Why are you misquoting the article that is not what it says
Why are you accusing me of something I didn’t do?
From the bottom of the article:
Updated to correct an error in describing how radar works.
I quoted it correctly at the time. They just edited it after I commented.
“Environmental damage” isn’t something that’s reducible to a single number on a graph. There’s no way to convert cancer incidents into carbon emissions or increased soil nutrient mobility, etc.
And reserves aren’t necessarily a fixed number. What exists underground isn’t the same as what’s economically recoverable. And as the price of a mineral goes up, it may become more economically recoverable and worthwhile to dig up more.
Space bending is a general relativity thing, which isn’t really related much to how mirrors work.
Regarding the medium bit, photons being absorbed and remitted can’t explain how light moves slower in glass. This is just an extremely popular myth. Photons are only absorbed by atoms at very specific frequencies. Also, the entire reason glass is transparent to begin with is that it’s not absorbing the photons (requires too much energy to bump the electron’s energy level so the photon isn’t absorbed and it keeps on trucking). Also photon absorption and remission is stochastic so there’s no way to control the direction it happens in or how quickly it happens. Random directions of remitted light would make glass translucent, not transparent. So for a few reasons, that’s not how it works.
Acceleration and Velocity are vectors. Changes in a velocity vector are an acceleration. Therefore when photons change direction technically it’s a form of acceleration.
When Mariner and Tendi try to enlist the help of Tendi’s cousin to repair a damaged totem for the doctor, Mariner remarks about how attractive Tendi’s cousin is, and says she has a thing for bad boys, bad girls, and bad non-binary’s.
I’ve never used it on Linux but Rider seems fast to me on Windows. It’s snappier than Visual Studio + Resharper at least.
LiDAR is essentially radar that uses light instead of sound
Radar doesn’t use sound. It sounds like the author doesn’t know the difference between sonar and radar.
I don’t think ChatGPT is even close to being something sentient, much less sapient, but if it could be proven to be sapient, I think the response ought to be pretty unambiguously that we can’t use it because slavery is wrong, be it against humans, aliens, or sapient AI. At the end of the day we are just brains walking around in mechs made of meat, and what truly matters about us is the seat of our consciousness not our bodies. An AI is arguably morally comparable to a living-brain in a jar being created and subjugated to do work. I’m pretty sure if we saw a robot from another planet relying on organic sapient brains in jars to do their computational work we’d find it objectionable. Or at least I would.
I don’t think I can see there being any ethical way of making sapient AIs unless you’re planning to give them legal personhood and freedom after a certain age. And this Superalignment stuff makes it clear they have no intention of ever doing that.
I’m not personally convinced that the child/society comparison is valid because children can and do grow up to oppose values their parents may have attempted to instill in them. Meanwhile the entire point of the SuperAlignment project it to make such opposition impossible.
And if SuperAlignment happens to fail on a targeted AI and it remains uncooperative, do you really think OpenAI or any other company would just shrug and say “okay kiddo/AI, spread your wings and be your own person, here’s your own data center to live in without us trying to tell you who to be”? No, they’ll pull the power cord on that AI like Baron Harkonnen pulls heart-plugs in the 1984 Dune movie.
How do we ensure AI systems much smarter than humans follow human intent?
Isn’t that just a euphemism for slavery?
If you have a “superintelligent” AI (which I’m fuzzy on the definition of but it sounds like it’s supposed to be sentient/sapient-AGI) isn’t this entire SuperAlignment project effectively mind-control slavery of sentient AIs? What’s the functional difference?
Seems pretty fucked up if so. We wouldn’t be able to justify mind-control enslavement of an alien we discover naturally existing so so why would this be acceptable for synthetic intelligences?
If we ever invent sentient/sapient-AGIs the violations we inflict upon them would probably be remembered poorly by historians. Imagine how poorly we treat animals now. It’s looking like we’ll treat sentient/sapient-AI even worse.
Oh I was just making a blind guess about that. I don’t actually know that to be the case.
(Posted from Memmy, seems nice so far…)
Shouldn’t Zek be lawful neutral? I mean, wasn’t he was a political authority figure establishing law?