HervalFreire

Why does this matter? At that point this metric proves his friend isn't sentient rendering his opinion about it irrelevant.

>The podcast is missing this healthy type of acceptance and appreciation of truth.

The podcast is grounded in science and only speculates about the consequences via the data and the studies it cites. The people who were interviewed are psychologists who empirically study this scientifically and their conclusions are more well developed then yours given that they've spent a huge amount of time dedicated to elucidating these findings.

Your conclusion on the other hand was not formulated on data. It was formulated in attempt to fulfill your bias. You took the data and tried to mold it so it would fit your current world view instead of adjusting your world view according to what the data straight forwardly implies. I mean you are trying to push the conclusions of the study toward a positive outcome when reality in essence doesn't care about positive or negative outcomes. It can all be negative and that is a completely valid outcome.

I mean where is the data about people who healthily accept the truth? You would need that data to formulate a scientific conclusion. If no such data exists then where did your conclusion come from?

Perhaps the subject of podcast was talking about something you're doing right now.

I ask myself in attempting to get at the absolute dark truth... is what I'm doing good for either of us in terms of mental health? Probably not. I take it back.

You're completely right and I'm wrong.

>That makes the border very important. Even if drawing the line in the right spot is impossible, it's imperative that we recognize when it has gone from one side to the other,

No it's not. Because such a line may not even exist. Just as no line truly exists for what is hot and what is cold. It's more worth it to look at societal implications in aggregate then to debate about a metric.

It's not imperative at all to discretize the concept. Treat a gradient for what it is: a gradient. You can do that or waste time arguing about whether 75.00001 degrees is hot or cold.

>If we don't notice, we could accidentally cause a moral travesty orders of magnitude greater than slavery or genocide.

No this a bit too speculative imo. Morality is also a gradient along good and evil and what's more complicated is the definition of good and evil is also subjective. It suffers from the same problem as consciousness in addition to being completely arbitrary even at the extremes. We may agree that a rock is not conscious but not everyone agrees on whether or not Trump is evil.

There is a reference counting GC in rust. It's just not default and you have to be explicit about invoking it. It's similar to shared pointers in C++. See Arc.

For something like python the heap allocation or stack allocation is handled behind the scenes so the entire concept is abstracted away from you.

>It may not be exactly clear where a temperature becomes 'hot', but the sun is still not a great place to host your wedding.

But right now we are currently at the border. LLMs are nearing the line of demarcation. So everyone is arguing about where that line is.

So it's not about the extremes because the extremes are obvious. We are way past the negative extreme and approaching or even past the border.

The point is that the position of this border is not important. It's a made up border. So if I say we are past the border or before it the statement is not important because its an arbitrary statement.

Not if you use modern python. And by modern python I mean typed python. Heavily typed.

In my opinion it's not pretty ok. It's actually superior to many other languages.

I think for web stuff though the borrowing and move semantics is a bit of an overkill. Usually you don't need to thread or handle state in these areas (frameworks and databases handle it for you) so a GC works better here. But everything outside of that is superior to something like ruby, python or go when it comes to safety.

> Emergent properties of systems aren't less real just because they exist in a different regime than the underlying mechanics of the system.

I'm not claiming emergent properties aren't real. I am claiming the nature of the word consciousness itself is loaded. We are dealing with a vocabulary problem when it comes to that word... we are not dealing with an actual problem.

For example take your chair and table example. Let's say someone created something that is functionally and looks similar to both a chair and a table. Is it worth your time to argue about the true nature of chairs and tables then? Is it really such a profound concept to encounter a a monstrous hybrid that upends the concept of chair and table? No.

You'd just be arguing semantics. Because chair and table is really a made up concept. You'd be debating about vocabulary. Same with consciousness.

It's not about the fuzzy border. It doesn't matter if the border is fuzzy or not.

The point is the border doesn't exist in the first place. You created the border with the vocabulary. The concept itself is not intrinsic to reality. It was created. You came up with the word white and you made an arbitrary border. Whether that border is fuzzy or not is defined by you. It's made up.

We have a gradient. That's all that exists. You came in here and decided to arbitrarily call a section white and another section black. You made up the concepts of black and white. But those concepts are arbitrary. So it's pointless to argue about the border. Does it matter where the border is? Does it matter if the border is fuzzy? No. You'd be just arguing about pointless vocabulary and arbitrary definitions of the word black and white. The argument is not deep or meaningful it is simply a debate about English semantics.

Same with consciousness. We have a gradient for intelligence and awareness from something really stupid to something really intelligent. Does it really matter where we demarcate where something is conscious? and where it is not? Likely no, because the demarcation is arbitrary.

It's illusive but when people debate about consciousness. Oftentimes it could be that they are just debating about Vocabulary. Consciousness could be some word that's just poorly defined; it doesn't make sense to do a deep analysis on an arbitrary vocabulary word.

>There's no illusion - love is a complex, durable emotion and is as real as (typically) shorter duration emotions such as anger, fear, joy, etc. Your emotions and thoughts aren't illusions, they're real.

I'm talking about romantic love. Clearly the specifications around romantic love are aligned with evolution and natural selection rather then magic or depth.

A straight human cannot feel romantic love for a horse or a person of the opposite sex. If romantic love was truly a deeper emotion then such an arbitrary sexual delineation wouldn't exist. Think about it. Why should romantic love restrict itself to a certain sex? It's sexist. Biology is sexist when it comes to love. Why?

From this we can no that love is an illusion. It's more of a biological mechanism then it is a spiritual feeling.

If it's not an illusion then you should be able to tell me what it is.

Since you can't. I can easily tell you that it's probably just some classification word with no exact meaning. The concept itself doesn't exist. It's only given existence because of the word.

Take for example the colors black and white. Do those colors truly exist on a gradient? On a gradient we have levels of brightness and darkness at what level of brightness should a color be called white and at what level should we call it black?

I can choose a arbitrary boundary for this threshold, or I can make it more complex and give a third concept: Grey. I can make up more concepts like Light Grey or Dark Grey. These concepts don't actually exist. They are just vocabulary for classification. They are arbitrary zones of demarcation on a gradient classified with a vocabulary word.

My claim is consciousness could be largely the same thing. When does something cross the line from unconscious to conscious? Perhaps this line of demarcation is simply arbitrary. It may be that the concept practically isn't real and any debate about it is just like arguing about where on a gradient does black become white.

Is a logic gate conscious? If I create a network of logic gates when does the amount of logic gates plus how they are interconnected cross the line into sentience? Perhaps the question is meaningless. When does black become white?

That's an inaccurate test. You can't know if the answer was real or stochastic parroting.

Any attempt at consciousness requires us to define the word. And the word itself may not even represent anything real. We have a feeling for it but those feelings could be illusions and the concept itself is loaded.

For example Love is actually a loaded concept. It's chemically induced but a lot of people attribute it to something deeper and magical. They say love is more then chemical induction.

The problem here is that for love specifically we can prove it's a mechanical concept. Straight people are romantically incapable of loving members of the same sex. So the depth and the magic of it all is strictly segmented based off of biological sex? Doesn't seem deep or meaningful at all. Thus love is an illusion. A loaded and mechanic instinct tricking us with illusions of deeper meaning and emotions into creating progeny for future generations.

Consciousness could be similar. We feel there is something there, but really there isn't.

>You can't just handwave away complexity. It's entirely possible for the US to have too little regulation in some fields and too much regulation in other fields.

I didn't handwave anything. My answer is sufficiently complex with multitudes of counter examples to your point.

The whole thing with the massive list of examples is to illustrate a general point on the lack of business regulation overall in the US.

I literally stated it's the ratio of failures to successes that matters here. If I can produce 30 examples of the US failing to regulate and you produce one, that speaks to an overall generality that eclipses your example.

The arena of scientific validation is hard to establish here. Neither of us can paint a picture of the entire domain of every single failure and success of regulatory laws in existence for the US. So given the nature of this debate just list as many general examples as possible.

You have nuclear power as one, that's it.

>I never claimed otherwise. But why would a conservative think tank, which favors less business regulations, not even put the US on the top ten list of most "economically free" countries if the US is so underregulated? Why would they prefer the regulatory environment in Denmark and Sweden over the regulatory environment in the United States?

Don't know. The motivations of such groups are complex and multifaceted. Following some breadcrumb trail to get at the root of it is too much effort. I only know that this group is biased and not a neutral party. There's no point in vetting a known compromised source. Pick a valid one.

>So when I bring up examples they're "exceptions", but while you bring up examples, they're examples of the rule. When I cite sources that do an overall survey of a country's regulatory environment, that's "biased", but when you cite a source that makes their money by helping companies comply with food regulations, that's just fine.

Yeah you cited one bogus example from the heritage foundation. All my examples are real. Unlike yours.

>I can run ChatGPT myself, thanks. Why don't you try thinking for yourself and considering the possibility that your presuppositions are wrong?

Highly disagree. Your answers are inferior to anything chatGPT can come up with so obviously you likely can't run it yourself.