum that are highly questionable, and the only antidote I have is to request details. It's surprising how often folks resist.
A sibling comment replying to you is using a familiar tactic, which is to try to shame you for asking for specifics, while simultaneously providing none and telling you that it's obvious.
Occasionally people do provide details and I learn something, but that's not the common case, sadly.
No matter what ideology you follow, you are someone’s useful idiot, so this term is meaningless.
Russia is no more (and no less) my enemy than the US and the EU are. And as far as spreading propaganda goes, Russia is downright mediocre compared to the latter two.
Having multiple genuinely different viewpoints in a discussion isn’t evidence of “bots”, it’s the default in any community that isn’t heavily censored to silence dissent. And individuals voicing their different viewpoints isn’t “propaganda”, it’s the definition of discourse.
> Can you point to a few comments that you consider examples?
Just search for “Russia” on HN and follow threads. You’ll find lots of “what about West/Jews”, “Russia is fighting against NATO”, etc. Then open any western news outlet on YouTube and follow comments too.
The russian bots are better.. usually its conspiracy fog, attached to a valid russia opposing point that reveals them. Chinese bots are just this months CCP talking points, so can be quite easily visible if they cram some topic only china cares about into every reply.
The downvotes are because you're resisting easily-observed reality with the seemingly-rational response "Where is this 'air'? If I'm breathing it, it should be easy to point to, no?"
No. If you can't see it, and don't understand it's there, you cannot be explained to. You're someone with no palate asking how anyone else can know if a wine tastes good.
I think you're saying that it's hard to articulate why some particular comment should be judged as having come from a bot. I.e., similar to the SCOTUS opinion regarding pornography: "I know it if I see it".
Is that correct?
If so, wouldn't that still admit someone providing a specific example? The whole point of my original comment was that I knew I wasn't judging these things the same as others were.
It occurred to me that Anthropic is going to continue to say things on A.I. sentience while conveniently always concluding the "solution" to A.I. suffering is always something which never has a huge impact on Anthropic's bottom line.
There is no damage for cursing at the model, other than to your wallet for the tokens you burned. But there could be some entertainment value, though it tells something about a person who is using abusive language for entertainment. There could also be research value where the user might want to throw the model off to reach their goals, whatever there might be.
I partly understand what dirty game Anthropic is playing but I hope it will turn back against them sooner rather than later.
Then add in the use of powerful stimulants (e.g. Adderall) to power through a workday, only to have that cause insomnia that night, and a wrecked sleep schedule for the following 3 days.
Yup I absolutely fall off a cliff if I'm consistently consuming a stimulant. That includes caffeine. It's actually a problem where I have to be careful that I'm not having it too early (as opposed to late) in the day otherwise it will wreak havoc on my life.
in my case I need to take it at a perfect time where it stops working just after I go to bed. Take it too early and it will stop working before I go to bed and I won't fall asleep because my mind will distract me from it. Take it too late and I technically will sleep, but I won't actually feel rested in the morning.
Nah, I'm taking a very minimal dose (adjusted) and I know that my sleep is less deep and shorter. Without medication I sleep around 8 hours, with 6:30-7 hours.
The best that helps sleep in my experience is doing sports. Lots of it.
When are you taking it? There are a lot of studies that indicate that stimulants HELP sleep.
You should re-evaluate what is happening to you as it is not an ideal situation: it may be possible you have something else instead of ADHD (or together with ADHD) or you maybe taking it too late in the day.
> E.g., you have a family to feed, and your ability hold a well-paying job hinges on your performance.
I can do all of these things anyway. Of course, this does present the potential reality that were I able to sleep like people, I could be even more successful, but after a near death experience, then disability, I've learned to be happy with where I am.
> E.g., you have a family to feed, and your ability hold a well-paying job hinges on your performance.
I am in this situation, forcing me to adapt and get up early like most normies.
My job performance did not improve. And going to sleep early only makes me more miserable, because now I have exactly zero personal, interrupt-risk-free time.
I'm not sure that's an entirely fair way to frame that. ADHD people can be highly motivated by reward, but being motivated isn't enough to consistently navigate the path from wanting something to getting something. Reward can make you want something more, and even try harder for it, but ADHD means that sometimes no matter how much you want something and how hard you try it just doesn't happen.
I'd frame it differently: ADHD people are highly motivated by reward, but like, actual reward, not an uncertain promise of unclear reward at indeterminate point in the future, whose causal connection with motivated behavior is tenuous at best - which is, somehow, how most people apparently motivate themselves.
N=1 here, but for me, anything that's more than an hour or two in the future rapidly loses any motivating power; any reward that happens after more than a day may as well happen at infinity.
>I'm not sure that's an entirely fair way to frame that. ADHD people can be highly motivated by reward, but being motivated isn't enough to consistently navigate the path from wanting something to getting something.
We seem to have a different understanding of the word motivate.
I use it in a very straightforward sense: motivation is the energy to move forward to your goal. It's motive force.
For example, I might understand that I need to file taxes, pay fines, or apply for such-and-such benefit, I might want to do that for the rewards (or lack of bad consequences for filing late), but I just can't motivate myself to do it until it becomes an urgent emergency and everything is on fire.
As in, I can't get myself to move on this task.
>ADHD means that sometimes no matter how much you want something and how hard you try it just doesn't happen.
We fully agree here.
Executive functioning is a better term to use, but people are familiar with motivation more.
> We seem to have a different understanding of the word motivate. I use it in a very straightforward sense: motivation is the energy to move forward to your goal. It's motive force.
Both meanings look like they're valid uses of the term. The "to cause to take action", "to cause someone to behave" and "to incite/actuate/propel" definitions focus on what initiated an action/behavior, while most of the definitions I found focus on just having or providing a reason/incentive/desire/enthusiasm/encouragement for an action which applies even if that action never actually materializes.
to give (someone) a reason for doing something
to be a reason for something
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/motivate
To provide with an incentive or a reason for doing something; impel:
To cause to be enthusiastic
to give incentive to
to provide with a motive or motives; incite; impel.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/motivate
To provide someone with an incentive to do something; to encourage; to actuate.
To animate; to propel; to cause to take action.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/motivate
to cause someone to behave in a particular way:
to make someone want to do something well:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/motivate
It's more literal than that. The prospect of reward is very literally not motivating. It does not provide motive force. It does not make us move.
We consciously want the thing, but that isn't enough for executive function to kick in, so "I need to get off the sofa so I can make tasty dinner" results in not having moved two hours later.
Or just: you have a family, including children who need you to be a responsible adult first thing in the morning (every morning) whether you like it or not
reply