tines

Source bias is a real logical fallacy

This is irrelevant because we’re not using the source to judge the strength of an argument. Logical fallacies have only to do with the strength of a logical argument, nothing else.

To illustrate this, if I sell you some energy and you ask whether the energy comes from burning children or from a solar farm, I can’t say that it’s a logical fallacy for you to care because all energy powers your home just the same. You don’t owe any consideration to the content (energy) at all, because energy is not an argument that is subject to the source fallacy, to treat it as such is a fundamental category error.

Even to take your tack and say “We should consider the energy generated from burning children apart from its source, because we don’t want to fall prey to the source fallacy. However, the societal effects should also be taken into consideration…” shouldn’t be countenanced.

Can't the same thing be said about literature and music?

And if you can’t see the difference between those things, you’ll probably never know.

no brainer

An excellent epithet for people who depend on AI!

Bad counterexample, c.f. the current obesity epidemic and the popularity of GLP-1s.

I get what you're saying, it's just that I think what you're saying is not overlooked, it's simply insignificant to the debate about the effect of these tools on society. Your argument comes off to me like someone saying "everyone is complaining about how these cigarettes cause cancer, but you can just as easily use lit cigarettes to warm your hands on a cold day. This is what everyone's missing in this debate."

I don't think we can change each others' minds with talk, we'll just have to see how it plays out in the coming decades.

Videos aren’t books, and ereaders aren’t TVs.

The book/written word is also a technology that has preferences on how it’s used and transformations that it imposes on its users, and they’re much different than those of TV or computers.

I know you know this, but for those reading, these detectors are bullshit.

If being a Luddite means I'm the only one who cares to understand anything, I'll accept the label gladly.

You: I think it’s good to understand some things.

This guy: If you don’t understand everything then you might as well not understand anything!

Guys like this are a corporation’s wet dream. Total intellectual dependence.

And you can use a TV to read books, but nobody does.

Every technology has ways it can be used, and ways it wants to be used. This one wants to be used in a way that produces outcomes we won't like.

I think there's a fallacy where someone points out one instance of a larger trend which will, when taken to its logical progression, lead to an undesired effect; and then someone attempts to rebut the claim by pointing out that the trend has existed before and the undesired effect hasn't happened yet, so any concern is nugatory. I'd call it the grippery slope fallacy, complement to the slippery one: we haven't fallen down the slope yet, so we can't fall down it. What if an individual instance of ignorance is acceptable because people still need to have understanding in other areas, but if all understanding everywhere is eliminated then we all suffer?

People use the word "determinism" when they really mean something akin to "linearity", i.e. the predictability of a change in input on a change in output. Compilers for example are both deterministic and "more linear" in the sense that I can tell what the output will look like given a change in input (yes yes optimizations violate this to a small degree). LLMs can be made totally deterministic, but a seemingly insignificant change in input can create a drastic change in output, which is the characterstic we don't want.

So neutrinos are changing mass and velocity constantly?

Comments are saying the vulns in that thread aren’t very impressive.

Sure, I don't have a problem with unions being restricted from political donations either.

Just like corporations can be regulated for monopoly (which by the logic that "corporations, as mere groups of people, have all the same rights as people" should be unregulatable because individuals have the right to assemble), we can regulate them for other things, without contradiction.

The flaw in this reasoning is that corporations are not merely associations of people; they are a special kind of association of people, which can be regulated specially. Hence, I think, why some have stripped away this motivated language and reduced it to the more honest and obviously absurd "corporations are people too."

I thought that the "corporations are people" meme was the actual rationale for why corpos "should" be allowed to spend money on elections: spending money for political purposes is free speech, and people have the right to free speech, and corpos are people, so corpos have the right to spend money for political purposes.

This is making it sound way more complicated than it is. Sibling comment is much better. Thing changes over time -> thing experiences time -> it's not going the speed of light -> it has mass.

Americans are speaking less and less to one another. The number of spoken words uttered by the average person fell by 28% between 2005 and 2019.

Is it just me or does anyone else turn skeptical when seeing these precise numbers given to something that seems essentially impossible to measure with this accuracy?

Where do you go if you’re looking to leave the US with family and you only speak English?

I think the number to Iran grew since the $300b number.

I think it makes me a better programmer because I can bootstrap the knowledge needed for a new project much faster

faster != better

A lesson from The Incredibles which we didn’t collectively learn.

It seems human beings spend a significant portion of their lives trying to figure out how to live as little as possible.

Sure, but if you take that view, everything above assembly is a QOL improvement and we really don't need anything. That definition is pretty useless though.

You clearly haven’t observed anyone actually using AI.

You say that the optimal state of society is for everyone to apply programming and logic etc. but the obvious final result of these developments is that no one will.

Not really, the `any` type doesn't let you perform any operation on it with runtime dispatch like dynamic typing does. Moving logic into json isn't a language feature.

Funny how all these dynamically typed languages are gradually becoming typed, but none of the statically typed languages are gradually becoming untyped.

Ah, then they’re implementing needless features! What’s worse! lol

Ah, I guess to err isn't human after all :)