swlabr

joined 2 years ago
[–] swlabr@awful.systems 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

No, it's not reasonable. This is what you're saying:

  1. Matter can have consciousness (see: humans).
  2. Computers are made of matter.
  • Therefore, it's conceivable that a computer can have consciousness.

This is logically valid but meaningless. There's nothing to be done with this. There's no reason to be had here.

Then we have the banal take of "if we had a magic box with infinite capabilities, it could do X!", where, in this case, X happens to be "have consciousness". Ok! Great. You have fun playing in the sandpit, thinking about your magic box. I'm gonna smoke cigarettes and play slot machines for an hour.

It's only when we start bringing the discussion down to simulations on a Turing machine that this stuff gets interesting. But that's not what y'all are trying to talk about, because you haven't read the goddamn essay.

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 10 points 1 month ago

Man. Using Sonnet 18 here is just utterly brilliant. There’s a lot that could be said but my angle is: you can’t directly compare someone to a summer’s day; it has to be done through poetry and metaphor. Shit, cat. Shaka when the walls fell.

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 7 points 1 month ago

ah, I see. Ok. Well, based on all that, you haven’t actually engaged with anything from the post, nor have you said anything non-trivial. Was hoping that you’d at least say something wrong instead.

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 8 points 1 month ago (4 children)

How do you define consciousness?

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 10 points 1 month ago
[–] swlabr@awful.systems 7 points 1 month ago

He’s saying the loud part out quiet

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 12 points 1 month ago

What’s kinda fun is that Yud prefaces this with basically “i have not personally read up on the zizian texts”, and then follows it up with this stuff. Now, did he make this stuff up himself in a weird ego play, or did he hear it from someone else and decided to hold onto it, also as an ego play?

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

in the shipped club. straight up 'glomarizing it'. and by 'it', haha, well. let's justr say. My peanits.

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Saying that a 30-year-old cannot have sex with a 17-year-old (in CA) or a 16-year-old (in NY) is not a crazy law; it is the sort of "I would like to live in a civilization" law that I prefer to obey.

age of consent quoting aside, why would you make it sound like you only follow this law because you want to live in a society

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 8 points 1 month ago

He knows that his flunkies will happily parrot his new toy words with no hesitation. To that I say, to all of Yud’s ideas and writing, I bartleby-the-scrivenerize them.

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 3 points 1 month ago

the implication here is that you think that all reasonable response generators are indistinguishable, e.g. you think your sister is a clanker.

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 6 points 1 month ago

great job, but there is still so much more to be done

view more: ‹ prev next ›