They put the onus on AI for the price increase but honestly I believe the ram cartel is responsible to the same degree.

Either way, it looks like we’re soon getting an out, because both of those things are at the brink of changing. And if any one of us has any say in this, they should make sure these things change as fast as possible.

Can someone explain for my dumbass who this is and what this means?

These screenshots are art.

Wie wahr (dein Tag heute)

It is not a stupid question.

AI is a statistical model. It emulates how we speak and therefore mimics how we think. But there are essential differences currently.

The size of AI-models is way less than that of our brains (comparing nodes to brain cells) by several orders of magnitude. AI models do simulate associative thinking and pattern thinking really well in some ways, but not very well in others. While an AI can have different sections of brain that can go back and forth (Mixture of Experts), they usually only pass raw numbers through the model one way. Our brain afaik is unidirectional with its electrical signals.

I’m saying this because an AI and a brain have fundamental differences we won’t be able to eliminate as of now. Which means a traditional consciousness as we know from humans or animals in some cases is hard to presume.

That said, a lot of experts recently raised alarms because what is classified as a person, when does thinking start and stop, all of these ethical boundaries need more strict definitions law-wise, because we are definitely fishing at the boundaries.

I know Lemmy doesn’t like AI and will highlight these fundamental differences, but the ethical questions raised are indeed part of a growing corpus of science currently.

Holy

You know when we said it’s the year of

Hell yeah that’s my system. Feels so nostalgic, it’s like pictures on the wall.

Yeah it’s like now that they are finally trying, you can see bad it’s become by how little it moves the needle.

After windows broke my laptop one day before a show, it’s gonna be a really tough sell and they gotta first make it not actively suck, before they can actually make it good and start to convince me.

I mean it kinda looks like that’s by design currently. It’s an indexer for your corners of the web, not a search aggregator to find new ones.

Nah fuck that, let’s celebrate something good. It’s not perfect, but definitely better than what we had.

I don’t exactly remember but I think it’s because last time they did it, and scientific consensus is that made the recession last way longer.

Wish I had a source for that…

Fair

Well January 6 was most definitely a chaotic attempt at a Beer Hall Putsch equivalent.

Looking at false flags specifically, he is talking about past “stolen” elections and is also using election security as pretext to change voting infrastructure with some justification. Although the changes are both legal and illegal at times.

It seems like he managed to repurpose ICE and homeland security into his personal police and spy agency, very akin to the gestapo / SS. He is using immigrants as a scapegoat, no matter their legal status.

I guess it’s harder to find a false flag specifically equivalent to the Reichstag fire, but he is using false flags at almost the same level constantly for different things. So technically no, but practically he’s got one foot on the line. We’ll have to see where he takes this during the elections coming up.

Lol they should stop talking and start showing us.

No.

Yeah this screams alternate service. And pretty sure at some point alternate service is also allowed over email, mail, or other means.

Well, there’s a big difference between consistency and probability.

In that case you might wanna be careful to point out the very experimental ground this stands on.

Let me be honest: 10 billion years until the sun burns out is a lot. The world seems to change fast these last centuries and it’s basically impossible to predict how it’s gonna look in 2050. Therefore I believe crafting a solution that on its face seems to be rather impractical, solving something that will only become a problem in the very distant future, using very long theoretical causational links to predict the trend, and assuming the net gain could be worth it is not helpful. It’s so far removed from normal science, it reminds me of conspiracy theories like the idea that you can somehow use the Giza pyramids as a power source.

You need to think about frame of reference first: you cannot speculate on what we might have and be able to do in the future. You are assuming a bunch of things, and science doesn’t assume, in science you start with the assumption that all of your claims bullshit, and then disprove it. For your theories this will take centuries anyway because there is so many assumptions and some of them will take many papers in order to understand if and how they work.

Some examples:

• Start with the expanding force of the universe: is there one? How big? On which scale does it overcome modern power sources? Confirm multiple different ways that this scale is realistic.
• do the physics work on that scale? Is the expanding force big enough to pull it apart and keep it from folding out? How would gravity from surrounding cosmic bodies affect it? How well does it withstand big and small impacts from different bodies?
• how do you actually translate expansion to energy? What’s the loss to thermal energy? What are typical conversion rates for this? How exactly do you do the conversion? Why would you be able to do some functioning conversion?
• how does it transport the energy back to the point of origin? What kind of cables work with minimal loss over these distances?
• what’s the impact on our electric grid, the impact on gravitational forces, etc.? Would this destabilize our solar system?

You are hovering over your assumptions and this is exactly where quack theories live. That’s why people are extremely suspicious. Everyone can make up a theory on how generating electricity might be possible in the future using technologies we haven’t even invented yet. Sure, we might, but before anyone wants to actually think of that you need to put in the leg work to prove this technology is not only practical but at least one some scale it exists. And you have to do this for all of the things you are assuming.

• the harness
• binding materials
• protective materials
• conductive materials
• resources needed in production
• resources needed in deployment

Let me also stress that no one is annoyed that you think of solutions for problems. People are annoyed because you are the 100th guy dreaming up an incredibly outlandish solution to a problem that doesn’t really affect us in any way currently, and then you are winging the parts that scientists spend most of their time on. Lots of math, lots of different ways to confirm the math, field studies, disproving, collaboration, etc., there’s so much more to it.

Trust, if there’s interesting aspects to it, and you find people outside of your circles that find your theories somewhat plausible, you should try to get a peer-review. And then you probably have to do a bunch of follow up research, but that’s how scientific consensus moves: slowly and in tiny chunks.

Ein absolutes Armutszeugnis auf allen Seiten. Ich hoffe die Nutzer klagen; sowas darf einfach nicht passieren.

Tesseract OCR is die Ziege. So gut.