sleeplessworld

It still leaves me lingering in a space-time-continuum where I search for the safety of rational completeness, while inadvertently living on a Möbious strip.

I have just been subjected to a Paradox Exception caused by reading that the memory safe Rust language has and can cause undefined behaviour. My spatial location code in the Universe has been marked with a Time-Space::Paradox violation and is awaiting debugging by celestial dev-ops. Luckily I am currently a live process, so my space and memory will not at this time be reclaimed by the Global-Universal Operating System.

How did you reach the conclusion that the author specifically meant this part of Gregory of Nyssa's religious thinking? It could just as likely be that the author has come to realise that Gregory of Nyssa was correct in his arguments for the Christian Trinity...? I am just wondering. The author's statements are very entertaining, but they do not seem to be articulated as objects for detailed scrutiny...

If one were either the director or a senior leader of a more-or-less covert biolab doing research that is definitely supposed not to be discovered, would you have done your job if you had not established a procedure for medical treatment of sick or infected employees using local and probably covert resources? - And likely including local isolation of infected or potentially infected people? Whether or not people from this supposed type of biolab turns up at public hospitals does not seem to indicate much.

This seems to be one of the most dangerous propositions that I have ever heard of. Given human history, human psychology, human error, politics etc.

What am I missing here? That biolabs are the only human made thing that can be made absolutely 100% secure?

Yes. You did do that. But the monkey wasn't too happy. And you have been banned from the zoo. So was it really the correct approach? ;-)

Thank you. That comment just made my day :-)

(now to wiping the tears of laughter from my face...)

I have heard of the worlds tiniest violin - but the 'universes' tiniest? How can we possibly be assured that your violin really is the tiniest? There may be some civilization, maybe in Alpha Centauri maybe around Betelgeuse, that produces really small violins? We cannot know in this primitive pre-warp time that we live in...

A search reveals an offer on Ebay - search for 'Worlds Smallest Emergency Violin!" ... the URL is too long to paste. But this is an emergency violin. Clearly not a violin made for normal everyday purposes. And it is still only the 'worlds' smallest. It also does not describe for what emergencies this may help.

I am still confused. It seems to me that these violins on offer are small, but that they surely can be made much much smaller....? However, there may be some instrument/sound physics at play that I am not aware of...

Or maybe not that subjective when looked at closer. It may just as well be a saying that the entitled classes use to defend their selfish and less than good behaviour. Beacause the classes of the not-entitled buy this as somehow having reasonable meaning.

The entitled classes have no reason to change rules that are clearly stacked in their favour. But it sounds way better to say the rules cannot be changed. But it is hard to see why this should be self-evidently true.

I am left with questions...

Are a content analysis of films supposed or expected to be Truth - with a capital T? Can they be? We are in the realm of fictional narrative as to what concerns the films. Granted, all fiction and narrative must have a connection with Reality - i.e. 'the real world' (however that may be defined) - anything else is impossible. However, fiction is a playground where you can play with the concepts that exists in Reality, in ways which we cannot do in Reality itself [note]. So it is by nature 'detached' from (but coupled to) Reality.

As ChatGPT is an AI language model, is it reasonable to assume that what it can and will produce is always a narrative? Even when asked to make a computer program, are ChatGPT producing 'factual code' or a narrative written as code? Albeit, a narrative that can actually be run through a compiler?

If ChatGPT produces narratives, then the question is not whether analysis of science fiction films are True or False, it is a question of how good the narrative is - i.e. its quality ... I think?

And here only humans can judge the quality of the narrative. It is currently impossible for an AI language model to evaluate a narrative (I contend), as its evaluation will itself be a narrative... (this may be where our humans minds are currently being tricked by our own human invention, the 'AI'...)

So in a way, does a film analysis narrative made by an AI language model about a science fiction film not become science fiction in itself? It is the knowledge about the premise of the analysis narrative that becomes important. But then the premise is important everywhere we meet narratives? It this obvious or non-obvious?

My head is slightly spinning here... as it seems to me that the film analysis is in itself a narrative and is visually presented in a format that shows and indicates a narrative...?

[note] This 'playing' with reality may actually feed back into Reality, and often does. Here I do not relate to entire branches of narrative which is intentionally made to make feedback to reality e.g. so called 'news' (at least modern news and journalism) and political influence/propaganda.

The knight shape does seem off. But it avoids the piece being a sun symbol / fascist tribute piece :-)

Who do you mean by "... those countries ..."? If we are talking state level, will a paywall really make any difference? Could it be that enemy spies already have their finger on the pulse for interesting research, unless it is very secret? And indeed the most secret stuff is often the primary target... Or is the target only scientists and students?

Animals do not become thinking beings, by human standards, just because we wish it to be so. I have had cats for most of my life. They are wonderful conscious and sentient beings. But they have limitations. As far as I can tell, they are a type of biological machine. They have a brain that is essentially some very advanced hardware. On that hardware is running very advanced software, that provides the cat with e.g. sensory functions, memory, processing and body control. Which means it can sense, see, feel, react and decide based on stimuli, sensory inputs, memory, programmed reactions, inherent drives, instincts etc. Does that make the cat an automaton? Maybe so, probably so. But it is an automaton, and a learning-adaptive one at that, so advanced that it is conscious and sentient. I think the cat very much feels and experiences that it is alive, feels and makes decisions.

As we observe the natural world, it seems that various types of animals have different levels of "consciousness" and "sentience". I don't think the caterpillar is very conscious and thinking, it is running a smaller program on less hardware, but I think it may be more living than biology in general gives it credit for. I think we have the same functions as described, and more. Including limitations that we don't think about most of the time. As the cat also does not. This "more" is what separates us from animals. We have the same basic system, but we also have more than this. Which, among many things, gives rise to us contemplating what consciousness and sentience is, both in ourselves and in the animal world. And makes us perceive good and evil and have morals. For the cat good and evil is irrelevant. It does not have morals. It has a nature, which is the program running for that type of animal. The nature of the cat is to kill and eat the mouse. Good and evil is not involved. The wasp lays eggs in the caterpillar. Good and evil is not involved. It is nature and it is their programming. Where we humans may be able to use our consciousnes to change our programming to some extent, the animals cannot change their programming. It evolves indirectly over time and generations.

Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps what this really shows is that a reincarnation system, where you can be reincarnated as an animal or thing that has no mental concept of good or evil, does not make sense. Because such a system cannot bring enlightenment, as your karma situation is basically unknowable - unless you would have an overview of the system and the chain of reincarnations, which does not seem to happen. And therefore whether your situation was a result of good or evil becomes irrelevant. But in a reincarnation system, where we only have reincarnation as humans, with a purpose of progress, the concept of good and evil can make sense (?). Even whether we completely understand the system or not.

"... if the concept of evil and good is literally irrelevant to the workings of the belief system, then that belief system simply doesn't have the concept of evil (or good)." In a real sense yes, but the actors in the system may still be under the belief that good and evil exists. That actually may touch a sore point in some religions, that claims to have explanatory powers and maybe also salvation powers. But at the same time, it seems not to allow learning about and approaching a subject or concept such as good and evil, from a point of incomplete understanding.

I think the whole thing ie. this entire interesting debate, shows that our understanding is incomplete. The concepts or beliefs we have in this area does not hold under analysis and scrutiny. And yet there seems to be something there that ignites curiosity.

All the religious systems that incoporates reincarnation, that I am aware of, does include the concept of evil in some way.

It seems your post contradicts itself? First quote "... that you are reincarnated and move up or down the ladder of greatness ... depending on how you lived, then there is no such thing as "evil"." Second quote: "... balance - each act you do (consider good/evil on a scale from 1-10 with 1 being evil)".

So the system with no evil uses a scale based on good/evil? Also, what are the bad things you can do in a life-action-value system, where there is no evil? Seems to be cruel if your karma gets subtracted because one does a 'less good' but still good thing? And would such a system or the karma subtraction not constitute evil in itself?

Nobody doesn't like molten boron! ;-)

I take your point. The framing of ones thoughts is actually very important. It can be tricky though to get to framing that works, since in my experience it requires that the frames has solid meaning.

This is not meant to belittle your positive and well meaning post. But for people with real depression, giving the advice to just cheer up and look a bit more positively on things is the worst possible thing you can say and give as advice. I know it is often well meaning and comes from a place where people simply does not know what to say or do. And this leads to slight desperation. But it is wrong and leaves people with and in depression in even more blackness. Being a bit more positive has nothing to do with it. Depression is debilitating and has deeper causes. And one thing you experience with depression is that you loose the ability to use internal automatic denial to filter out the bad realities of the world. And basically the world is a horrible place, with some positive things in it. Not the other way around, even though that is what normal people see.

You may have reached a core existential struggle. This is in my experience fundamental to existence: does existence itself make up for the pain and adversity of the world? The spiritual struggle is in many ways to accept that life in this world has pain, struggle and adversity, but that this is a learning experience. But I guess this requires a spiritual look at things. Cause without this, I also think things look pretty bad... but if it is a spiritual quest, then there is light at the far end of the tunnel.

I hope you are right. I have never been in or seen a workplace where management is not playing the 'get the order at (nearly) all costs - let others handle the problems' game. Again, I hope I am wrong. But these type of companies seem to outcompete all others. The only unicorn in a decade in my geographical area, is a company that plays this game very very well in the IT sector. As far as I have seen, they play a variation called 'the customer takes the problems (and the full financial impact). Due to building a good set of core competencies, that the competition mismanaged over years, they can get away with this strategy.

Nice.

How do you break out of the Matrix, when your knowledge of the Matrix and the desire to break out is part of the Matrix and your programming? Hmm.

This may point to a key problem in the hypotheses, theories and conclusions. When you are in Africa, a "think horses" paradigm, may lead you very astray in your thinking.

I also don't know why. But I like the wording. This can be a new meme for programming language afficionado-skeptics: feature [...] is overloaded past its breaking point. Sent to the demi-gods at the meme ™ registrar office.

These are thought experiments. So other sensible viewpoints are only a contribution. I am myself also trying to work out where AI leaves us. Not just in this case, but because we will be hit by AI in the computer science field - hardware, software, everywhere - and potentially many places in general society.

I do not immediately see why strong market actors would not be able to close an attacker down in this way. I buy the argument that tech can be 'out of the bottle'. But this does not necessarily mean that it is feasible to use for market competition. It is often more likely that the tech is absorbed by existing strong market players. But as happens right now, you can influence markets, professions and peoples behaviour by making free (no pay) market tests on a large enough scale. Which is interesting in itself.

I did business studies at university and we had a lot of work on market forces. And the text books were full of examples of market situations where competitors attacked and was succesfully fended off using legal action - both warranted and unwarranted. And by other means. And wipe out by buy out is completely normal. I do not have much data on this, but I would think that a lot of acquihires, are actually done as market defence. With the basic intention to close down competitive tech. Maybe the acquired tech, knowledge and brains is used sometimes, and then probably incorporated into existing tech, but I think this is not always the main purpose of the acquihire. It is probably counter intuitive to think like this for tech people (I am one myself). But business people think in market dynamics (and money) first. The tech can often be a surprisingly long way down in the list of priorities - where we think it should be much higher up.

I have myself worked in companies that did a merger, where the merging entity was spun off by a parent company - in all cases a tech department that was no longer wanted by the parent company - and in the aftermath of the merger, the business entity was in reality obliterated by the new company, much more than it was merged or absorbed. Made a lot of people in the merged entity unhappy and rightfully so.

Perhaps we are in new legal territory, where existing copyright laws and legal theory doesn't cover the issues completely?

I wonder how things will go if (or when) similar AI technology enters the realm of production industries e.g. manufacturing or chemical. One can imagine that data of actual production plants and processes are obtained using drone cameras, pictures, schematics, text books etc. This data is then analyzed and synthesized into improved production flows, using the same method, which basically claims (it seems to me): we did not use any of your actual production knowledge, we just let the AI learn the principles. None of the original IP is in the AI working data. No patents are violated etc.

If this technology is sold to the manufacturing companies - that can choose to opt out or opt in by buying or not bying - there probably isn't a problem. If this technology is used to establish competing manufacturing companies, where the economy can be significanty improved, and thus drive the existing companies out of business, then what?

I think in the latter case, the AI company would be obliterated using lawsuits, without any thought given to the merit or legality of the AI tech. Or at least the AI company would be bought out using an "you can't say no" offer. And thus effectively shut down.

Now I think of it, this seems to boil down to some philosphical issues where these thought experiments are needed and have value in order to work out what the issues really are. Perhaps an issue here is that there isn't much value on artists and works of art in general (with some economically strong exceptions like movies), but there is very strong protection of other industries - industries with vested interests, strong economies and monetary resources to defend against attackers.

First this made me really laugh. Second I had to really think about it. Third I realised that this is actually completely correct.

I know from personal experience how seductive and attractive thoughts of ending your own life can be. Imagining and looking forward to the escape from this horrible world can be so full of joy. The calm, clarity and bliss you experience is only known to those that have been there. But you are clearly looking for help. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted this. You would just have done it. Risks of failure? Anyone can find safe and foolproof methods on the Internet. So this is clearly not what you are looking for. Seek help. Doing this always feel like failure. But you become empowered. You will grow. I did. Need a rope to cling to? Go stoic. Solid navigation methods for life and the world.

Agree. It is my conclusion after a lifelong pursuit of knowledge, that life continues on the so called other side. We mess with the entrance and exit of this world at our own peril. I have myself been very close to death. So I know what it feels like. Do not let the fear of pain choose your path - and even inflict death on yourself or others. As a stoic myself, I can only support listening to Seneca. Life is precious. But do not cling to it. Live life and have passions. But do not get caught up in them.