altruios phasma

@OLeben@mamot.fr @ketan@climatejustice.social it’s scarce enough that if we all start buying, it will dry up fast enough to slow down so data center buildout. It’s critical for AI datacenters. It’s something we all can do, it’s more effective than trying to convince captured legislation. It’s not possible to ignore if it gains traction.

@ketan@climatejustice.social if you want to help stop ai datacenters from being built: buy silver. It’s critical for AI datacenters and used 3x more than in regular datacenters. Legislative level has been captured. Hit them at the resource level. Make their pocket books hurt. This is an individual action that requires no coordination. This is something we can all do to help stop the proliferation of ai datacenters. Pro-silver = anti-ai.

@holdenweb@freeradical.zone The reasoning is: there is no magic. Magic being a thing which has no attribute which can be measured: yet still has a measurable effect… a contradiction in principle. Therefore everything that exists can be measured… including processes we don’t yet understand (consciousness is a process that happens, not something that just is). We may not be able to measure everything accurately… but that’s a limit in human’s abilities.

@holdenweb@freeradical.zone practically zero is non-zero…? Did that really need to be specified? Practical experiments test/verify/refine theory…

@holdenweb@freeradical.zone infinity when represented physically: is a process that never ends. Defining a measuring function to run forever and increase accuracy overtime converges to the described infinity. Close to zero: practically zero… not zero! we don’t know what we don’t know yet. Besides that: there is the concept of useful accuracy - Where further precision offers no more predictive power…

@holdenweb@freeradical.zone prove? Not quite. Humans will (probably) never make a machine that can represent normal numbers - but we may yet invent something awesome beyond our current comprehension that can. I don’t think that’s likely… but the probability of that happening is only approximately zero. All knowledge is an approximation of reality, our experience is subjective through that approximation (like how is color is a representation of wavelength and only in your brain).

@holdenweb@freeradical.zone @joosteto@mamot.fr @evgandr@mas.to @jadedtwin@corteximplant.com @WhiteCatTamer@mastodon.online @Eatsbluecrayon@rollenspiel.social also: I don’t think you are dumb or an asshole. Basic respect for a fellow human: regardless of if we see eye to eye on “numbers vs magic” :)

@holdenweb@freeradical.zone @joosteto@mamot.fr @evgandr@mas.to @jadedtwin@corteximplant.com @WhiteCatTamer@mastodon.online @Eatsbluecrayon@rollenspiel.social you are inserting… something into this conversation… and I don’t know what (bias) that is. Probabilistic outcomes are described by numbers… what makes you think I would think otherwise? It’s numbers all the way down.

@holdenweb@freeradical.zone @joosteto@mamot.fr @evgandr@mas.to @jadedtwin@corteximplant.com @WhiteCatTamer@mastodon.online @Eatsbluecrayon@rollenspiel.social It’s arbitrary: we choose the map. We have only so many chemicals in our brains. The emotional state can be represented by the chemical balances of various neurotransmitters, product with the electrochemical state of the brain. Humans may never be able to represent that level detail: I agree. But, in theory, it could be done.

@holdenweb@freeradical.zone you assert that it can’t be done. Okay: asserted noted. Any actual argument or reason? (Other than it “feels/seems” like to can’t be done).

@holdenweb@freeradical.zone @joosteto@mamot.fr @evgandr@mas.to @jadedtwin@corteximplant.com @WhiteCatTamer@mastodon.online @Eatsbluecrayon@rollenspiel.social Let’s keep it dumbed down: here’s your proof. 1) Name an emotion. 2) I assign a number: 3) done. Infinite numbers means every emotion is represented a number. It can be done… The real issue is ordering the data sensibly.

@holdenweb@freeradical.zone representation is doing lifting there… I agree we cannot represent all the math correctly. Normal numbers are the bulk of numbers and they can’t be represented on the computer… Doesn’t mean normal numbers don’t exist. Analog systems are still describable by numbers. Digitization is a different issue. Our limits of representation are not the limits of numbers in the abstract. You bring up good points, though. Quantization is an issue with representing numbers.

@thelovebing@mastodon.nu @jadedtwin@corteximplant.com @WhiteCatTamer@mastodon.online @Eatsbluecrayon@rollenspiel.social the video explains how you use math on language to encode meaning. Examples like “king - man = queen” relational vector math (where each word is a vector {list of numbers}). Word2vec is the keyword to research more. Those numbers are variable, depending on the relational web of the vocabulary of the language, of course…

@thelovebing@mastodon.nu @jadedtwin@corteximplant.com @WhiteCatTamer@mastodon.online @Eatsbluecrayon@rollenspiel.social It can be expressed as numbers. As you say: we agree? The meaning of words is a vector list of numbers. Here’s a video on the subject: https://youtu.be/iErmK_sJtag?si=HaIk2FhXQ9BHNKe4

@evgandr@mas.to @jadedtwin@corteximplant.com @WhiteCatTamer@mastodon.online @Eatsbluecrayon@rollenspiel.social Regarding the brain not being a computer… I get the articles point: but there’s some (willful?) blind spots in those arguments. Short form comments aren’t a way to have that discussion. I’ll get my thoughts together on that. Of course I mean to say I don’t think humans can literally see or process that much info to that accuracy, if that wasn’t implicit. Laws of physics still apply.

@jonahgibberish@kolektiva.social Signals/waves are still describable by numbers, even as the note paper representing them also can be describe with numbers.

@jadedtwin@corteximplant.com @WhiteCatTamer@mastodon.online @Eatsbluecrayon@rollenspiel.social If you don’t believe everything can be expressed in numbers then consequently you must believe there is some “magic” in which numbers are meaningless. That simply isn’t the case. From the count of neurons firing, to their relations and positions: every “emotion” can be described with numbers. Magic or numbers. That’s the choice. Thus: language is math (numbers encoded).

@rodhilton@mastodon.social ranked can be gamed too, with the elimination round you can do some funky stuff. Rated is where it’s at!

@rodhilton@mastodon.social rated choice is more scalable than ranked choice - in theory it should be exactly as fast as fptp give or take… with rated choice there are no “elimination rounds” like in ranked that would need technical support. You just count the star ratings on the ballots (so depending on number of candidates…) People are more familiar with ranked choice but rated has some superior features logistically that make it easier to implement and harder to “game”. There would still be some tech changes…

@rodhilton@mastodon.social winner take all is inherently disenfranchising up to half-1 of voters. Fuck fptp. Ranked choice/rated choice is how we fix democracy. Literally: that’s it. Get that - we are a real country again - and the spoiler effect is gone… people can vote for who they want instead of voting against the other side. Progressives get their own party by this too! Land shouldn’t get a vote, and the amount of land you own should not matter for how your vote is counted… System has always been fucked!