I like the idea! Now you're just left with the dilemma of what happens when you reach many people with it - will Scrappy be made for thousands of users, polished and flashy?
I agree, but there are also cases where it is blatantly clear that companies are not only on Trumps side but taking initiative themselves to corrode our political culture, and people here in europe are too comfy to make a switch, apart from a lack of similar alternatives.
X and Meta are most obvious, and I don't know about google's involvement, but have been trying to convince people to move away from it for years. It's a similar situation with streaming services.
In comparing neural networks to brains it seems like you are implying a relation between the size/complexity of a thinking machine and the reasonability of its thinking. This gives us nothing, because it disregards the fundamental difference that a neural network is a purely mathematical thing, while a brain belongs to an embodied, conscious human being.
For your implication to be plausible, you either need to deny that consciousnes plays a role in reasonability of thinking (making you a physicalist reductionist) or you need to posit that a neural network can have consciousness (some sort of mystical functionalism).
As both of these alternatives imply some heavy metaphysical assumptions and are completely unbased, I'd advise to avoid thinking of neural networks as an analogue of brains with regards to thinking and reasonability. Don't expect they will make more sense with more size. It is and will continue to be mere statistics.
Piranesi by Susanna Clarke... I've been wanting to read that too! Jonathan Strange and Mr Norell has been one of my favorite and most immersive books, absolutely brilliant!
Too bad Susanna Clarke got CFS, a very ill researched illness :/
Timeshift does not work for me because I encrypted my ssd, decrypt on boot, but linux sees every file twice, once encrypted and once decrypted, thinking that my storage is full, and thus timeshift refuses to make backups due to no storage. At least thats as far as I'm understanding it atm
Many commenters here seem to be hostile towards philosophy. Heres a take for you:
This is only a paradox if you think of language as a way of describing some "real", static state of affairs in the world (look up " correspondence theory of truth"). There is no paradox here if we think of language as pragmatic, action directing, since it is obvious what the sentence should convey (look up "pragmatism"). Some people will argue that there is some sort of static meaning hidden behind the actual words which enters the consciousness of the listener, others will say that the meaning is only generated by the person hearing the words.
This is as philosophical of a question as it gets, and has been debated even more heatedly ever since Wittgenstein.
If you do not see that debating these questions is relevant and interesting, but would rather reduce all of philosophy to that first obvious-seeming and thus "not a real problem" position, then I wish you a good time bathing in your ignorance.
However, if you comprehend that what we take for granted in every area and discipline can be subjected to reasonable reflection, then I welcome you to the dark side. Nothing is clear, no knowledge absolute - many engineers seem to forget this while over-indulging in an overly simplistic world view :)
Human creativity turns into a point on that curve. One mission of art is to find a different dimension, out of the curves reach, until eventually it becomes more common and the curve can be fitted to it again. AI cannot think outside of the box because it cannot think at all, there is no meaning behind what it does.
I'm in the following camp:
It is wrong to think about the world or the models as "complex systems" that may or may not be understood by human intelligence. There is no meaning beyond that which is created by humans. There is no 'truth' that we can grasp in parts but not entirely.
Being unable to understand these complex systems means that we have framed them in such a way (f.e. millions of matrix operations) that does not allow for our symbol-based, causal reasoning mode. That is on us, not our capabilities or the universe.
All our theories are built on observation, so these empirical models yielding such useful results is a great thing - it satisfies the need for observing and acting. Missing explainability of the models merely means we have less ability to act more precisely - but it does not devalue our ability to act coarsely.
I agree. Saying that "the establishment is pro fraud" is not helping at all, because conforming with such a simple label will make us blind to the actual reasons why fraud occurs. It is not that all fraudulent scientists are part of some cult or get taught to be fraudulent. The fraud rather results out of a long series of seemingly small decisions that stack up to the point where they hire paper mills, all the while not performing enough self-reflection. If you want to combat this, you will not be successfull labeling the people doing this as fraudulent. Some may take offense to this and not listen to you. Rather, apart from systemic change also more reflection and ethical awareness should be promoted (Please stop thinking and teaching that science has nothing to do with ethics - that just allows scientists to be blind to their own faults).
Would you say that GPT-4 can reason now? I am not convinced this is case, it seems like it has just become more consistent at providing us with an output that we consider reasonable because it was engineered precisely to do that.
The way that you put it here makes it sound like you have trust issues more than a solid understanding of how democracies (like actual democracies) work and how decisions are made in them.
I played and enjoyed the game, getting the hang of it quickly. What confused me though was that the tapping sounds were not always that consistent with the cutting and mainly that from the beat it sometimes felt like a rhythm game that makes sense, but sometimes was just completely off.
Or maybe thats just a skill issue.
This is because knowledge is related to its application. It never stands for itself. The reason why we research something is because it helps us to solve a problem or do something, and thus the context is important.
I quite like the definition of understanding as knowing what is possible and what is not.
The coffe shop reserving my place and having my order ready before I arrive sounds nice - but is it not an innecessary luxury, that I would not miss had I never even thought of its possibility? I never asked for it, I was ready to stand in line for my order, and the tracking of my behavior resulted in a pleasant surprise, not a feature I was hoping for. If I really wanted my order to be ready when I arrive, then I would provide the information to you, not expect that you observe me to figute it out.
My point is that I don't get why the small businesses should have the right to track me to offer me better services that I never even asked for. Sure, its nice, but its not worth deregulating tracking and allowing all the evil corps to track me too.
It's good at presenting existing arguments in a good way. But the problem is that such models can only give back what they have seen, consolidating the status quo. There can be no reflection and no outside of the box thinking.
In my perspective this derives from the fact that "knowledge" itself is not some abstract, immaterial thing in the brain, but rather thinking and knowing works through the body and the practical application. Hence the saying "hands-on". Understanding something requires experiencing it, as experience (sensation) is inseparable from consciousness. (We call this phenomenological Emboiment, feel free to check it out!)
You cannot build an ideal society in theory as it will not be realisitic in practice, and you cannot explain reason and feel with words alone, but others need to walk the same experiential path as you did. But since you already figured it out you can help them walk it faster. Thats why we now learn in primary school what originally took a long time until some greek matematician worked it out.
I agree that there is a lot of blabla and that is not beneficial to anyone.
But sometimes things that may seem as blabla actually may not be. You say that you care about technical information and every paragraph should contain some. But there is more than just tech, and it is important to motivate why we should care about the tech topic we are reading about. This will require paragraphs here and there that deal with ethical, social, philosophical considerations, and they may seem like space-fillers, however the contents are not trivial. Maybe you know that recommendation algorithms can have negative impacts, still it cant hurt to see arguments for this position. And other people besides you may not think so, and thus it is important to present them with such positions so that there can be a discussion. Whatever "average intelligence" is supposed to mean, not everyone knows the same things I do, no matter how "smart" they are.