Could pain help test AI for sentience?
This question has far too many hypotheticals to even make sense as a question.
You might think that question has far too many hypotheticals to even make sense as a question.
Wow! That's exactly what I was thinking!
But there’s AI hype to propagate.
Ah, alas then
and it looks like a shared account, maybe with his kids or something,
The idea that his kids would like to spend time with him in any capacity, much less sharing an account with a 50 yo dude who has already proven can't build a character for shit is laughable at best
At least PoE builds are a real thing that exists
Cadillacs and Dinosaurs
Hard to believe a game with that title could suck lol
Every serious political candidate should prove they can build an 100 SPM (at least!) base in Factorio and keep it running for some time before I even consider putting them in office, that's just basic management skills
I never thought I'd say this but... don't slander category theory like that, compared to LLMs it's downright useful
This is true, but also importantly this only works if you carefully redefine productivity to mean something else than a craftsman would consider productivity. You need a simple metric that's easily cheated.
For example, a software engineer who cares about what he does would define productivity fuzzily, as general growth of functionality for the consumer of the application, with the implied "actual working well-crafted functionality". If you're an idiot who wants to hack productivity, you define it as something straightforward and stupid, e.g. lines of code added. Suddenly you can claim that an "AI software engineer" is more productive than a human.
This exists even in something seemingly all about quality, such as research. One of the many problems with the current state of academia is the obsession with "number of papers published" to the disregard of rigor, and so you'll get people who are more interested in hacking the metric than actual research. Hence the seemingly annual scandal where someone is caught completely fabricating data, or the even more frequent sham experiments in psychology that never replicate. The replication crisis falls into the same category -- it's good science to replicate, but journals are not interested so it doesn't grow the sacred metric by which every academician is judged.
Unfortunately we're in an age of hacked productivity. The productivity metric for our markets is line going up, which has long been disconnected from actual productivity, as in providing a product to customers that willingly buy it. It's hard to keep focus on actual productivity when seemingly everyone around you, and especially everyone hierarchichally above you, cares only about the hacked metrics. Art is one of the few mainstays where you alone can be the judge of your own productivity and whether you're happy with your output, since at the core the only metric that matters in art is "does it feel right to me". This must be untenable to promptfondlers because they never experienced actual artistic fulfillment, so instead they need a hacked metric to feel good about improving -- how many images can we churn? how long of a video can Sora output before killing itself? how many seconds of "music" can our box generate?
xD oh what a delight, the one thing missing from the complete gobshite of a "database" that Mongo is was an AI to mangle your queries
Cargo cult business meeting
Since their output is, in the technical sense of the term, bullshit [1],
== References
[1] Frankfurt H. On Bullshit. Raritan Quarterly Review 1986; 6:81-100.
Let's start collecting a bibliography
I love the leaves and gold meme and I use it constantly even though quite literally no one ever understands it, so, thank you, now I know there's two of us.
I said "basic management skills", like you might get to run a school board or something.
You're aiming for Secretary of Transportation? Your rail network better be fucking immaculate