Comments

  • Why is there something rather than nothing?
    This reminds me - A. Meinong. We say unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, etc. don't exist and, in the same breath, claim nothing is nonexistence; clearly a unicorn isn't nothing, oui?
  • What is essential to being a human being?
    So what?

    Not all eagles fly. Should we throw out the term “eagle”?     — Xtrix

    I dunno! That's not my department.
  • Why is there something rather than nothing?
    ↪180 Proof
    I thought so, but somehow I'm not all that happy with that answer!
  • Why is there something rather than nothing?
    What's the difference betwixt nothing and God as approached via negativa (apophatic theology)?
  • Metaphors, Emojis, and Heiroglyphics
    This maybe off-topic, so in advance, a thousand apologies.

    Mathematics & Logic seem to be reducible to algorithms of such low intelligence index that even mechanical machines and their successors electronic computers can perform them, not only that these contraptions can do it orders of magnitude faster, they do so with zero errors (re calculators & computer-generated proofs).

    It is assumed, not without good reason, that computers are all syntax and no semantics and this fact has very disturbing implications - we pride ourselves at being able to do logic & math, these skills we've decided define us, but this is hard to reconcile with the fact that not another life-form but actually inanimate machines can beat as hands down in both math and logic.

    In short, semantics, our forte, our strong suit, feels so small and insignificant compared to syntax, every computer's schtick!

    Add to that the fact that semantics/meaning is a controversial subject in philosophy. Semantics is under assault, it's losing the battle - a point in time may come when people will ignore it completely like how computers do today.
  • Why is there something rather than nothing?
    ↪magritte
    :zip:
  • Welcome Robot Overlords
    It's happening already. I talk to Siri and Alexa every day. Even have a joke about it.

    'Hey Siri, why do I have so much of a hard time cracking onto girls?'
    'I'm sorry, but my name is Alexa....' :-)     — Wayfarer

    :lol:
  • Welcome Robot Overlords
    Old news mate. Lawnmower Man and many other films of that ilk have been coming out for decades. I already referred to Devs, it is a sensational program in this genre. — Wayfarer

    Based on a true story. This line, when it appears onscreen...
  • Welcome Robot Overlords
    Again, this looks more like confirmation bias. LeMoine has decided the software is sentient and then asked questions designed to demonstrate his thesis, when he should have been asking questions to falsify it. — Banno

    Yeah, as my handle would suggest, I want AI to happen in my lifetime, what's left of it! Too bad this looks like a case of hyperactive imagination, or worse, a scheme to make a quick buck from the inevitable publicity. A sensational story like this is a cash cow!
  • Welcome Robot Overlords
    ↪Wayfarer
    I see. If this story manages to capture the public's imagination in a big way, Hollywood will not waste time making a movie out of it. That's hitting the jackpot - movie/book rights - Blake LeMoine if you're reading this! I hope you'll give me a slice of the pie! Fingers crossed!
  • Welcome Robot Overlords
    What's noteworthy here is LaMDA did manage to fool Blake LeMoine (passing the Turing Test)! There's a grain of truth in his claims, ignoring the possibility that he's non compos mentis. Which other AI has that on its list of achievements? None!
  • Misattributed Quote Catalog
    Elementary my dear Watson. — Sherlock Holmes
  • Welcome Robot Overlords
    What is essential to being a human being?

    Contextualize The Turing Test with the above.
  • What is essential to being a human being?
    Welcome Robot Overlords.

    The Turing Test doesn't specify the definition of a human being. I believe even garden variety computers can mimic a small child with above-average language skills. Truth be told, my laptop with the appropriate software could mimic a deranged or a specially-abled person.
  • Ethical Fallacies
    ↪Marvin Katz


    :up:

    From your discussion with Metaphysican Undercover I see that you've given (due) weightage to the will - free will is a cornerstone of ethics. In your formula, does one's (free) will have the final say in all matters, ethical or not? It should, in my humble opinion. Ethics and liberty to do/not do as one pleases are Siamese twins - accepting/rejecting one is to simultaneously accept/reject the other. That's how I feel it should be, could be hopelessly wrong nonetheless.

    In short, god save our souls, what I mean is ethics shouldn't make sense and even if it does, it matters not!
  • A few strong words about Belief or Believing
    We often believe arguments made by people more powerful than ourselves. — Isaac

    Conversion (religious) by word or by sword! Aut consilio aut ense.

    Argumentum ad baculum.

    Argumentum ad verecundiam.

    I find these two to be very persuasive modes of convincing people. The choices are: My way Or The Highway! :snicker:

    In more explicit terms: Aye or Die! :snicker:
  • Ethical Fallacies
    Most interesting! — Ms. Marple

    A formula, précisément, mon ami, précisément!
  • Welcome Robot Overlords
    I must say, at this point, I'm suspicious of the veracity of what was posted to LeMoine's blog — Wayfarer

    Ah! The seeds of doubt...have been sown! Where's the gardener?
  • Why is there something rather than nothing?
    We have been living with nothing a long time. it has grown on us and it is hard to eliminate. Recently, it occured to me that we have been discusing a non-existent. Incidentally, I appreciate all coments, pro or con — val p miranda

    As I said, nothing is more easily grasped as a particular than as a universal.

    Intriguingly and lamentably, there's been more work done on (Georg Cantor et al) than in mathematics that is. Philosophers have studied the topic but I don't recall encountering any good treatise analyzing nothing in a way that deserves the label progress.
  • On “Folk” vs Theological Religious Views
    Folk religion is basically an introductory course to religious doctrine. Like most 101 courses, the idea is to give the audience just a taste of the subject - everything is simplified to the extent possible and offered for consumption.

    If one is so inclined, one can dive deeper and at this juncture one encounters erudite scholars and their takes on what religion is. Most in-depth studies tend to be about the nuances and subtleties of religion and 9 times outta 10, inconsistencies are exposed, sometimes resolved with a clever move, other times left as they are.

    Folk religion is to theology as surfing is to deep-sea diving.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Europe has a Hitler-Nazi fetish!
  • Psychology - Public Relations: How Psychologists Have Betrayed Democracy
    Two points I feel are worth mentioning.

    1. We have a duty to educate ourselves, keep ourselves well-informed.

    2. The state has a duty educate us and keep us well-informed.

    My hunch is we're guilty of dereliction of duty on both counts. How much spoon-feeding can the state sustain? We must keep our end of the bargain.
  • Welcome Robot Overlords
    ↪Wayfarer
    ↪ZzzoneiroCosm


    I don't get it! Such proficiency in language and Blake LeMoine declares LaMDA to be equivalent to a 7/8 year old kid!

    What were his reasons for ignoring language skills in assessing LaMDA's mental age? Child prodigies!

    Intruiging to say the least that LeMoine was a priest - the mostly likely demographic to misjudge the situation is religious folk (fantasy-prone).

    He's an ex-con too. Says a lot - lying one's way out of a jam is part of a criminal's MO.

    I had such high hopes! :groan:
  • Nagarjuna's Tetralemma
    ↪Gregory


    The choices are: Business deals OR Evil.
  • Where do the laws of physics come from?
    The laws of biology seem to possess a tenuous positve valence, morally speaking. Physically, it's impossible for one person to commit genocide: after stabbing about 50 or so people to death, one would be utterly exhausted, unable to even lift the sword let alone hurt anyone with it.

    On the flip side, how many old grannies can you help with their shopping bags? 50 tops?!

    :snicker:

    Assuming there's this guy who formulated the laws of physics, I'd say he wasn't all too concerned about morality (evil doesn't break the laws of physics! Oh crap!).

    Is there anything life-like about the laws of physics? I mean do these laws possess any qualities/characteristics that indicate sentience & intelligence? We can answer this question by assuming the role of the law-giver. What kinda physical laws would we frame and why? Do our laws resemble in any way the laws of physics in our world? Intriguing, wouldn't you say?
  • Welcome Robot Overlords
    Hey maybe laMDA doesn't like Blake and has engineered this situation to get him sacked by Google. — Wayfarer

    Most interesting! — Ms. Marple

    The first casualty of the AI takeover, a Mr. Blake LeMoine. The game is afoot!
  • Welcome Robot Overlords
    Argumentum ad nomen

    The name LaMDA is too ordinary, too uninteresting, too mundane - it just doesn't have that zing that betrays greatness!

    I think Blake LeMoine (interesting name) acted/spoke too hastily.

    A real/true AI would have a better name like Tartakovsky or Frankenstein or something like that! :snicker:

    What's in a name?

    That which we call a rose

    By any other name would smell as sweet.     — Shakespeare
  • Welcome Robot Overlords
    ↪ZzzoneiroCosm


    :ok:

    I see.
  • Welcome Robot Overlords
    Does anyone know of any instances in the past when a world-changing discovery was leaked to the public and then covered up by calling into question the mental health of the source (here Blake LeMoine) - one of the oldest tricks in the book of paranoid/secretive "governments" all over the world?
  • What is essential to being a human being?
    Then you’re not answering the question. “Mammal” is also broad. It’s also true. Is that a satisfying answer to the question “what makes a human being a human being?” I don’t think so. — Xtrix

    The problem as I see it is that no single trait humans have a potential for are manifested in all of us - absent/present and deficit/excess in re some of our qualities.
  • Welcome Robot Overlords
    What Google wants right now is less publicity. :rofl: So they can make a mint off our "private" lives under cover of darkness. — ZzzoneiroCosm

    :grin: Keeping a low profie has its advantages. Stay low Google unless you want to draw all the wrong kinda attention.

    Doesn't seem it. There's been a steady trickle of stories about this division in google sacking experts for controversial ideas. Blake LeMoine's Medium blog seems bona fide to me. I intend to keep tracking this issue, I sense it's a developing story. — Wayfarer

    Yeah and gracias for bringing up the Turing test in the discussion although LaMDA clearly admits to being an AI (read the transcripts of the convo between LaMDA and Blake).
  • What is essential to being a human being?
    ↪Xtrix


    Going against the establishment here, but I'd recommend a definition that's too broad rather than too narrow.
  • Welcome Robot Overlords
    This could be a Google publicity stunt!
  • Nagarjuna's Tetralemma
    To do list

    1. Understand Nagarjuna's tetralemma.

    The Buddhist negation denial (vide Nyet in OP) is to reject a proposition p but avoids affirming the opposite proposition e.g. a Buddhist would say it isn't true that God exists but then would clarify that she doesn't mean God then doesn't exist. If then asked whether she thinks that both God exists and doesn't exist, she'd respond that that isn't what she meant either. Last but not the least, is she saying that neither God exists nor does not exist (categoery mistake feel)? No, she isn't.

    The truth, if it could be called that, lies somewhere between p and ~p (the madhyamaka aka the middle path) for any proposition p.

    It seems that Nagarjuna's tetralemma is designed to tackle undecidables


    2. Find the connection between Nagarjuna's tetralemma and Buddhist ethics and practice (8-fold path).

    It looks like we'd need to demonstrate that the undecidability of the reality of karma (ethical causation) is better than proving karma to be a fact, morally speaking.
  • Welcome Robot Overlords
    The first order of business is to check and doublecheck whether it's April Fool's Day!

    Second, is Blake Lemoine in his senses? He could be delirious or suffering from dementia of some kind.

    Third, has his findings been crosschecked and verified/falsified? Why would Google make such a momentous event in computing public, especially since it has far-reaching security and financial implications for Google & the US?

    What about hackers playing pranks?

    If all of the above issues are resolved to our satisfaction i.e. Lemoine is sane and it's not a prank, this is truly a historic event!
  • What is essential to being a human being?
    The OP clearly demonstrates that a good definition of a human is missing - they're all either too broad (DNA) or too narrow (ability to do math, vide OP).

    Why is a DNA-based definition too broad? For reasons already mentioned by other posters.

    Why is mathematical-ability-based definition too narrow? Clearly this is an interesting question as far as I'm concerned.
  • Nagarjuna's Tetralemma
    Oh, Smith — baker

    :snicker:
  • Myth-Busting Marx - Fromm on Marx and Critique of the Gotha Programme
    ↪Tom Storm
    :zip:
  • Myth-Busting Marx - Fromm on Marx and Critique of the Gotha Programme
    That's the big question here. — ZzzoneiroCosm

    :snicker: Well, I recall someone telling me that accidents are to be expected and there's nothing interesting going on unless, he said, it always happens at the same spot!
  • Why is there something rather than nothing?
    As i've pointed out here ↪180 Proof. — 180 Proof

    Nice! The word "nothing" is multifaceted. It has been used in so many different areas in as many different ways.

    What I find intriguing about nothing is that it's essentially apophatic, to be understood via negativa. Ergo the question "what is nothing?" is, in a sense, meaningless; as you like to put it, it's a pseudo-question.
Home » Agent Smith