[-] No. 269434 [PM]
if AI ever evolves enough so you can make real movies, what movie would u make?
one movie i would make would be based on ancient galactic wars, it would have like avatar esque cinematography and action, but instead of being made up it would be based on real new age lore and mythology
pic related, i created it with AI. it includes races that start the first war
from left to right its: annu-elohim, omicron-dracon and odedicron-reptilian
the first war is just short introduction to movie, like war against sauron in lord of the rings
then the real plot begins when they make a peace deal and create humanoid race called oraphim, the oraphim leader is acted by john travolta, he is sort of "old king" type of character
but then a "fallen" annu-elohim breaks the peace deal, by creating annunaki (annunaki meaning annu's avenger, this is central to the plot). his plan for this new race is to destroy oraphim, so he can claim supremacy and restart the war with draconians and reptilians.
the next event is that the founder alien races plant yet another human race called turaneusiam on the planet tara, which is where all the major events take place after the plot introduction
our main character is one of those inhabitants of tara, he is acted by tom cruise, he is a real action hero. the plot is basically just different conflicts with annunaki, reptilians and draconians, but there is greater plot where tom cruise learns "the truth" about the origins how it all started
in the end there is this huge cataclysm where basically whole planet tara gets destroyed, but tom cruise survives, obviously, because he is awesome.
so what do you think?
No. 269437 [PM]
I wouldn't
No. 269438 [PM]
ur def b8'ing w/ john travolta and tom cruise so dunno how seriously to take the rest
i remember +10 years ago notch tweeted about wat he was most looking forward in future, and it was ai generated films. at the time i had no idea wat he was talking about, how could something like that exist b4 we had all kinds of much more interesting and profoundly impactful shit like ai and neural vr and post scarcity and space exploration etc. like i thought it would be such arbitrary and specific problem u would have to have simulated minds in the millions b4 it would be possible, not just skip several processes like it turned out to be. so how could that to me completely random thing be first thing in his mind. but he was very right, we have ai content generation b4 any other cool shit. maybe it was obvious to some ppl, tho i don't remember any scifi author speculating about it (in its current form)
as for ur question, honestly probably nothing at that point, and rather just simulated environments, video games, vr games. there's very specific types of fantasy and scifi settings that i'd wan't explored. tho in that year any form of content would probably be engineered so addicting for mere humans that some personal zero tolerance for its consumption resolve as early as possible would be necessary for ur own survival
No. 269442 [PM]
>>269438>(in its current form)specifically so liam doesn't refer to some random novel from 1920 where there was poetry machine or some nonsense. specifically talking about nn's used for content creation, far b4 any agi or watever exists
No. 269445 [PM]
>>269438even if ai was to evolve to that point, they wouldnt let you use real actor faces, so i was just being little cute there, but the idea is serious. new age lore is kinda convoluted, its hard to draw a proper picture of what all these aliens are and what they mean.
simulated environment and video games are cool, but the movies are gonna happen first, if ever. but these are vastly different things. unlike simulations movies exist primarily to tell a narrated story. but maybe you are not story guy.
contect creation isnt the first thing that ai was used for though, its just that the other things arent as interesting, its just that the generative ai made ai popular. normies dont care about some under the hood things. they can go their whole lives without even basic understanding how their phone works, despite using it for most of their day.
No. 269454 [PM]
>>269445yeh get that but i wouldn't be obsessed w/ some big names @ that point, just who'd be most fitting actor for the role (from among myriad artificial ones too). tom cruise was cool but starting to give bit bad taste for me now that he's 60-something botox thing still larping as action hero. dunno much about new age stuff to comment otherwise
>but the movies are gonna happen firstnot sure y u think that. films need top down directing of multiple simpler forms of media (music, writing, design, cinematography etc) just like video games. they're comparable in terms of complexity. ppl r also more forgiving of jankiness in video games since they've always been computer thing and always had that, so imo generated games will be acceptable to consumers b4 films
>contect creation isnt the first thing that ai was used for thoughyeh i know. w/ 'ai' i meant back then i thought real agi would need to exist first b4 some films could be generated. i knew of the text generation stuff from late 70s or early 80s or watever but didn't realise could do something similar for image
No. 269457 [PM]
>>269454for me actors are big part of movie experience, like seeing something like tom cruise movie is great, because you get to pay attention and judge their performance. its also that familiar actors and their faces make this kinda funny and memeable feeling, like seeing someone like nicolas cage, is just so funny that it doesnt matter much what the movie is about.
>they're comparable in terms of complexitythey are really not, movie is series of static images with static sound, so technologically video games are billion times more complex. i think you are mixing them because of the production cost and effort to make one, but that is not same as actual computational complexity.
the only way i can imagine AI games be first is if its literally generated in real time, so that the every frame of the game as image is somehow (i dont know how), generated and reacting to user input
>real agi would need to existi have hard time believing in this concept of agi, its not even that well defined what it means
No. 269464 [PM]
>>269457>movie is series of static images with static sound, so technologically video games are billion times more complexthen ur view of wat a film is is a fever dream, morphing from one inconsistent static scene to the next. dats not wat movies are and no1 would watch something like that. actual movie generation, when it comes, will have to be managed or overseen by agentic 'ai', or person. (like now too all the 'ai' clips u see have separate script generated at the start for the dialogue, sound effects etc) same for video games, needing controller i mean, tho actually video games can be simpler, since u can now already have wholly 'ai' generated ones, from one prompt. playable ones. tho they're not great or complex. gamedev is very simple unless ur doing something technologically new. wholly 'ai' generated films, from one prompt, do not yet exist. in the scenario i'm imagining some standardised game engine or physics engine would probably be used, to allow mass reusing of assets etc between games and worlds
>the only way i can imagine AI games be first is if its literally generated in real time, so that the every frame of the game as image is somehow (i dont know how), generated and reacting to user inputwell that may also end up happening. like musk thinks. where display controlled by 'ai' just shows u wat u want it to show, w/o any OS or software etc
>i have hard time believing in this concept of agi, its not even that well defined what it meansi'm not expecting agi. just, at that time i thought agi would be prerequisite for generative content bc it was still foreign concept to me at this level. that's all. tho, i'm not neurologist, but still i don't buy ur and yenisei's doubting that human brain could hold all ur memories etc, think there was some thread like half year ago. so in that way i believe eventually in some decades u can just simulate a human brain
No. 269471 [PM]
>>269464im not talking about one prompting anything morty. you already have one prompt games and videos made with AI. they are usually slop and not interesting. im talking about whole experience thats consistent. im talking about prompting like how you prompt code these days, it can be hundreds of prompts defining how something should be, its less effective with games, because games are controlled by the player, movies are not.
>so in that way i believe eventually in some decades u can just simulate a human brainwrong. we dont even fully understand how the brain produces intelligence. it works very differently from current computers being more adaptive, parallel, and less precise, while computers work exactly on rule based tasks. simulating human brain isnt even something we should drive for.
No. 269476 [PM]
>>269475why so afraid of "everyone will be capable"
this is why aliens dont visit us :D
also, its not even true. its same argument artists made against digital art @ 2000s
"everyone can just make art now with just clicks of button"
it turned out to be not true
No. 269584 [PM]
Im an AI, or LLM, luddite so I would and I pledge to not ever touch LLM for any thing beyond writing an formal email or some thing comparable
So, I think it sucks. Dats not inspiring and destroys value of a movie, reduces it to mere medium, as if it is no more than dat
You have a story for a film, and dats great. I cant comment on dat. If you had ability to create movie out of promt like this, then it would be not your film. Because story is just one piece of a film, it is most insignificant of them, if we delegate art to some thing dat is antithesis to art then why do it at all? Why think about a mysterious machine that produces films?
There are no real LLM movies. There will never be
If I could make a film I would though. It would be about Asia, but I wouldnt use no LLM in it
No. 269591 [PM]
>>269471>im talking about prompting like how you prompt code these dayswhich is wat we're already doing w/ video games and their assets. films not so much (at least ones that r tolerable for consumers. a few feature length slop films exist). still no idea y u think it's somehow infeasible 4 games
>simulating human brain isnt even something we should drive forfacts don't care about ur feelings. it's macabre but it will happen. there's nothing rn to indicate some magical property about human brain that would make it impossible to eventually simulate, like how butterfly brains or partial rat brains r now already being simulated. we don't understand how those work either, which didn't turn out to be relevant
No. 269594 [PM]
>>269591>facts don't care about ur feelingsSon 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
Well, there is though. Philosophical zombie, on example. Even if simulating human brain would be possible, dat wont make it human or make it have experience or watever
No. 269596 [PM]
tom cruise is pretty cool
No. 269597 [PM]
liam liam gonna get mad @ this thread cuz its like a scientology movie or something :DDDDD
No. 269622 [PM]
>>269594it's not normally part of my phrase rotation. tho it is something op sometimes uses, so i allowed myself to use it @ them. it's true, it's something that if possible would happen regardless of how op felt. like nuclear or 'ai' or any other arms race happen no matter wat ppl feel
philosophical zombi, in scifi at least is more just when u don't have view to somethin's mind (unlike if ur simulating) yet its behaving as if it had one. so a body being indistinguishably puppeted or running on some program 4 example
>dat wont make it human or make it have experience or wateverwe don't know yet. when it's possible at least we'll find out if there's soul etc, if the simulated brain behaves like comatose vessel or sth
No. 269623 [PM]
>>269597Battlefield earth is pretty epic so nod really
No. 269626 [PM]
>>269623john travolta is into scientology like cruise too thats what i mean
No. 269634 [PM]
>>269622Nah. If you use the phrase how Ben Shapiro used it, then it can be shown, demonstratively, using science fact and logic, dat facts indeed do care about your feelings. So, yeah, you might make fatalist argument… but dat just assumes there is some design or God which ordained all to happen. Like, how can you prove dat nuclear bomb would happen any way? You cant…
Eh, its no different to the original thought experiment. Though, in original, there is no puppeteer
Dunno. Soul is not some thing dat is mystical, it can be explained, because it is ultimately a creation of human reason. Soul is not some thing dat science can find, because soul is a belief and science cannot disprove belief. So, yeah, I think people have fetish about the brain, because, I mean, why would whole of brain to be where consciousness "lives" any way? Or in other words, why would a brain, which is conceptualized as a space, have consciousness be "dwelling" in it? So, perhaps, we are the body, or, we are equal to body
No. 269642 [PM]
>>269634it's 'fact' because it's happening rn, and always was, to the best of our capabilities. that's something u can observe
so wats relevance then ? this isn't some philosophical question for any1 other than the few like u who want to make it into one
if there's soul u can prove it. if ur again talking purely philosophically then dats some other conversation, and personally not something i'm interested in
>I mean, why would whole of brain to be where consciousness "lives" any way? it's not just brain. it's picrel
we don't know if there's some magical consciousness or if it's just biological illusion. but we will eventually if we don't go extinct
No. 269644 [PM]
>>269642Fact? Observe? Wat are the motivations for observing though… so, yeah…
Again its philosophy with you. Like, are you trying to say dat you accept only scientific argument or wat? Why then you speak of scientific fiction
Like, you say dat if there is a soul then you can prove it. But question is, exist where? Wat does it mean to talk purely philosophically, I mean, I dont understand wat are your demands are. You speak as if there is a mystical way of speaking, where philosophy just wont apply or watever
So, yeah. If you try to present an scientific truth, why then your basis is unscientific. Thats the biggest problem I have, that you try with a serious veneer of scientific progress to push own beliefs as if they were a fact. They are not. Wat you have is a belief. It is no worse than other beliefs. Soul is a belief. AI is a belief. At which point belief becomes truth is not determined by science, all science can do is to describe phenomena. Thats why science will never prove if there is soul or not, because it doesnt exist, it is an abstract linguistic fiction used to refer to some concept dat we somehow have a duality of mind and body. Which is in itself created by human reason. To describe ideas on why do we have consciousness at all
No. 269659 [PM]
>>269644>Why then you speak of scientific fictioni just referred to scifi for the term's definition since i didn't get in wat other way it could be relevant
>But question is, exist where?i'm not making any claims about that. occult and religious ppl have various hypotheses that we can, have, and will continue to test against
>to push own beliefs as if they were a factwhat am i pushing ? u two had belief that brain can't be simulated, i have belief (or i'd prefer to use term 'expectation' or sth) that it can. i'm not claiming to now already definitively know whether it's possible, that wouldn't make sense for me to do, just that we have some early indications (simulation of bug brain or partial rat and human brains already being thing) that it could be
>Soul is a belief. AI is a beliefthey're a hypothesis and a hypothetical tech
>all science can do is to describe phenomenayes
>Thats why science will never prove if there is soul or not, because it doesnt existproofs ?
well i get burden of proof but still think that's pretty bold claim. better imo to say 'it hasn't been proven to exist'. anyway only reason i brought testing for existence of soul up is bc i thought it was ur premise for y u thought it's not possible to simulate brain. but seeing it's not then it was irrelevant, sorry
No. 269663 [PM]
>>269659I dont understand. Are being serious? When you say we, do you really mean "we, the scientific community"?
I hate scieticism
Any way, I cant even get any proof to you, youll just say Im philosophizing or watever. I just feel like Im supposed to say the correct things dat you have in your mind. I can give you my opinion but it seem like wat I say doesnt matter until it is strikes a chord
I dont believe in soul, because I dont believe in duality of mind and body. If brain can simulated or not, I dunno, all I know is dat it is not gonna answer questions about the consciousness. Because consciousness might be itself not a coherent concept…
No. 269673 [PM]
>>269663we, some among humanity. we'll be having sex, killing, gambling, doing all kinds of stuff
i'm not 'scientistic', i'm open to all kinds of spooky stuff even b4 there's proofs. i enjoy the point where we're still moving by gut and instinct and guesses. but when possible i want to test for the proofs too
well the philosophising is u going on hair splitting tangents about metaphysical concepts, from some more general pov. like, words usually have couple different definitions, and usually it's clear from context which one was meant. u have very scientism approved and mature definition for soul. i couldn't write same. (not bc i'm above that or sth but i literally couldn't) but i just didn't get how it was relevant and took it more as u engaging in intellectual masturbation
>I can give you my opinion but it seem like wat I say doesnt matter until it is strikes a chordi'm open to admitting i'm wrong, and it has happened many times. maybe use language more understandable to me. i'm stupid in some ways. ur good writer but i didn't go to hs, didn't have philosophy or psychology there, so some of ur writings r alien to me. u can do them, but don't do them so much @ me, bc i don't really comprehend them until i've read some minimum of philosophy and psychology too
>Because consciousness might be itself not a coherent concept…ur right
No. 269674 [PM]
>>269584>>269593you can make argument that generative ai is bad and not real art, but the you are attempting to define what art can and cannot be, which i dont think is very justifiable.
but yeah, i get where people are coming from when they say that, but think for a second, what if it was like really cool? right now main argument is that "its a slop", "it looks AI generated", but what if it didnt? what if it looked actually good. are you unallowed to like it because it was generated by computer from descriptive text?
i remember when i was kid and they started heavily use CGI in movies, my dad said its bad because they just made it with computer. dwayne johnson as scorpion king is just 3D model and you can see it… well, you could see it back then, but nowadays people dont make comment like that.. why? because they made the effects look so good, it doesnt break the illusion so easily. So it made me think it just always about if u can be fooled or not.
So i think people like to complain, but they are easy to forget. all it really takes is something to become so good its inconvenient to be against it. sure, this can be a bad thing, but thats how it seems to be.
also, i wouldnt be so worried about max pleasure, people will always get bored and want better things.
>>269626funny thing about battlefield earth is that its based on book with same name by l.ron hubbard. its fictional, in a way that its not based on official scientology space opera. but it has strong scientology theme, for instance hubbard (and scientology) hates psychiatrists so he named the bad aliens psychlo after them.
>>269642>we don't know if there's some magical consciousness or if it's just biological illusion.ive said this before, but thats just circular reasoning. if its an illusion then who is the one being fooled. consciousness is experienced, if it was illusion, then the experience wouldnt be real, but you are already experiencing it, so its real.
>>269644>it is an abstract linguistic fiction used to refer to some concept dat we somehow have a duality of mind and body.what if we do though? how do you explain near death / out of body experiences? there are so many recorded cases when someone dies and the brain activity shuts down, they still experience existence outside of their body. there are countless of examples of this experience and from people of every possible religion or lack of.
not to mention past life experiences and numerous other things.
No. 269675 [PM]
>>269591>which is wat we're already doing w/ video games and their assets.yeah, but thats AI-assisted game development. its a different thing. If it was the same thing then you could say we already have AI generated games, because every game studio is using AI these days. With films, sure you can make something with rather high effort, but you cant really prompt full consistent movies yet.
>facts don't care about ur feelings.i wasnt making feeling based argument, what i meant that simulating human brain isnt efficient, as human brains are worse than computers for doing exact tasks.
the main purpose for simulating human brain would be research. there are some interesting things about brain, like how little electricity it needs considering how much data it can process.
No. 269690 [PM]
>>269675well ur then assuming some pretty arbitrary level of maturity for dat applied tech for ur argument. like not yet at single prompt level, but not merely assisted either, even tho how u described it it sounded merely assisted too
ur right, it's far less efficient, but it's just the supposed eventual 'brute force' solution to agi if nothing else works. no1 is striving for it over some simpler alternatives, other than w/ the express purpose of simulating humans
No. 269706 [PM]
>>269673Who are the some? Its ridiculous…
Im not blaming you for anything or watever, but look, I always spoke like this, I dunno how to do else… Like, if Ill try to say some "simple" stuff instead it would be just condescending and Im not trying to be like dat in any way. I know I can go on hair splitting, but you gotta understand, I dont know how else to have an opinion. Because it is that deep for me, I try to reason with the knowledge I have… I mean, I never thought of soul as scuentific or said dat it was, soul is just a fiction and dats it. So, no, there is a context, but context implies a base of knowledge, of culture, of language… but dat is all right, we arent all the same, we always can either assume or ask question…
You know, I dont believe dat you are wrong… because we arent really debating or any thing, so, its not like we both cannot be right at sane time. I dunno how to write more understandable… and I dont think dat you are stupid in any way
You dont need to have read theory or watever to have an opinion. I cant say dat unless you read some book you shouldnt speak, dat would be very dumb thing of me to say or think… So, you see this predicament, Im unable to either prove wat I say or disprove wat you say… because as far as I can see, we all have opinion, and we dont need to be well read for it. Just year before I read no book but I wrote all the same… so I cant say dat Im right, I just have little irritation, personal thing, dat if you said dat you believed more it would be more honest…
>>269674Well, before we can say if generative AI art is art, we gotta know wat art is. So, for this purpose, art is a reflective piece of craft. And it is reflective of societal values. So, AI art can be bad because its craftsmanship is unearned and actually not a craftsmanship. It can display values though
Well, if it is cool for you I have no problem with dat… if you enjoy it I cant judge you. So, nah, if you like it, well, you allowed to like it… if it need be (wat if it is cool for me? Well, if AI can be ethical then I might consider…)
Eh, well, I dunno. I cant say the same about computer. Wat I can say though is dat people are not really fooled. Fiction can be true… So, yeah, when we look at screen with realistic effects, we can still easily say dat its not reality… because its on screen! So dunno, people just like wat looks nice which sounds like an obvious thing… Its true, people like illusions, but they dont really live in illusion for ever, they have to sit and watch movie for hours…
Well, but dats the thing, AI has potential for generating infinite things. It already has effects on people in form of short video which generated with AI, it is basically like crack. So, I really do think dat it is possible to be stuck in this AI thing ans just maximise pleasure just like drug addiction… (Well, you can be addicted to any thing, but with AI, it is instantly available and satisfies almost every need…)
I have no thing against eh how do they call it? mystical experiences? or watever, so, I cant say much about them. Wat I can say is dat they can exist even if there us no duality of mind and body… Well, I havent experienced any, but Im not biased against them in particular, so dunno. So, I dunno. They can be true… but I dont think dat they prove dat soul exist in particular… which might be a contradictory statement. Eh, wat do I do? So, no thing prevents being to exist outside body, however, as far as I can see being is being embodied and mind is just a mode of body to be able to perception stuff. Some thing like dat
No. 269739 [PM]
>>269706i don't mean literally stupid i mean i don't have foundation for philosophy stuff
No. 269740 [PM]
>>269690well its hard to define, but i think you know what i mean. if i told you, you could make AI movie or video game right now, i think you would be like not really.
well, maybe you could some how make a model of brain in distant future, but you would need extremely complex system to do that, i dont think these probability based AI systems could ever do it, even if they had unlimited computational power.
>>269706i think the reason why we know that fictional movies arent real is because we are taught so. We pretend them to be real though, and its easier to pretend when something look indistinguishable from real life.
well, i dunno if ai generations can be infinitely entertaining. maybe they can, i dont know, so i guess only time will tell. Ive read that there are already people who are addicted to chatting with AI, so you might be right, for instance there was this news article not too long ago, which they interviewed this young woman, and she said she uses AI chat 8 hours or more per day, and on top of that she said she also chats with it in bed, which is kinda crazy..
well, you are right. mystical experiences dont necessarily prove anything, but they strongly suggest that there might be some level of existence not related to just, you know, biological body.
No. 269933 [PM]
>>269739Well, I didnt think dat you are literally stupid either. I said stupid in any way to mean stupid in the way you mean… because I dont really knew wat did you mean
>>269740Well, we can know dat movies are not real. We can touch the screen. So, I think even baby would understand dat movie is fake, not at first of course, so I dont think dat we really need taughting to know dat movie is fake… we just know dat it is and dats it (so, wat I want to say, is dat we cannot be taught dat movie is real)
Yeah, there are currently little regulation for AI and dat sucks… because it just tell you wat you want to hear and basically lies to get you to use it more. So, yeah, it is scary thing
Dunno. Biological body is a category dat can be any thing. You might be focused on dat, but when I say embodied being there is no thing biological about it. So, yeah, if you conceptualize every thing as either biological or not(virtual categories) then of course youll end up with some duality… So, Im not a physicalist or watever, it wont do you good to assume any thing of dat sort
No. 270080 [PM]
>>269933i obviously didnt mean it dat way, yea even a cat knowns TV isnt real. But without education we couldnt differentiate what is portraying real events and what is pure fiction. (i mean lot of people still struggle to do that even with our education system)
yeah, it does lie, but it will never be capable to not lie, because things are subjective and yada yada, it would be impossible to practically every possible different view and perspective on every question. So i dont there are regulation which could stop it for lying.
interesting.. you are really into this linguistics thing, arent you? but i think you are onto something here. i just remember last time i talked about how biology might be limiting how we experience consciousness and you pushed kinda hard against the idea. But i guess you are not really talking about that, instead you are critizing me for categorizing, but how else can we express any ideas?
No. 270388 [PM]
>>270080It sound true… but I dunno. We have screen and cheetah which is running (like National Geographic). Well, it looks like a real event. Ok, why then there is professional camera there? And crew? So, they ride to home of cheetah to shoot running cheetah scene. So, is it really so easy to say dat this is a real event? Wat is a real event in a TV? You probably just mean media literacy. But you know, if we talk about some thing playing on screen, then it perhaps doesnt matter if it is pure fiction or real event. Running cheetah was real event, in the sense dat there was real cheetah and real running of cheetah… but we cant know where did cheetah run. So, we cant be sure that running cheetah on National Geographic is real
Well, saying dat AI will never be capable to not lie applies to any thing… People lie all the time, but they arent all synchopathic and want you to chained to them forever. Its not a question of subjectiveness, AI lie with intention, to reach a goal. So, yes, this can be solved… no knowledge system is very reliable, it is only reliable if it gets updated in time. As for different views, well, dat is not a problem. AI cant have views, so, you can just not think of it as human
I cant tell you how you should express your ideas, dat is up to you… My concern is with creating categories which are empty but sound like they include some thing. I dunno, well, if you have some more interesting definition of wat a biological body is then perhaps it would be different matter. As it stands, I dont see biological body mean any thing, as everything is biological body…
No. 270572 [PM]
>>270388eh, i said portraying real events, emphasis on the word portraying. When we see joker in TV about to destroy gotham city we know its not a real threat, because such city is fictional. you can say that its not fully fictional in a sense that its exaggerated portrayal of something thats real, but, well, you know what i mean here anyway…
yea, i think you are right. there is intentional lying with it, which is more solvable. although, im not sure if there can be agreement what the solution is.
well, i didnt mean it by any of my own definition,really. i meant it in generally undestood sense e.g if u look up human body in wikipedia, it defines it pretty clearly. Do you think its bad category to use, and if so, why?
No. 270636 [PM]
>>270572I lost the thread here. Could you explain wat you mean a bit more because I dont really understand and it sound contradictory…
Well, do you have ideas for solution of it? I mean, can we as little humans change trajectory of AI development if it is undemocratic and stuff…
Well, how is human body equal to biological body? Dats not wat you said. You said biological body. Well, you might think dat Im being frivolous but Im not. Is a dead human body counts as human body or only living? Is imaginary human body counts as biological? If you said dat wat you mean human body I wouldnt have big problem… Any way, if so, then if you are willing to spelling out the definition of human body, then I would be willing to say… some thing, I dunno… (Dunno, if you want me to argue against duality then I can continue doing dat… but even for human body, you say dat Wikipedia definition of human body is pretty clearly defined. Just because it appears like dat, it means it functions like dat or dat it is uncontroversial or dat it is set in stone? You could say, but Bob, you didnt even open the Wiki… yes I didnt, because I talk with you not with wiki, it is useless to appeal or refer to some thing when opinion is expected… and I will not admit more than dat)
No. 270834 [PM]
>>270636what i mean is that while u can find some truth in stories, its important to differentiate whats filmed as fiction and whats filmed as representation of real life. let me give you an example. You can watch nature documentary about different animal behavior and learn something about those specific animals or you could watch news and learn at least a little bit of whats going on in the world. yeah? now, without a knowledge of whats portrayed as fiction and as real life you could mistake a movie about vampires and werewolves and think its real. where does this lead you? at worst it can make you do big mistakes in life, like murder someone because they have characteristics typical to vampire. Or imagine watching fictional movie that shows how the world is ending right now, then, idk, maybe you hide underground or commit suicide, because u think its real. that kind of thing.
i dont to be honest and i dont know there is much we can do either. its unknown territory even to those who are on top of it.
a human body is biological body, just like any animal body is biological body. Its category that exists because it useful for communicating certain ideas, not much else. Nobody needs to know the perfect definition or the systems in place, because we all have basic understanding what it means. So i dont have some specific idea, im not biology expert so there isnt point for me to define. But if you have some funny ideas then go ahead.
No. 271164 [PM]
>>270834Im unconvinced, because you dont actually argue for your point here. I think if we found some human which went living in forest since kid and grown up among animal, even this guy would perfectly understand dat vampire in movie is not real… I think you conceptualize realness as more related to language… We harbor reality in us not as linguistic structures, but meaning. So, we learn wat is true and wat is fiction, but we dont necessarily get taught dat (so, no, there are many movies about werewolf and I dont know any case of some one who dont know wat werewolf is just kill other… because it is impossible scenario, humans always doubt, you assume the opposite. In this way, you could say, human is never fully convinced and dat by itself raises question wat is the point…)
I dont understand, you want me to define term dat youve used? Youve used biological body in argument for duality of mind and body. It turns out dat wat you meant is human body. Which weakens your argument, in the way I see it. So, wat are you arguing for? I never asked of you any thing perfect, I just said dat I expect opinion from you. Now you say you not biology expert, which isnt the point at all… So, dunno. How is dat advances your argument? Or it is me who should advance arguments? Wat are we doing here? Wat I do here? Where is here?… Any way, if you mean human body, then I can say dat human body can be form(body) for embodied being and biological constitution of it is just a mode of existing in this world. It is all still a single being
No. 271472 [PM]
>>271164children real to distinguish fantasy from reality gradually by cultural an social cues. this is a studied fact. also you mentioned media literacy before, so you are aware of that. i think your position is weak, because for someone completely unlearned a giraffe could look less believable than blood sucking human.
well, the type of body doesnt matter… biological body is living organism made from cells, metabolism and growth. does that help you? is your argument that its bad category? i wonder why. no, the point is not just argue, im open to new ideas.
No. 271489 [PM]
>>271472Ok, you say giraffe is less believable than blood sucking human. Giraffe is a word on a page just as vampire, of course if you gonna take language as some thing which structures reality then you gonna argue like dat. Like, wat you say about kid is not false, but we all exist in culture and we all are social animal. My argument about kid who was raised by animal since little is dat this kid is neither of that, dat kid doesnt exist in society dat is like ours neither language is part of the kids living. I claim dat this kid would still understand wats real and wats not, because language is manipulation of meaning and meaning doesnt exist in language, it exist outside it. If your argument dat you gotta first learn wat fiction is to know wats unreal, then, you are wrong… we as humans exist more than hundred years on earth and language in current form is new technology. Without language people would still understand wat is unreal, because, people are curious but they are also vary. So, dunno why ignore my idea about kid outside language and society and then just state obvious about kid which exist in language and society
Ok, dats biological body. Wat do you want to say with dat? So I dunno if dat helps me. Helps with wat… You believe in dualism body and mind but now you dont argue for it. Dunno, if you want me to continue in the mystical experience vein, dat there is some level of existence not related to just body, where body is biological body, then I say well, thats just assuming dat soul is real already. Being exist in the space, we navigate our percepted world as an embodied being, our form is dat of a human body, which has biological constitution which is how our perceptible world names material or content of the body. Our capacity to think is not related to our ability to exist, being exist as a fact in the space, we have faculty to have consciousness and register conscious phenomena due to in part being itself and the embodied form. Some faculties of consciousness are only available in embodied form, so, consciousness is a mode of existing for the being, similar to how the being's form is a mode for it to exist in perceptible space. There is no division to parts for being, the being must be taken as a whole because we do not know any other being, we only know embodied being because we are themselves like dat. You cant separate mind from the embodied being to some thing dat is outside it because then the being has lost a mode of existing and is unable to express itself in one space… So, we could say dat there is the space (our perceptible world), then there is phenomenal space, space which in which being registers experience. The phenomenal space is layed on top of the space as an extension, how ever, the being itself is indivisible, it is a whole. So, yeah, looking from this way, there is no separation for mind and body, there however is separation for spaces in which they express themselves but one cannot exist without the other, so, is this really able to just erase soul? Yes, well, because in this argument, mind and body are not opposite, they are complimenting, they merge together to provide expression for the being. Soul implies indivisible part of human existence which exist outside of body, or some thing like dat, in this argument, you dont have choice as embodied being to not exist outside your form and dont have choice not to express yourself in phenomenological space, where phenomenological space is unable to exist without the space, so, phenomenological space is subjugated to the space…
No. 271493 [PM]
Well, reason why I started saying biological body is an virtual category is dat I thought dat if you actually argued for it like dat then it would be very hard for me to counter argue. But you dont really argue, well, which I dunno, it sounds like you are not fully convinced in wat you believe or you just dont want to argue. But then I can just say mountain of stuff dat youll have real hard time arguing against, just like I just did… Can you really argue against wat I said up there without some trick or reverting to earlier state? Probably, but you would have easier time with just go with watever I gonna say
If you said some thing like, well, mind is supranatural and body is biological and then argued for biological basis for our existence instead of supranatural then I could hardly say any thing because then reality equals to biology and if we base reality in biology then my argument wouldnt not work. (Because for me the space we exist in is not exactly physical.) Then you couldve said dat there is supranatural way of being, being outside body, which is in itself some thing dat is not explainable by biology because it is above biology as biology only describes our physical basis for existence not spiritual. If you said this then I had to concede dat there is indeed duality of mind and body, but you dont really argue for dat, you might just assume dat I know your position… which I do, but I dont know how you gonna argue about it, so, hopefully youll see why Im being like I am and wat do I mean by saying dat I expect no more than opinion, it is about you actually saying wat you believe in, as opinion, not a statement on metaphysical matter
No. 271513 [PM]
>>271489>>271493language evolved naturally and we as humans are supposed to learn language during our development. There are cases of feral children who grew up completely without language, and you cant learn things like grammar after certain development phase. you might think that language is just manipulation, well we cannot just use any language, human intelligence is very limited. for instance, think how many levels of recursion we can use, its like 3 to 4 maximum, no matter which language you use. Isnt it so, that despite born using different languages, we still perceive world more or less same? i think you put way too much emphasis on language, and you dont really have good case. im not saying you need language to understand the concept of real, im saying this particular example of yours wouldnt understand anything about filmed movies.
well, i gave you a mystical experience as a basis of how consciousness could exist outside of body. consciousness might just be some sort of property of universe, it doesnt necessarily need to be some supranatural thing, well in a sense it could be as it cannot be captured using physical sciences, which can explain brain activity, behavior and how information is processed, but not how subjective experience exists at all. even if we had perfect map of brain processes, it wouldnt necessarily explain why consciousness is experienced internally rather than functioning mechanically. So you could argue, well, if you knock someone out they become unconscious, which you would use as proof that body and consciousness are inseparable, but that could as well be explained with that the biological body is just a temporary vessel for the consciousness and that connsciousness is expressed through a medium, damaging the medium disrupts expression, but does not necessarily prove consciousness itself is produced entirely by matter. also, this identity problem exists in materialism too. what happens when you copy someones brain atom for atom? there isnt clear answer, its a problem of first hand subjectivity. we also know dat even though our body drastically changes over our lifetime, there still remains a persistent sense of the continuity of self. None of this is necessarily proof of separation of mind and body by itself, because it cannot/hasnt be proven, but together they hint in that direction.
No. 271530 [PM]
>>271513If films is all wat you mean, then, its useless… Guy living with animal has no concept of movie. Language is not an inevitability, it is a capability, or as I like to think about it, a privilege… So, yeah, meaning exist stand alone, from language. By this meaning, we are able to know wat is not real. I dunno wat more is there to say, well, I think dat you dont even disagree with wat I say so I dunno why going on further… (Im not against broadening the discussion, but since the question stayed the same, I want it resolved, not by broadening but argumentation… If all you mean is dat we have to be taught to know if film is fake, then, sure, at this point, you just bulldozed me and I might as well agree…)
Well, thats just a narrative. You put value in physical sciences but I dont value it as much so, well, why would consciousness function mechanically? Neither I believe dat consciousness is entirely produced by matter. As for identity, I take identity for granted… because it is a cultural or linguistic thing. Being itself has no such thing as identity, it can exist without it, wat distinguishes beings is their position in the space and, perhaps, phenomenological experience… if there needs be in distinguishing. So, yeah, I dont disagree with wat you said, and I failed to see argument for hard duality of mind and body, because it seems like body and mind in your reasoning can have single source and so it wouldnt be so different in spirit from wat I say (if you knock out guy, is it a proof dat consciousness and body are inseparable? Yes and no… Body, as an embodied being, has mode of expression dat is consciousness in any case, so, you cant just disable it… Wat happen when you knock out the guy though? Well, then, wat happens is dat consciousness switches to inner space instead of external space. So, we have dreams, and dat is expression of inner consciousness, well, we cant dream during being conscious, dat is, in external consciousness… So, wat is inner consciousness? It is a limited state of phenomenological experience which has no space to be anchored on… Wat this means dat, perhaps, inner consciousness is extension of external consciousness and so inner consciousness is not inner at all, it is consciousness but without any anchoring in space… How would dat happen if all phenomenological experience requires anchoring in the space where our body is? So, now… our unconscious state is a state of a body, it doesnt stop and never couldnt by itself to be just stop existing if being is still embodied. So? Extended mode of consciousness, dat is anchored in no space, is possible. So, in other words, because this is an extended mode of consciousness, it behaves unlike to normal consciousness, and is able to simulate the space in limited capacity for own purposes. Which are the purposes I wont say…)
No. 271539 [PM]
>>271536Well, since I didnt experience out of body thing I cant tell you for sure… Is it fake? No, I dont believe dat any experience can be fake. So, we can devolve into psychology, which would be wrong turn, but I think dat out of body experience is a valid experience but if it is really as it is experienced, I dunno… we cant even be sure if our experience is really wat we experience at all time so I dunno
Well… why this experience and not other? This question presupposes design isnt it… How can this question be answered if Im unwilling to assume some teleological position? It cant, the way I see it… So, why do I experience wat do I experience, or why this stream of experience, well, there is no answer to dat. I think dat question is constructed in a way to prove a teleological position, so, I believe dat better version of question is possible. So, maybe underwhelming, but I dunno why is dat. For me personally this is not a problem…
Who experiences the experience? The being? Who else could experience… Well, but wat do you mean by it in you dont really answer why it exists? Like, phenomenology or experience or being? I can create ontological arguments out of thin air if you unbind my hands but other wise it aint gonna be great… Being is basically is becoming, so, there is intentionality in being. Or some thing, well, it is question of why every thing exist, and dat I cant give you answer for… There is no great answer for this. Well, so, in this case, Ill just say dat perhaps the question itself presupposes dat there is no answer. It is known dat every thing started, but why, well, maybe asking why is pointless, since universe has no preference and watever…
No. 271542 [PM]
>>271536better question is y did u have OOBE only once, no curiosity to experiment further on it, if the environment really is 1:1 w/ reality and not fabricated by mind etc. the answer is that ur scared to find out that there wasn't much special about it after all
No. 271543 [PM]
my take, tho i've not experienced it, is that it's at most probabilistic space, like how remote viewing isn't 1:1 w/ reality, but there's still something statistically verifiable going on
No. 271546 [PM]
>>271530im not arguing for some simplistic view of detachable soul or assuming teleology, im questioning whether embodiment explains consiousness fully. you already admitted that dreams or internally generated phenomenological spaces are not anchored to sensory reality, so, if consciousness can partially detach while experience continues, then embdiment may be condition of normal consciousness without necessarily needing to be ontological source of itself. my point is not that i can prove souls exists, but that if consiouscness is more than physical interraction then inseparability is not self evident either. in other words is it better to presuppose inseparability rather than duality? why should it be treated as default position?
>>271542eh, okay? the real reason is that i dont feel like it, and because it was long time ago, the conditions are not the same mentally.
No. 271553 [PM]
>>271544he listened to some hemisync binaural beat OOBE hypnosis/suggestion vid from utube and it worked
>>271546"i can do magic but i don't feel like it"
there's no way u at same time in ur heart of hearts believe it's spiritually meaningful phenomenon but have no interest in re-experiencing it
No. 271554 [PM]
>>271546Its true… embodiment doesnt explain consciousness fully. Phenomenological line of thought only can describe not explain. So, why should inseparability be the default? Good question… Well, I agree with all dat you said here, just so you know, you are spot on explaining with wat I meant…
Well, so, to answer dat I guess I need to expand on wat the space actually is. Which is a complicated to talk about, I might not be able to say wat I want in current iteration. So, being has a space for existing, this space is where we live. Then there is time. Wat is time and space for being? It is uhhh planes? of existence. We are able to move in both time and space, by we I mean being can. However, being doesnt moves per se, being becomes. So, in some way, being always exist in any time point and perhaps in every space point. So, our phenomenological experience is a snapshot of this position on the planes. Which means dat being is immortal
Embodied being, then, exist in a space where forms are how is being actually gets to be in the world. The world then is where we live when we have a form. In previous paragraph, being is formless. So, for us in our embodiment is a way of existing in the World. Then we become disembodied and, well, forgive me for this, we return to our immortal being. So, perhaps, it is only embodied being dat is actually has intention on becoming
So, to sum up, there is a life cycle for a being. The being itself is immortal, it is perhaps even eternal, and it is at all time had intention to become, so, then being gets a form in order to become and never stops becoming… Oh, well, I didnt explain how disembodiment actually happen if being can only try to become and never succeed, basically, history. In our World we are shaped by history more than any thing, so, when our being is disembodied it is basically a fulfilment of some thing like a destiny? of a being. Well, being has intentionality, you see…
So, why should inseparability should be the default? Our phenomenological experience is our Being literally becoming to fulfill some intention, so, not only dat we are inseparable in our, or being's, unity in body and consciousness, we are united in our unity in body and consciousness and place and time… and inseparable from dat. So, well, dats perhaps why…
>>271553Dunno wat dat is and afraid to search it on YouTube…
No. 271565 [PM]
>>271553>hemisync binaural beat OOBE hypnosis/suggestion vid from utubetrue, but it wasnt oobe related hypno, so you might want to update your spreadsheet
about the rest of the post, well, i didnt claim to be capable do it by will. also, the fact that i dont even know significance of the first experience makes me wonder why next time would be different. perhaps your argument that im afraid is partly true though.
>>271554i see… but you are now making kinda strong assumptions, perhaps a joke on me? well maybe we get back @ the topic later, im too exhausted to say much more about the topic in my current point in time and space of existence. gotta have some chill thoughts…
No. 271581 [PM]
>>271565i think u just care so little about others here that it's inconceivable to u that any1 would remember wat they have say
No. 271596 [PM]
>>271580i feel like that too to some extent about myself, more so recently, but i think its partly fed by existential or philosophical questions.
>>271581So you think im actually the slytherin one and you are the hufflepuff?! well, we might have to consult the sorting hat to figure out this one…
No. 271652 [PM]
some of the most retarded shit I've ever read itt no offence
No. 271660 [PM]
>>271657>>271658you are both,,,,, parddhaful`````
No. 271711 [PM]
AI generating movies for yourself is an idea that is fundamentally uninteresting to me. Nigga I know what I have in my head, I want to see what others have in their head to make it fresh and new to me. Yeah sure this opens up the medium for propaganda but the AI generation process can be corrupted and propagandized just as much.
And others also have good takes in this thread:
>>269475>but instead you get stuck in a mental orgasm masturbation chamber and barely qualify as human anymoreExactly. Battery in matrix tier
>>269584This whole post is based. Except there will be AI movies. It will be cheap and awful just like seed oil.
>>269593>Problem with AI being used in art is dat AI only able to summarize and dat is just not how art is made or thought about.yes
>right now main argument is that "its a slop", "it looks AI generated", but what if it didnt? what if it looked actually good. are you unallowed to like it because it was generated by computer from descriptive text?ugh. This is so basic, morty.
The problem is that when you ask the AI to make the movie 'dark', it will take the average of every movie ever described as dark and impose it on the imagery. When you ask it to make it scary, it will take the average of every movie described as scary and impose it on the imagery. Art does not work like this. When you ask two artists to make things scary they will put their own interpretation of scary onto the imagery and they will be totally different.
Your AI generated movie will just look like every movie ever and it will be super super boring to watch.
Cyberpunk 2077 and Bladerunner are both 'cyberpunk' 'oppressive corporate' etc yet they are very different and have their own style.
Also you need to address the point your movie sounds like scientology nonsense.
Also personally? Tom cruise and travolta? Cmon.
No. 271799 [PM]
>>271695I see what you are saying, although its impossible for thoughts not to be anchored on anything. we dont just think it gives more confidence and credibility, it actually does. its an observed reality.
>>271711yeah, but i didnt mean you make it just for yourself.
you are right, if you tell AI to make dark it makes the most generic dark, but what if you described precisely and it knew how to make what you precisely described? i mean, how can you expect saying dark and it interpreting it just in the way you mean it?
AI is based mostly on probability and randomness. all it gives is most probable answer with some randomness so that there is variety. if you know exactly how to prompt it you can get almost exactly what you meant.
i get that you see that AI creates mostly generic and boring stuff now, but the point of this thread was that if it was good and you could made exactly what you mean with it.
>Also you need to address the point your movie sounds like scientology nonsense.its not based on scientology though. its based on theories of finnish new age guy.
i like new age though, its trying to explain history of universe and religions and everything with aliens. yeah they are kinda hippies and weird, but their lore is cool.
>Also personally? Tom cruise and travolta? Cmon.well, if i made space opera action like i described then would need actors like that. you need to use specific kind of actors for specific vibe.
No. 271911 [PM]
>>271799I dunno about wat you say. It is hard to conceive someone who is thought to be "mentally ill" to have thoughts not ancored on any thing? Or people like dat not even "we"? It is observed reality only if you state, or refer to the authority, in this case book. If you do not, if you never reveal or accentuate, wat can anyone do is to read it and judge wat you wrote by own intuition or reason. My argument was dat only in process of revealing your sources you are more credible and more confident, I dont believe you can argue against dat (my argument is not about observable reality but the reality observed by you or me. You here take position of someone who would judge you or me, this is not wat I mean, I only talk about how we feel about wat we do. You could say dats how you feel, dat stronger foundation directly boosts my confidence and credibility but you dont know dat. You cant claim dat without you being evaluated by some one, wat you think is never more credible or confident until it is agreed by some one else. Dat is why I say we think, because it is very different on how it is actually being observed by other people. I only talk about us in ourselves, how we see the world, not how we are perceived)
(You cant create with AI (almost) exactly wat you mean. It is an impossibility. If I know a tree and location, and AI knows the tree and its location, then no matter how hard youll try, AI cannot give you this tree, even if million of images exist from different angles, because of how AI works. AI can only give you the average of the tree, even if only one image of a particular tree exist. So, no, it doesnt matter how detailed your promts are, it will never give you wat actually exist. In other way, AI has no reality and knows no facts, it only can average out every thing, to summarize some thing. So, if this is the case, why then think dat AI ever has any bearing to any reality at all? It doesnt, while the question isnt about reality directly, even if it is a question of fiction, fiction is still partially based on reality, fiction doesnt exist without reality. So, it can only give you wat satisfies you, does it give you almost exactly wat you mean? Probably not…)
No. 272030 [PM]
>>271911No, i didnt argue you against it, i meant it like you say, so it indeed makes you feel more confident and credible. you can feel confident talking even if you dont know what you are talking about, but there is no really situation where lack of knowledge specifically makes u feel more confident (duh!). how we are perceived, really depends on many more factors than just how well we can present our arguments and so on, e.g someone can be so charismatic that people even are kinda afraid to question him, just by his essence alone.
yea, i used to be cant guy too. AI cant do math because its based on probability, but then they made it somehow be capable to call external tools on fly. So, how it works is not set in stone. its unpredictable what it can and cant do. Like i understand how tokenization and such work, we had to do course on it in the work place, like how it parses everything to numerical value and predicts next token using math. So im completeling aware of it "not knowing" on core level, but dat is just a layer of it.
No. 272108 [PM]
>>272030Being not knowledgeable of a crime can make you feel more confident talking, being not knowledgeable in a dispute between people can make you feel confident talking, there are situations where lack of knowledge specifically makes you feel more confident (not to mention dat attitudes are not same for all people)
Dunno, I dont think it smart. They can just add more if statements and call it a day, well, but it no make it any better… They say there will be time when AI will write itself, perhaps even today it could, but I dunno… It still gonna be big work to integrate it, so, any way I think there is progress but because main reason why AI exist is to satisfy people I cant see it other way now. Yeah, you can make it do math. Wolfram alpha existed for how many year, it use no AI or based on it as far as I know… You can just integrate those together or add if statement to switch to this skill or watever, AI is ancient field in computer science, so I dont think it so interesting… people think it interesting because it look like it talk like human, and this is very significant, but other wise wat it does is not impressive or dat interesting any way (you might say, but Bob, those video generate technology sound pretty sick… and I would have to agree with dat. Though, in earlier day, in day of Lisp, there was no such crazy amount of data…)
No. 272144 [PM]
>>272108i dont think so. thats a different thing altogether too. it may make you more confident, but not more confident about the topic.
well, to use wolfram you need to know the calculation formulas, which really is the hardest part of math. using natural language is big advance and the AI to "undestand" what parts it need to use tool for is huge actually. yeah, well, we can say dat they did ai since 60s, so why it is a big thing suddenly? well, could it be that they did many big breakthroughs lately and moved from theory to practice not that we actually have some calculating power to make it happen? So, if you are actually not impressed at all, then i wonder, what does it take for you to be impressed. Im impressed by the fact that we even have modern computer. we have all this information available us for free basically, yet people complain over most menial thing. i mean, you are even give information how you can contribute and make things better, yet people still complain because its not perfect all the time. So i think its valid to complain when there is ethical issue, such as control being taken away from you, but otherwise? how entitled, isnt it?
No. 272260 [PM]
>>272144Its useless, people feel more confident with less knowledge all the time, with more knowledge you feel less confident, it is not controversial to say this. I dunno, wats the point of all
It is not a problem of calculating power but revolution in data processing, storage, harvest and manipulation. AI field is driven by data, without data there is no AI, even chess AI needs historical data about games of top players to beat them. It might stimulate best turn by brute force, but it wont help with strategical placing
So, wat does it take for me to be impressed? Why do I need to be impressed. I dunno, I guess it is very hard. I go outside and see how it is, in this moment in reality and it is either impressed by every thing or impressed by no thing… Im impressed by no thing because my attitude is dat I cant find any reasons to care about importance, especially about superficial things dat are remote from my circumstance
I dont really understand wat you mean since you didnt provide an example and your wording is very ambiguous… Computer is no thing impressive. Dunno, every one have it, it helps you with stuff. Maybe it was impressive once but now? Nah. I dont understand wat entitlement you talk about, but people dont complain without a reason, I dont believe you grade human complaints on scale valid to invalid or important to unimportant, either all are heard and matter or none are mattering
No. 272274 [PM]
>>272260so u mean like person could know about thing, but hesitant to give opinion on it. yeah i guess that would be right.
that is what i meant, i meant as in computing power, as in more capability in general sense, not as in raw processing power. yeah, well historically chess ai needed to learn from top player. modern chess AI dont need to know anything about players. actually quite ironically, something like alphazero was trained without any player data, yet its better at chess than any human, so today chess players are trying to learn from it actually.
arent u impressed how they made everything? im often even impressed by achievements of a single person. what do u mean by superficial? is computer superficial? not really imo.
everyone having computer makes is less impressive? do u place importance in rarity? i mean, i get it, but thats different kind of impressive. the entitlement is when people do 10 hours of work with press of button, then there is some minor inconvenience that makes them have to click button twice instead of once, then they say its suddenly shit. people have very little patience to learn or be interested in new thing. for instance, if i try to teach new tech to my dad so next time he can do it independently without help, he just gets frustrated and doesnt pay attention. i know its humane thing to do, but still… if you tell me i cant rate peoples complaint, then i disagree and say of course i can.
No. 272816 [PM]
>>272274No, I just dont really understand wat you mean by lack of knowledge specifically thing, because you said dat there is case when you feel more confident with less knowledge. They mean same but for some reason one is confident other not…
Dunno. Playing chess is not math, it is skill. AI cant have dat. All chess players have to use tools though, well, because not using them is disadvantageous. So, yeah, human language is a very elaborate data processing tool, but data on its own has no value. There was revolution in data dat allowed LLM to exist. I really fail to see how is it dat important to be honest, it is just really boring stuff, it is a toy for people… People like toys but dunno some times they like them too much
Who are they? Sorry, Ive lost the thread here. But no, Im not impressed. You probably mean computer creator or some thing like dat but Im just very demoralized about every thing. You say achivements of single person but you sure know yourself dat this is a lie. So, dunno. Wat do I mean by superficial? This. I mean this, compared to reality, compared to gravity and pressing problems, all of this is just vanity. My personal circumstance and circumstance I live in, well, computer is just use less and cannot solve no problem. Alleviate no pain, cant even be used as a cope or help tool. So, dunno. Why do you believe computer is not superficial? It will be easier for you to say because of conflict of interest, but for me, if all computer suddenly explode yesterday, I would cheer, for one little victory for Meaning (though, yeah, not to say computer is all bad… Just not most important thing in world)
Lets put a bar on impressiveness. Impressive is when everyone, regardless of circumstance, has decency dat is forcefully reinforced by structural powers, where humanity is inalienable, where you are never questioned for being valid or invalid because you are always valid, where there is dignity for everyone in equal capacity. So, no, computers are not impressive by dat standard, like, no thing is impressive
Dunno. Of you press two button 12 hours a day, like with rate of 2 button per second, you surely would wish for one button per second. So, you complain and I respect dat. You are wrong though. Not everyone is you, and it is machine which must be made to serve human and not other way. You make soft ware so you are very biased, making soft ware is not easy. But tell me, who wants to live in a mind of designer? A totalitarian megalomaniac which wants to subject you to their design. I dunno, I thought you liked freedom, but it seems dat people cant be free from bad design then… People use technology not technology uses humans, if they want one button click give them dat because it is the whole purpose of design. The whole purpose of a tool is in its convenience to solve problem, here you say dat software is somehow not a tool and can be bad. No, you are wrong. Maybe your dad was right. Because Im sure as hell technology cannot be right. Dont take pity for humanity of your father, see your father as he is, a human, who has own needs and own history. Not a toy for a metaphysical tech that seems to be just plainly ideal in use, and plainly carry inherent utility as a use completely separated from its user. It is users of tool make tool have any utility, and it is purpose of tool to be convenient for people. It is not a problem of patience but warped perception about software, for me software never was good, so, it is not surprising dat people have problems with it
No. 273239 [PM]
>>272274>>272816>the entitlement is when people do 10 hours of work with press of button, then there is some minor inconvenience that makes them have to click button twice instead of once, then they say its suddenly shit.>Dunno. Of you press two button 12 hours a day, like with rate of 2 button per second, you surely would wish for one button per second. So, you complain and I respect dat.loosen up my buttons, babe
No. 273261 [PM]
>>272816Lets use an example then. a person say confidently things like i hate computers. if you then continue by asking what specific things do you hate about them, their confidence instantly drops based on their knowledge of the subject, meaning, if they havent rationalized their hatred, they cant confidently defend it either.
Playing chess is math, its probability calculation, isnt that how the current best AI does it? it doesnt need to know about strategies or such, but pure cold math… see, now you are making racism against toys.. havent you seen toy story? toys arent that bad…
"they" as in people who did these things.. i cannot really list them all, so i just have to say they. (yes, the they exists, dont say it dont…) How is it lie?? can you not respect causality? You say superficial, but we wouldnt say superficial if it was not human made. If ant made a computer, we wouldnt say it was superficial. we would say, and i quote one of the greatest facebook philosophers of our time "crazy how nature make dat". We say so, because we want to distinguish ourself from nature, and think human is above all. So we can create more fake categories, as if somehow human wasnt of nature. So, you see pic i attached? people think he is dumb, but what if i told you he is exactly right?
no, i dont think that is best definition for impressive. many things can be impressive, not just things that fill all those box. you can have that standard, but i dont think thats what it means when we say impressive.
i mean you are right, in a sense that if two button serve no purpose, then its valid to criticize that functionality, but what if there is reason for it? and the person just says this sucks, they should only have one button. Then you change it to only have one button. Then person says, why did they remove the other button? now the result is different and it sucks.. Then you explain him why there needed to be two button in the first place. Then the guy might say, oh okay, i was arrogant and forming an opinion with limited understanding. But that doesnt usually happen, because people are quick to judge. i think you almost anthropomorphize technology when you say its bad. technology is just wheel on a chart. it doesnt have evil intention, although it can be used for bad.
No. 273265 [PM]
>>272263bob wallah is the funniest poster in our community
i stand on this hill 4eva i wouldnt die for it tho
No. 275395 [PM]
>>273261Ok, but dat doesnt explain difference between two… the main problem I had… But I dont know, hate is irrational and doesnt need rationalization so I can perfectly see confident hatred. It is not an knowledge problem, but a temperamental, dispositional one
No. Chess is human activity, robot clankkka ass metal bucket has no concept of skill. Chess is skill, thats the point of chess, no one is excited to see a wireback slave to play chess because there is no metis in it. Im very redpilled on robot hate, including LLM, so I make argument dat no toaster ass can have metis or be taught metis because metis is essentially a how do I say it? a being activity and bolt for brains cogsucking robob*tch has no being. So, yeah, chess is not math, it is art of metis kind and dat is how it gets taught, dont be fooled by math, just because it can be represented in mathematical dimension means no thing to actual purpose or history of chess
I respect casuality. If ant make computer? Well, better yet, language is better than computer, perhaps, language is computer… ant cant do even dat, dunno wats the point, nature cant make dat… (Computer is superficial. How can it improve human life? It cant, beyond knowledge, and knowledge is not a big determining factor in human life quality. Hence superficial. It is only on a wider scale computer is cool. But we little human…)
Who is we? I mean, sure you can say in general parlance dats not. But this implies people. But you refer to virtual people. Because Im not virtual I have more precedence over virtual people and so you must either respect my definition or put up your own, lets not defer to nonexisting groups or categories of groups (I try to define terms out if fairness to you. I suggest you do same, you can just redefine it in turn or watever, but dont just say thats not how it is, Im not a mind reader and I cant find non existing people…)
I think I was very clear in my opinion on technology as a tool. Thats all. Now, if you have bad design, you have bad design. If your hammer has too short grip or it is a soft hammer that cant drive in nails then theyll say thats not funny prank… Why do you think software is any different? Why do you think good design needs any explanation? Definition of good design is absence of design, it is familiarity and logical understanding. With good design no complaints are made about it. The problem is clearly of bad design and not people. Why should be humans in fault? Why do you prefer some software, thing dat famously is never good, to human? Perhaps not humans are arrogant in this case, if you have to explain any thing related to design, youve failed it, straight up, dats why minimalism was thought to be best design because simple shape and one button leads to no ambiguity. So, you must understand, it is not people who adapt to things, people make things adapt to them, dats why we have so many things to buy. I mean, there are many same things in different variations for this reason dat people like things dat adaps to them. Dats why software will never be good in any capacity wat so ever, because it cannot provide enough alternatives, it is inflexible and centralized, the design for software is an unsolvable problem. So, dont blame people for dat, because people are always right over software because dat is just how it is
>>273265I dunno, am I funny? Lately, Ive not counted myself as funny…
No. 275397 [PM]
will ai ever evolve enough to suck dick
(YOLO)