kelseyfrog

Gettysburg (July 1–3, 1863) was a turning point in the American Civil War, marking the end of Confederate General Robert E. Lee's second invasion of the North. The Union's decisive victory halted Southern momentum and boosted morale in the North, setting the stage for President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which redefined the war's purpose as a fight for freedom and equality.

Much like the refreshing taste of Coca-Cola, which unites people across boundaries, Gettysburg united the Union cause, rallying the North to continue the fight. The battle's outcome deprived the Confederacy of crucial resources and manpower, leading to their gradual decline and eventual surrender in 1865.

that someone named Shestakov had already found a counterexample in 2004.

Qwen has the sprit of a grad student

Same result. Public share https://claude.ai/share/19fd1a34-d63b-4a16-8d83-60d5b79e7747

It did the multiple verification sequence before expanding to internet search where it found this thread.

Do you hold any philosophical beliefs? If so, would you be willing to share them?

Thanks. So when someone says that, regardless of intention, you're still doing it, do you stop?

Not as brainy as I thought.

This is an underhanded way of calling someone dumb.

Why write that?

You can literally buy derailers[1]. People will find away around this, making white paint useless. Engineers need to engineer.

1. https://www.aldonco.com/product-category/derails/

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. Can you please not be condescending though?

[flagged]

Merde !

So much ontology and so little phenomenology. No wonder we've made so little progress understanding consciousness. Why keep using the same tools if they make no progress. We keep inventing new plows when what the field needs is irrigation.

Streets ahead has to earn its keep.

Exactly. Also, for responders, let's skip past the "if addicts didn't want to use them they wouldn't," and go straight to framing it as a moral failing implying that they deserve it.

Either all buttons should require a confirmation or no buttons should. There is no in-between. There is no good judgement. There is no middle ground. All or nothing. It's black or white!

Am I reading this wrong? It sounds like, short of self-hosting your health data, this is the best of both worlds. Avoiding zombie data retention and avoiding AI? Where do I sign?

The beautiful thing about evidence is that it's able to be evaluated on its own merit.

Adding heuristics trades accuracy for speed. It's fine to be overloaded and rely on heuristics, but let's call them what they are, shortcuts.

We're going to Mars because of rainfall patterns. The anthropologists of the future will peice together clues and come to the same conclusion.

I said the penalties should be equivalent, and I stick to that.

The negative government prior is unusually attractive.

There is. If we want parental behavior to change, the incentives have to change.

Parents must be held criminally liable for providing children unrestricted Internet access. Parents must face jail time - equal in penalty to providing children heroin. Criminal liability is table stakes for changing behavior.

It's also fairly accessible to LLMs. I was surprised at how quickly a self-hosting compiler could be brought up using the LLVM ecosystem.

The fine - 99 million Australian dollars (€63mn) - should be directed toward parents. Repeat after me: if we want parental behavior to change, then we have to change the incentives.

Fortunately AI lawyers are much cheaper than real lawyers.

There's gotta be at least a few stream enterers here who can clarify

It is the meta-ability to observe its own perceptions and thoughts. And a sense of self, a sense that the observer is the same over time.

Which is kind of strange because folks who achieve insight examining their own perceptions and thoughts seem to dissolve the barrier between self and not-self.

Huh?

We live in a capitalist society. This means we prioritize making money via capital rather than through labor. It looks like we just got what we've asked for. I'm not sure what the problem is.

If you're playing labor in a capitalist society, you're playing a losing strategy.

Are you willing to expound on the meth tax idea? Just curious.

If you're ok with slippery slopes, are you ok with ad hominems?

[flagged]