• 0 Posts
  • 25 Comments
Joined 5 months ago
cake
Cake day: June 8th, 2024

help-circle
  • You keep repeating it because a false dichotomy, that you must choose between a D or R, prevents you from accepting that the lesser evil is, in fact, evil. So, you’re stuck on stupid and not asking questions. This should help:

    The Democrats already, quite predictably, ignored the outcome of their primary to nominate Clinton. They’re not going to do a fucking thing that doesn’t make a corporate donor money. All of Sanders proposals took from corporations to provide for humans. He never stood a chance of being nominated as a Democrat and he damned well knew it. If we give him the benefit of the doubt then his goal was education. If not, he rallied for Democrats to avoid the rise of a Labor Party during a critical time in history.



  • If it’s after they’re elected then it’ll run down the line of succession: VP, Speaker of the House, president pro tempore of the Senate, then the cabinet.

    If it’s before they’re elected, I’m no expert but I believe the Democratic and Republican parties are private organizations that can do whatever the fuck they want, even fail to abide by the results of their own primaries.











  • justaderp@lemmy.worldtoaww@lemmy.worldCow sleeping in someone's lap.
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I know it’s just a joke. But, black and brown bears are very intelligent and quite peaceful creatures. I’ve run into forty or fifty in the wilderness. I’ve never once felt the bear was considering an attack. They’re smart enough to recognize our complex behaviors as a large risk to their safety.

    The story of the vast majority of humans mauled by bears:

    Your dog has a perfect record of defending the pack. Every single time the target either runs or turns out to be friendly. No other pack member defends. Its primary reason to exist is to defend. A bear has a perfect record of fights with anything but another bear.

    One day the bear smells some food, good stuff it can’t find normally. It’s some campers with their dog. The dog smells the bear, full adrenaline drops for its whole reason to exist, and defends the pack. The bear wins in about one second.

    The human defends the dog. The bear fights because that’s what it’s doing right now. Then, it reconsiders and runs away. Finally, the Forest Rangers track down and kill the bear quietly, preserving the tourism the community relies on.

    We’re really shitty to bears, at least here in the US. They’re not even very dangerous relative an wild elk, moose, or even free range livestock. It’s the big and dumb ones you need to watch out for. And marmot. Never disagree with a marmot.





  • I’m not actually asking for good faith answers to these questions. Asking seems the best way to illustrate the concept.

    Does the programmer fully control the extents of human meaning as the computation progresses, or is the value in leveraging ignorance of what the software will choose?

    Shall we replace our judges with an AI?

    Does the software understand the human meaning in what it does?

    The problem with the majority of the AI projects I’ve seen (in rejecting many offers) is that the stakeholders believe they’ve significantly more influence over the human meaning of the results than exists in the quality and nature of the data they’ve access to. A scope of data limits a resultant scope of information, which limits a scope of meaning. Stakeholders want to break the rules with “AI voodoo”. Then, someone comes along and sells the suckers their snake oil.