Sure, nothing is more masculine than having a preference for men.
Sure, nothing is more masculine than having a preference for men.
As they say, horniness is the stepmother of invention.
Fair point, but I would argue that if you had that kind of experience on twitter, you’re weren’t really the target demographic.
Desperate and out of touch, yes, but deliberately fucking up a platform and ruining his “Iron Man” persona? He’s too stupid and too invested in what people think of him.
There’s a version of this conspiracy I could buy though: the Saudis gave him money and stroked his ego knowing that there was no way he wouldn’t fuck the whole thing up. Everyone except him knew how this was going to end. That conspiracy I could get behind.
I don’t buy this conspiracy theory at all, 1) twitter is disinformation heaven, which is very useful to authoritarian regimes and 2) Musky would never intentionally do anything to harm his public image, he’s a textbook narcissist after all.
“I hate that site, I hope someone Musks it up soon”
You mean embedding posts or something else? https://fedi.tips/how-to-embed-mastodon-posts-on-a-website/
Well, perhaps that process would be more difficult and resource-intensive in this hypothetical scenario, so it would be much easier and less hassle to just keep the bodies alive?
It was more in response to your comments. I don’t think anyone has a problem with useful FOSS alternatives per se.
So, lick the boot instead of resisting you say?
Edit: actually, read zerakith’s comment instead.
I’m starting to feel like a shill because I say this so often, but Kagi is the only one I’ve found that actually does the job anymore. To me a search engine that works is worth the small cost each month, but unfortunately I don’t see paying for search becoming mainstream anytime soon.
As far as I understand, the sole reason is “everyone else is using it”. Which also seems to be the justification for using Messenger, WhatsApp, X, Instagram et al despite knowing better. It’s hard to be outside of the walled garden if everybody else is inside.
when WE hallucinate, it’s because our internal predictive models are flying off the rails filling in the blanks based on assumptions rather than referencing concrete sensory information and generating results that conflict with reality.
Is it really? You make it sound like this is a proven fact.
Yes, the background pattern and colours should be chosen to actively interfere with reading any text on the page. For example, it’s great if there’s large patches of black in the background and the text is also black.
Flashing is also key. A lot of text should be flashing and there should be unreadable ticker tape text at random places.
deleted by creator
When corporations dabble in philosophy, you know they’re trying to muddy the waters and skirt an ethical issue. It’s not a genuine inquiry going on here; it’s a “whatever argument serves the bottom line” situation.
I guess there’s no such thing as intellectual property either, when you really think about it. Hence nothing wrong with me making and selling pirated samsung phones.
Well, if you experience consciousness, that’s what consciousness is. As in, the word and concept “consciousness” means being conscious, the way you experience being conscious right now (unless of course you’re unconscious as I write this…). Free will does not enter into it at the basic level, nothing says you’re not conscious if you do not have free will. So what would it really mean to say consciousness is an illusion? Who and what is having the illusion? Ironically, your statement assumes the existence of a higher form of consciousness that is not illusory (which may very well exist but how would we ever know?). Simply because a fake something presupposes a real something that the fake thing is not.
So let’s say we could be certain that consciousness purely is the product of material processes in the brain. You still experience consciousness, that does not make it illusory. Perhaps this seems like I’m arguing semantics, but the important takeaway is rather that these kinds of arguments invariably fall apart under scrutiny. Consciousness is actually the only thing we can be absolutely certain exists; in this, Descartes was right.
So, it’s meaningful to say that a language model could “fake” consciousness - trick us into believing it is an “experiencing entity” (or whatever your definition would be) by giving convincing answers in a conversation - but not really meaningful to say that actual conscious beings somehow fake consciousness. Or, that “their brains” (somehow suddenly acting apart from the entity) trick them.
Europe gives Elon Musk 24 hours to respond
So kinda like… a Final Countdown?
I wish I could give this comment more than a simple upvote. I want to mail you a freshly baked cinnamon bun.