If the purpose of a system is what it does, then it seems the purpose of democracy is the self flagellation of the masses.

Idk how easy it easy to just build a nuke… I feel like the long range missile is the hard part, right? The actual nuclear part isn’t quite so complex. Maybe I’m wrong.

Is anyone surprised?

I would say everyone does it. Confirmation bias isn’t something you can completely avoid. You can try to recognise it in yourself, but most of the time it’s a lot more subtle. As simple as reading something you agree with and not going to check the source. We ALL do that.

Oh good, another world war

yhwh looking suspiciously like an LLM

Reject

Return

I really feel for the billions of people, including my fucking self, who didn’t get a vote but who still have to suffer the consequences of this.

Jesus fucking Christ not again

I mean, ChatGPT?

If you need a personality, try HammerAI. You can create your own characters using explicitly SFW models (I mean NGL most of the public models are porn, but there are normal ones too). It all runs locally so you have a lot of control over it… Not as flashy as others, of course.

Removed by mod

One downfall of what I only hesitantly refer to as modern feminism (although really I’m talking about terfs and the terf-adjacent) is that it has painted men as dangerous by default. I’m also a trans woman so I’ve seen both sides of the coin, too… I do feel less safe now, this is true. Many things were easier when I was living as a man. But I was never dangerous or an abuser.

Nonetheless, a former partner used accusations of abuse against me and turned so many people on me. The only ones that stuck by me were former romantic partners, who knew the accusations couldn’t have been true. For everyone else, it was so easy to accept that a man - even a clearly gentle one - would be an abuser.

In reality I’ve been a victim of abuse - physical, emotional, sexual… All long before I transitioned.

Yes, and given infinite monkeys no doubt they will eventually evolve into something that allows them to escape!

A monkey could type any infinite sequence of letters if it types at random. Since infinite sequences of single letters, repeating patterns, and those containing hamlet except one letter is wrong every time are all possible infinite sequences, it’s possible that the money produces one of them.

Probability behaves strangely in infinite situations. A single monkey will almost surely produce the complete works of Shakespeare in infinite time… But this is partially a flaw of infinity in general.

As another example, let’s say your monkey produces an infinite sequence containing hamlet. What is the probability of that particular sequence arising? It’s 0. There is no chance of any particular sequence arising… And yet that one did arise! It was almost surely not going to be that one, but it was. The probability of any single infinite sequence arising is 0, but nonetheless one of them will be the outcome.

I thought that at first… But then for every infinite series with exactly one hamlet in it, there’s an infinite series where one character is wrong. And there’s another one where a different character is wrong… And so on and so on. Even if the series contains an infinite number of hamlets, you can replace one character in each in a huge number of ways! It starts to seem like there are more options with almost Hamlet than there are specifically with Hamlet.

In fact, I begin to wonder if almost any constraint reducing the search space in the infinite set of such infinite sequences, you will inevitably have fewer items within the search space than without… Since you can usually construct multiple non-matching candidates from any matching one.

But… Honestly I’m not sure how much any of that matters in infinite contexts. Since they are impossible it boggles my mind trying to imagine it.

Hisssss! Get away with your poison words! Leave me to my tippy tapping at my special clickety clackety keyboard!

Eh, I don’t think it’s irrelevant, I think it’s interesting! I mean, consider a new infinite monkey experiment. Take the usual setup - infinite monkeys, infinite time. Now once you have your output… Do it again, an infinite number of times. Now suddenly those near impossibilities (the almost surely Impossibles) become more probable.

I also think it’s interesting to consider how many infinite sequences there are which do/do not contain hamlet. This one I’m still mulling over… Are there more which do, or more which don’t? That is a bit beyond my theoretical understanding of infinity to answer, I think. But it might be an interesting topic to read about.

The probability is 1 but that does not mean that it will happen. There is a set of options where it does not happen. It happens “almost surely”.

One monkey may never produce it even given infinite time. It could just produce an infinite string of the letter a and never change it’s mind. That’s less likely that it writing hamlet, or even many hamlets… But nonetheless, it could. In fact all of the infinite monkeys could do that. If you repeated the experiment and infinite number of times, it’s likely that one of them will simple produce an infinite number of infinite strings of only the letter A. Or, idk, ASCII art.

No, that’s not how probability works. “Any probability times infinity is infinity” doesn’t even mean anything. Probabilities are between 0 and 1, and you do not multiply them by fixed factors. Infinite probability has no meaning.

I explained the infinity monkeys in another comment more clearly than I did above -here you go.