Corporate needs you to find the difference between those images

Or with that parody on those voices Last Week Tonight does.

Well, the renfaire people only get to be upset if this is the only anachronism in costumes

Thing is that most games on physical media aren’t much good in the long run either for the very same reasons. Even the single player ones have a myriad of little bits and bobs of online connectivity nowadays. I expect 95% of them to break once their servers go down. Most of them for super stupid reasons…some version mismatch here, a weird timeout in the launcher there. And being on closed systems,.there will be no way to patch them by the community on consoles.

The only games I expect to still work are Nintendo games. That’s not because they are the good guys but because their understanding of this whole internet thing is so laughably bad.

Idk what the issue is:

1. Unpack
2. Install
3. ?
4. It just works

All we hear is, radio Gaga

Only 6k? That’s a steal! As in “they are blatantly stealing money from you”

Well, you have to be a fan of not only toxic, but radioactive masculinity in order to believe this MAGA bullshit, so we could just jail all the leaders and figure out their crimes later. I bet wed not have to let anyone go free…
Or, as a German proverb goes: put them in a bag and hit them with a club, you’ll never hit the wrong one.

NovelAI is one of the uses of such an AI that actually makes sense.

No, it does not “check itself”. You mixed up “completely random guesses” and stochastically calculated guesses… ChatGPT has.an obscenely large corpus of training data that was further refined by a blatant disregard for copyright and tons and tons of exploited workers in low wage countries, right?

So imagine the topic “setup Wordpress”. ChatGPT has just about every article indexed that’s on the internet about this. Word for word. So it’s able to assign a number to each word and calculate the probability of each word following every other word it scanned. Since WordPress follows a very clear pattern as to how it’s set up, those probabilities will be very clear cut.
The details the user entered can be stitched in because ChatGPT can very easily detect variables given the huge amount of data. Imagine a CREATE USER MySQL command. ChatGPTs sources will be almost identical up until it comes to the username which suddenly leads to a drop on certainty regarding the next Word. So there’s your variable. Now stitch in the word the user typed after the word “User” and bobs your uncle.

ChatGPT can “write programs” because programming (just as human language) follows clear patterns that become pretty distinct if the amount of data you analyze becomes large enough.

ChatGPT does not check anything it spurts out. It just generates a word and calculates which word is most likely to follow that one.

It only knows which sources of it’s training data it should xluse because those were sorted and categorized by humans slaving away in Africa and Asia, doing all the categories by hand.

It’s not reductive. It’s absolutely how those LLMs work. The fact that it’s good at guessing as long as your inputs follow a pattern only underlines that.

My brain autocorrected both of those and went “oh look, someone hasn’t gotten the joke and thinks is funny to tell it but badly”…

There is, though. The easiest one being that a sentient creature will react differently to it’s outside world, most importantly in an unpredictable manner. Think about a fish reacting to it’s surroundings and then picture a cat. One will very likely do the same thing given the same circumstances. The other won’t.

That’s one of those questions that’s all too often used for some cheap attempt at a trap. The question is what sort of proof is acceptable in which line of science. You can’t prove sentience in the absolute way physics can prove things. That’s just natural for scientific disciplines like psychology. Furthermore y you’d first have to define what constitutes sentience/sapience

It’s almost as if the LLMs that got hyped to the moon and back are just word calculators doing stochastic calculations one word at a time… Oh wait…

No, seriously: all they are good for is making things sound fancy.

Only if the vendor decided to pass the tax credit they get for selling to a.foreigner on to you.

Oh, you pay VAT. Difference is that you ain’t getting the shit that VAT money buys.

Yeah. Just take shit. If society can’t take care of those in need, the needy cannot be blamed for taking matters into their own hands.

Do not, I repeat, DO NOT use this one for coffee. Do avoid that at all costs.

First of all: please let us separate this. What one believes isn’t science. Science does not care for your (or a mollusc’s) feelings. It cars about what’s the provable truth (except when the science is psychology or behavioral biology, then it cares very much about your or the mollusc’s feelings). So if it can’t be proven, science will ignore it.

Secondly: there is something you need to take into account herey and that is cognitive abilities. It doesn’t matter how the behavioral response of an animal is, if said animal lacks the horsepower to interpret those feelings. Do you feel bad for a computer when it encounters an error? Of course not. Why would you? It lacks the cognitive ability to suffer from that error. Same goes for animals. Dies it feel compelled to be in a group? Maybe. But does that mean that inside the animal’s head it goes “oh, finally a group, I’m so safe now. I was really hurting being alone and all” or is there just a little mechanism that goes “Func_Search_Group exited with status code 0”?
We don’t know. All we know is that both exist. Dish forming swarms show more of the latter, while dogs display more of the first. if there is no psychological response to any given feeling, we can’t attribute emotions to it. Furthermore, all of this is only applicable if we assume that the way our mind works is the only way. Some animals might have a psyche that’s so far removed from ours that our metrics just don’t apply. We don’t know.

Of course there are tons of animal behaviors we wrongly Attribute to instinct or reflex when they are actually emotionally driven. Yet we don’t know what those are, so we cannot just run around and play pretend because it makes us feel cozy.

We humans are actually a good example of that. At birth, we are just a bundle of cobbled together reflexes that get replaced by cognitive ability over time.
I’m holding my three weeks old toddler in my arms right now and since he is actually a human,. observing his behavior is relatable to menand easy to interpret since he’s hard wired to communicate everything bad by crying immediately.

Yet, there is tons of behavior he shows that’s actually reflexes and his brain will not start the same reaction as a more developed human brain would.
Take shock as an example. He is literally impossible to upset by shock. If he feels like he’s falling or something else catches him by surprise, he’ll react by the so-called Moro reflex and try to grasp anything in his reach. It’s the same reflex we see in chimp babies. It’s meant to make the baby cling to it’s carrier’s fur. Yet, he himself doesn’t react at all. He looks midly irritated at best, if he doesn’t just continue sleeping and that’s all. His brain does not process this shock emotionally like we would, yet his body goes into full blown panic mode, desperately grasping around. No suffering, no anxiety, nothing in terms of emotions at all (and believe me, a baby will not hide those. He cries if his intestines are starting to digest the milk he just devoured)

If this kind of disconnect between behavior and psyche is common in humans, it is likely to be common in other species as well, especially when those species lack the ridiculous large and energy hungry brain humans have decided was a good idea?

Is it actually the scientist neglecting the mind of an animal or is it you wishing for a mind to be where there is none? The answer is somewhere in the middle.

Oh and the cat example: that’s a result of the very mistake you made: people have somehow collectively decided that cats lack any social behavior and thus anything they do that looks like socializing must be something else, in spite of evidence to the contrary. Cats absolutely do socialize just with less to no empathy for their friends. That’s why we can only call true what’s observable.