22:00 bedtime / 06:00 wake-up time daily is what you do in the army in my country. No smartphone too. This seems excessive for a normal 15 year old.
nimpnin
joined 2 years ago
cars, computers, phones, electricity
Interesting that you bring up these examples. Giving up some of these is easier than others, yet there was once a world where none of these was necessary.
I think it’s indeed not a good argument that we used to live in a world without these. The question is more, how much do we lose if we want to give up, say, plastic packaging. Can we lose a little convenience and gain _a lot _of sustainability?
If you pick 4 random words, the attacker would still need to brute force through (hundreds of?) billions of word combinations. That’s the point.
but iirc the bottom half has been sort-of half debunked
Any source for this? It's literally just random words. Just pick from a large enough list and you're good.
The new BMI, which is more accurate for very tall and very short people, gives you 28 instead of 30.6. Which is overweight and not obese. https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi_calc.html
Modern thought not only relies on thought built upon other people, it relies on trusting textbooks, data aggregators like weather apps, google search results, bus route apps, wikipedia, forum posts, etc. etc.
I don’t think it’s ungenerous at all to question whether are LLMs really any different in this regard. You take in information from an imperfect automated source, just as we’ve done for a really long time, depending on the definition.
The no thought is truly independent is also a bit of a strawman. The point was, the more complex technology you have, the more the same ideas spread and thought is harmonized (which is good in some ways, standardization makes things easier).
Well, I do consider this post, as a rephrasing of
thinking through a chain of logic instead of accepting and regurgitating the conclusions of others without any of one’s own reasoning
not made in good faith. You don't engage with the point I'm making at all. Instead, you pivot from understanding the logic to making sure the sources are trustworthy. Which is a fair standard for critical thought or whatever, but definitely not what the original contention of the first commenter was. Which was heavily upvoted (=a popular opinition?), and which originally I replied to.
Also, hearing "How so? What’s your alternative assertion" after ten comments worth of people going out their way to misunderstand my point, presumably because they dislike AI, is not motivating.
Well I first replied to that first comment. Then people started making completely different claims and the point got lost in the sauce.
Edit: why should I take the time to formulate my thoughts well if you have demonstrated that you don’t give even the slightest hint of good faith to understand what I’m saying?
think for themselves and create for themselves without leaning on a glorified Markov chain
If you think your comment and this are the same thing, then I don't know what to say.
This has very little to do with the criticism given by the first commenter. And you can use AI and do this, they are not in any way exclusive.
Yeah but that’s not what we are expecting people to do.
In our extremely complicated world, most thinking relies on trusting sources. You can’t independently study and derive most things.
Otherwise everybody should do their own research about vaccines. But the reasonable thing is to trust a lot of other, more knowledgeable people.
What interests you and what do you value? There are no universal answers to a question like this.