Are you being sarcastic? I can’t tell.

That’s not what I’m saying at all. What I’m trying to say is that I can’t think of any way a program working with numeric types could start outputting string types. I could maybe believe a calculator program that disables exceptions could do that, but even then, who would do that?

I refuse to believe the python one ever happens. Unless you are importing libraries you don’t understand, and refuse to read the documentation for, I don’t see how a string could magically appear from numeric types.

Anything that is turning complete & has enough ram can emulate x86, and an x86 emulator can boot Linux.

How can you tell this is AI? I don’t see any of the characteristic AI probabilistic blurs, and the reflections & caustics seem right.

Communist logix

we need to abolish private property so everybody has equal power.

we class of people to maintain public ownership

After all, how can we enforce public ownership without a more powerful class of enforcers?

I will continue to say LITRALLY everytime somebody uses literally as figuratively.

Did you guys find this hard? There are only four possible ways to move a ring, two of which are disallowed by the rules. Out of the remaining two, one of them is simply undoing what you just did.

I’m not sure I entirely understand your argument. “We decide it exists, therefore it exists” is the basis of all science and mathematics. We form axioms based on what we observe, then extrapolate from those axioms to form a coherent logical system. While it may be a leap of logic to assume others have consciousness, it’s a common decency to do that.

Onto the second argument, when I mean “what signal is qualia” I’m talking about what is the minimum number of neurons we could kill to completely remove someone’s experience of qualia. If we could sever the brain stem, but that would kill an excess of cells. We could kill the sensory cortex, but that would kill more cells than necessary. We could sever the connection between the sensory cortex and the rest of the brain, etc. As you minimize the number of cells, you move up the hierarchy, and eventually reach the prefrontal cortex. But once you reach the prefrontal cortex, the neurons that deliver qualia and the neurons that register it can’t really be separated.

Lastly, you said that assuming consciousness is some unique part of the universe is wrong because it cannot be demonstrably proven to exist. I can’t really argue against this, since it seems to relate to the difference in our experience of consciousness. To me, consciousness feels palpable, and everything else feels as thin as tissue paper.

Here’s another way of framing it: qualia, by definition, is not measurable by any instrument, but qualia must exist in some capacity in order for us to experience it. So, me must assume that either we cannot experience qualia, or that qualia exists in a way we do not fully understand yet. Since the former is generally rejected, the latter must be true.

You may argue that neurochemical signals are the physical manefestation of qualia, but making that assumption throws us into a trap. If qualia is neurochemical signals, which signals are they? By what definition can we precisely determine what is qualia and what is not? Are unconscious senses qualia? If we stimulated a random part of the brain, unrelated to the sensory cortex, would that create qualia? If the distribution of neurochemicals can be predicted, and the activations of neurons was deterministic as well, would calculating every stimulation in the brain be the same as consciousness?

In both arguments, consciousness is no clearer or blurrier, so which one is correct?

Okay, but what is sparc and pa-risc?

Sorry, I should’ve been more thorough. I meant it functionally ignores the concept of unequal power. Any sufficiently large group effort will eventually build a power structure, regardless of whether it’s capitalist or communist.

It’s less about the fallibility of humans, and more mathematical than that. A person ability to acquire wealth is proportional to the current wealth they have. (And I’m not just talking about money, I’m taking about resources and power) As a result, those with a tendency to act nastier have an advantage in gaining wealth. This same issue is present in a communist economy, because while communism eschues the concept of money, it does not reject the idea of unequal power. Even some super intelligent AI wouldn’t be able to fix this, as long as it was forced to give humanity basic freedoms and follow communist ideals.

Honestly, this whole communism vs capitalism debate is beneficial to the powers that be, since neither system actually tries to prevent the acquisition of power or the abuse of it.

Here I thought this was an IT crowd reference.

deleted by creator

There are actually two standards here. Kibibytes was introduced later as a way to reduce confusion cause by the uninitiated thinking the JEDEC standard refered to powers of ten instead of two. That’s why I’m saying that 64 kilobytes is equal to 2^16 bytes, because that’s what the original standard was.

I still use mb and kb as 1024 instead of 1000, because I prefer to not have units switched around from under me. 2^16 will always address 64kb, not 65.

My big issue with socialism is more about the implementation. I’m not sure there is a way of enforcing socialism that isn’t antithetical to the goal of socialism- a more even distribution of power (which we quantify as wealth in a capitalist society).

In general, I don’t think there are any stable economic systems that don’t decay into feudalism when abused. At least for the economic systems we’ve come up with so far. The best one I know of is the gift economy, but that requires people to not expect something in return, because otherwise it could be reduced down to capitalism.

In short, all the economic systems so far, despite their best intentions, reinforce inequality.

goes on an anti-tankie post Comments that his posts are always dogpilled by the most anti-tankie group. Claims ad hominem when someone points it out.

:)

1 yard is about a meter. 3 feet in a yard. Just divide by 3 and that’s good enough for 99% of cases.