@shreyan@twtxt.net probably ~1k up to 1.5k. One I found had 64G ram and 12C / 16T for 1.1k

@prologic@twtxt.net have trued to get a RasPi lately? Them things are Unobtainium

@prologic@twtxt.net It’s a fun challenge to see how many words you can say without expressing any ideas at all. Maybe this GPT stuff should be trained to do that!

@prologic@twtxt.net maybe it doesn’t fool you, but it fools lots of people and has for thousands of years. That’s why politicians (for instance) keep doing it.

@prologic@twtxt.net

Let’s assume for a moment that an answer to a question would be met with so many words you don’t know what the answer was at all. Why? Why do this? Is this a stereotype of academics and philosophers? If so, it’s not a very straight-forward way of thinking, let alone answering a simple question.

Well, I can’t know what’s in these peoples’ minds and hearts. Personally I think it’s a way of dissembling, of sowing doubt, and of maintaining plausible deniability. The strategy is to persuade as many people as possible to change their minds, and then force the remaining people to accept the idea because they think too many other people believe it.

Let’s say you want, for whatever reason, to get a lot of people to accept an idea that you know most people find horrible. The last thing you should do is express the idea clearly and concisely and repeat it over and over again. All you’d accomplish is to cement people’s resistance to you, and label yourself as a person who harbors horrible ideas that they don’t like. So you can’t do that.

What do you do instead? The entire field of “rhetoric”, dating back at least to Plato and Aristotle (400 years BC), is all about this. How to persuade people to accept your idea, even when they resist it. There are way too many techniques to summarize in a twt, but it seems almost obvious that you have to use more words and to use misleading or at least embellished or warped descriptions of things, because that’s the opposite of clearly and concisely expressing yourself, which would directly lead to people rejecting your idea.

That’s how I think of it anyway.

@prologic@twtxt.net Yes, and you enjoy the best seafood every day if you want it!

@chunkimo@twtxt.net @prologic@twtxt.net I don’t think I need Jesus. I need more sleep 😴

@prologic@twtxt.net hmm, dunno about the recency of that line of thought. I suspect though that given his (recent or not) history, if someone directly asked him “do you support rape” he would not say “no”, he’d go on one of these rambling answers about property crime like he did in the video. Maybe I’m mind poisoned by being around academics my whole career, but that way of talking is how an academic gives you an answer they know will be unpopular. PhD = Piled Higher And Deeper, after all right? In other words, if he doesn’t say “no” right away, he’s saying “yes”, except with so many words there’s some uncertainty about whether he actually meant yes. And he damn well knows that, and that’s why I give him no slack.

There are people in academia who believe adult men should be able to have sex with children, legally, too. They use the same manner of talking about it that Peterson uses. We need to stop tolerating this, and draw hard red lines. No, that’s bad, no matter how many words you use to say it. No, don’t express doubts about it, because that provides justification and talking points to the people who actually carry out the acts.

@xuu@txt.sour.is LOL omfg.

This is the absurd logical endpoint of free market fundamentalism. “The market will fix everything!” Including, apparently, encroaching floodwater.

I do have to say though, after spending awhile looking at houses, that there are a crapton of homes for sale for very high prices (>$1 million) in coastal areas NASA is more or less telling us will be underwater in the next few decades. I don’t get how a house that’s going to be underwater soon is worth $1 million, but then I’m never been a free market fundamentalist either so 🤷 Maybe they’re all watertight.

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org that could definitely be a track in an ambient song, no question whatsoever.

The exhaust is amazingly soothing to look at, even though it’d vaporize your entire being in milliseconds if you were anywhere near it.

@jmjl@tilde.green I explain the favicon trick in https://mckinley.cc/blog/20210824.html

@prologic@twtxt.net nice

<SP> image test no.2 #html

Image

<SP> image test #markdown

Image

@abucci@anthony.buc.ci Ben Shapiro has plenty to be ashamed of not the least of which is selling his home to Aquaman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9FGRkqUdf8

@prologic@twtxt.net yeah man, of course!

@prologic@twtxt.net https://twitter.com/ardenthistorian/status/1625653951776292864?lang=en

@prologic@twtxt.net When you unpack what he’s saying in that video (which I’ve watched, and just now re-watched), and strip away all his attempts to wrap this idea in fancy-sound language, he is saying: it would be better if women were viewed as property of men, because then if they were raped, the men who owned them would get mad and do something about it. Because rape would be a property crime then, like trespassing or theft. Left unspoken by him, but very much known to him, is that the man/men who “own” a woman can then have their way with her, just like they can freely walk around their yard or use their own stuff. In his envisioned better world, it’d be impossible for a husband to rape his wife, for instance, because she is his property and he can do almost anything he wants (that’s literally what “property” is in Western countries).

It’s so fucked up it’s hard to put into words how fucked up it is. And this isn’t the only bad idea who bangs on about!

@prologic@twtxt.net Maybe so, but that’s not because of the people who are objecting to Jordan Peterson, that’s for sure. You really need to read the articles I’ve posted before going there. Really.

@prologic@twtxt.net It went there because you are supporting bad people who themselves operate at the level of outrage. You cannot have a “debate” about the ideas of someone like Peterson or Shapiro, because those ideas should not be considered debate-worthy. Rape is not OK, period, the end. It is not up for debate or discussion. Yet Peterson acts as if it is. That is abhorrent, and unacceptable in 2023.

@prologic@twtxt.net Because they are rightwing assholes with a huge platform and they are literally HURTING PEOPLE. People get attacked because of things people like Shapiro and Peterson say. This is not just idle chitchat over coffee. They are saying things like it’s OK to rape women (and NO I am not going to dig out the videos where they say that –that’s up to YOU to do, do your own homework before defending these ghouls).

@prologic@twtxt.net

Taking Jordan Peterson asn an example, the only thing he “preaches” (if you want to call it that) is to be honest with yourself and to take responsibility.

This is simply untrue. Read the articles I posted, seriously.

In a tweet in one of the articles I posted, Peterson states there is no white supremacy in Canada. This is blatantly false. It is disinformation. Peterson has made statements that rape is OK (he uses “fancy” language like “women should be naturally converted into mothers” but unpack that a bit–what he means is legalized rape followed by forced conception). He is openly anti-LGBTQ and refuses to use peoples’ preferred pronouns. He seems to believe that women who wear makeup at work are asking to be sexually harassed.

He’s using his platform in academia to pretend that straight, white men are somehow the most aggrieved group in the world and everyone else is just whining and can get fucked. The patron saint of Men’s Rights Activists and incels. I find him odious.

@prologic@twtxt.net nah, not inclined to do that. The articles suffice–have a read of those when you get the chance.

@prologic@twtxt.net I’ve read half, skimmed the others. Mostly I was going for scale–look at all those headlines. These are horrible people who say horrible things on a regular basis.

@prologic@twtxt.net omg yes! They are both ultra-right-wing assholes! The worst of the worst! Please tell me you don’t listen to these guys’ brain poison?

@prologic@twtxt.net

• 12 Reasons Why No One Should Ever Listen to Jordan Peterson Ever Again
  

• Why Jordan Peterson Is Always Wrong
  

• Here’s why Jordan Peterson is the f*cking worst.: “his ideology quickly morphed into one that reinforces hatred, discrimination, and the oppression of marginalized groups”

• ANGRY WHITE MEN MAR. 30, 2016
A History of Piers Morgan’s Terrible Opinions

• Shut Up, Piers

• Piers Morgan Is Now an Asshole of Record-Breaking Proportions

You’re posting Piers Morgan/Jordan Peterson videos lmao???

@prologic@twtxt.net I know very little about it, but speaking secondhand, it looks like there’s a single centralized server now and they’re still building the ability to federate? Like, the current alpha they’re running is not field testing federation, which makes me think that’s not a top priority for them.

<sorenpeter> and then the message

@Phys_org@feeds.twtxt.net using the phrase “machine learning” in this article is misleading and bandwagoning. They used a neural model, which neuroscientists were doing long before “machine learning” became a popular term.

@carsten@yarn.zn80.net any photos on how it turned out?

@prologic@twtxt.net yes, I agree. It’s bizarre to me that people use the thing at all let alone pay for it.

@movq@www.uninformativ.de

Image

@carsten@yarn.zn80.net That’s a dissembling answer from him. Github is owned by Microsoft, and CoPilot is a for-pay product. It would have no value, and no one would pay for it, were it not filled with code snippets that no one consented to giving to Microsoft for this purpose. Microsoft will pay $0 to the people who wrote the code that makes CoPilot valuable to them.

In short, it’s a gigantic resource-grab. They’re greedy assholes taking advantage of the hard work of millions of people without giving a single cent back to any of them. I hope they’re sued so often that this product is destroyed.

@thecanine@twtxt.net wow this is horrifying. What happened to Opera? It used to be my favorite browser but now they’re like that one cousin who started getting into drugs, and then got in trouble with the law, and then before you know it they’re scamming old ladies out of their pension money.

@darch@neotxt.dk Made up is not the same as lie. That’s obvious isn’t it?!?!

@shreyan@twtxt.net my condolences for the pain you no doubt will inflict upon others that will have to maintain whatever you write in Ruby.

@darch@neotxt.dk So a fiction novel, which is labelled “fiction”, is a lie? I still don’t understand. The word “lie” entails an intention to deceive, but fiction writing does not intend to deceive.

@carsten@yarn.zn80.net You are conflating “aiming your eyes at” with “viewing art”. These are fundamentally different activities.

@carsten@yarn.zn80.net Animals have inner lives. Computers do not.

Are you really so desperate to make this point thst you’re citing Quora??? Believe what you want to believe.

@darch@neotxt.dk What do you mean when you say that art is a lie?

@prologic@twtxt.net @carsten@yarn.zn80.net

There is (I assure you there will be, don’t know what it is yet…) a price to be paid for this convenience.

Exactly prologic, and that’s why I’m negative about these sorts of things. I’m almost 50, I’ve been around this tech hype cycle a bunch of times. Look at what happened with Facebook. When it first appeared, people loved it and signed up and shared incredibly detailed information about themselves on it. Facebook made it very easy and convenient for almost anyone, even people who had limited understanding of the internet or computers, to get connected with their friends and family. And now here we are today, where 80% of people in surveys say they don’t trust Facebook with their private data, where they think Facebook commits crimes and should be broken up or at least taken to task in a big way, etc etc etc. Facebook has been fined many billions of dollars and faces endless federal lawsuits in the US alone for its horrible practices. Yet Facebook is still exploitative. It’s a societal cancer.

All signs suggest this generative AI stuff is going to go exactly the same way. That is the inevitable course of these things in the present climate, because the tech sector is largely run by sociopathic billionaires, because the tech sector is not regulated in any meaningful way, and because the tech press / tech media has no scruples. Some new tech thing generates hype, people get excited and sign up to use it, then when the people who own the tech think they have a critical mass of users, they clamp everything down and start doing whatever it is they wanted to do from the start. They’ll break laws, steal your shit, cause mass suffering, who knows what. They won’t stop until they are stopped by mass protest from us, and the government action that follows.

That’s a huge price to pay for a little bit of convenience, a price we pay and continue to pay for decades. We all know better by now. Why do we keep doing this to ourselves? It doesn’t make sense. It’s insane.

@carsten@yarn.zn80.net

I have to write so many emails to so many idiots who have no idea what they are doing

So it sounds to me like the pressure is to reduce how much time you waste on idiots, which to my mind is a very good reason to use a text generator! I guess in that case you don’t mind too much whether the company making the AI owns your prompt text?

I’d really like to see tools like this that you can run on your desktop or phone, so they don’t send your hard work off to someone else and give a company a chance to take it from you.

@prologic@twtxt.net @carsten@yarn.zn80.net

(1) You go to the store and buy a microwave pizza. You go home, put it in the microwave, heat it up. Maybe it’s not quite the way you like it, so you put some red pepper on it, maybe some oregano.

Are you a pizza chef? No. Do we know what your cooking is like? Also no.

(2) You create a prompt for StableDiffusion to make a picture of an elephant. What pops out isn’t quite to your liking. You adjust the prompt, tweak it a bunch, till the elephant looks pretty cool.

Are you an artist? No. Do we know what your art is like? Also no.

The elephant is “fake art” in a similar sense to how a microwave pizza is “fake pizza”. That’s what I meant by that word. The microwave pizza is a sort of “simulation of pizza”, in this sense. The generated elephant picture is a simulation of art, in a similar sense, though it’s even worse than that and is probably more of a simulacrum of art since you can’t “consume” an AI-generated image the way you “consume” art.

@prologic@twtxt.net closed as in you have to be an account on their service to interact with others. And can’t communicate cross service. Some require you to be logged in to view content. Others will pop up annoying overlays after scrolling some content to sign up for more.

@carsten@yarn.zn80.net @lyse@lyse.isobeef.org I also think it is best called fake. Art is created by human beings, for human beings. It mediates a relationship between two people, and is a means of expression.

A computer has no inner life, no feelings, no experience of the world. It is not sentient. It has no life. There’s nothing “in” there for it to express. It’s just generating pixels in patterns we’ve learned to recognize. These AI technologies are carefully crafted to fool people into experiencing the things they experience when they look at human-made art, but it is an empty experience.

@carsten@yarn.zn80.net Who says you need to use anything like that? Where’s the pressure coming from?

@carsten@yarn.zn80.net yeesh, it’s a for-pay company I wouldn’t give them the output of your mind for free and train their AI for them.

@xuu@txt.sour.is this is alarmingly catchy

@xuu@txt.sour.is everyone’s moving to gated communities!

@prologic@twtxt.net ack, I didn’t see this before. Get well soon!