volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@CarlataOld this setup is hilariously self-defeating.

The detected deep fakes were detectable! It's pretty circular.

@vvandinsky

@jessecoynelson and that kind of gaslighting is why nobody should ever fall for anything coming out of the likes of Alex Jones.

@bigheadtales again, I am letting you know that right now. This is me letting you know that.

I'm here by advising you of the thing that you are asking me to advise you off.

Nod.

@echoteecat Well if you give the model an exponentially larger set of coefficients to work with then you do get exponential growth without necessarily needing all that much in terms of expanded processing power.

It does take a lot more storage, which is what I hear the next versions of the AI models are aiming for.

To be clear I'm not really arguing. Yeah, it's probably going to involve more processing as well, but to me the limitations of storage for the model are pretty interesting.

@bigheadtales I'm not sure what you're trying to get at by bringing up right wing echo chambers.

That there's a gap in your knowledge has nothing to do with the echo chambers other people may live in.

@dlevenstein for further criticism, I don't think focusing on theory as problem solving is inclusive enough to really grapple with the role of the scientific method in the most fundamental science.

One could say that theorizing about string theory is trying to solve the problem of understanding that approach to reality, but I don't think that's the way most people think about a phrase like problem solving.

Maybe technically true but a strained description.

@echoteecat I believe four has already been trained.

A lot of the issue is in storage complexity not in processing.

@bigheadtales they don't just talk about it in private. From conservative radio through newspaper editorials they are quite public about it.

And their votes in Congress also put them publicly on the record acting in ways you don't sound familiar with

Yes, I understand that it sounds like your echo chambers haven't been informing you because that stuff doesn't fit the narrative, doesn't confirm the bias that the members of the chamber want confirmed.

And that's my point, that just because you're uninformed doesn't mean you're right. It just means that if you care about this stuff you should probably seek to broaden your experiences.

@nixCraft "um, unusual isotopic reactions?" :)

@dlevenstein I think this is a generally good way of talking about theory, but I do have one criticism: the focus on humans, bringing up research communities, and all of that.

It's not to say that they don't exist, but I would simply want to downplay their existence, not emphasize it, as I think one of the big values of the scientific method is countering the human factors that are, again, definitely in there and unavoidable.

Yes, the scientific enterprise is about humans solving problems identified by humans, but I would just avoid that wording and talk about the method addressing problems in the abstract.

All too often people get sidetracked about the value of science based on focusing on the human factors, so I would avoid that sort of language.

@drahardja Well right, but the realities of the environment they operate in do require some types of censorship. But not others

@jasonekratz@social.lol Well yeah @cpoliticditto@mas.to

@drahardja Well there's a pretty significant difference between the types of content in legal liability.

@Lazarou and that's not the argument substack is making, so that's not the high ground they are trying to stake.

@mpopp75 Well again, I'm not saying it will happen, but I do hold out the possibility that Republicans will come to their senses and decide they would rather win the election and therefore choose a different nominee.

And things like these make that more likely, making an even stronger case that going with Trump risks losing

@ricardoharvin welcome to social media, a cultural institution largely found it on people sticking their noses into other people's business.

If you choose to remain uninformed, yeah that's your business. Not mine. But that doesn't mean I can't call it out.

I actually think it's pretty antisocial for people to remain in those echo chambers, but you find your own path, even as I criticize it.

@enron and that's why God gave us Bitcoin 🙂

@raineer If it helps, understand that different people have different priorities, and a lot of people continue to use substack because it is an effective way to publish their content.

They just don't have the same crusade you do.

It really shouldn't be hard to understand.

@ricardoharvin I mean you could have been able to reboost. You chose not to. And that's a pretty big difference!

@JuliusGoat