GPT-4 got upgraded

[Me]

https://youtu.be/O8GUH0_htRM

[Ned]

On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 9:21:14 PM UTC-7, Me wrote:
>
> https://youtu.be/O8GUH0_htRM
>

We're all gonna die. GPT-4 can count! And it can do math!

And it can (kinda) recognize things in an image. It still messed up
on a word ladder, and (I assume) would still have problems with
getting all the anagrams of a word scramble. And it made a few
errors in counting prime numbers.

But we're still all gonna die.

Meet the new boss...
https://i.postimg.cc/gcZz7SdH/Chat-GPT-Portrait.jpg

Ned

[Me]

On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 10:26:36 PM UTC-7, Ned wrote:
> On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 9:21:14 PM UTC-7, Me wrote:
> >
> > https://youtu.be/O8GUH0_htRM
> >
>
> We're all gonna die. GPT-4 can count! And it can do math!
>
> And it can (kinda) recognize things in an image. It still messed up
> on a word ladder, and (I assume) would still have problems with
> getting all the anagrams of a word scramble. And it made a few
> errors in counting prime numbers.

Meh. Give it another few weeks or so.
It'll be fixed by GPT-5. Then, watch out for GPT-6!

> But we're still all gonna die.

Don't worry:
https://i.postimg.cc/CL61j2Hc/Death.jpg

The evolution of intelligence will continue and will take a sudden exponential leap without being tied to carbon-based units.
Just as dinosaurs were a dead end, so us meat-tubes might be as well.
https://youtu.be/7tScAyNaRdQ

[Ned]

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:48:06 PM UTC-7, Me wrote:
> On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 10:26:36 PM UTC-7, Ned wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 9:21:14 PM UTC-7, Me wrote:
> > >
> > > https://youtu.be/O8GUH0_htRM
> >
> > We're all gonna die. GPT-4 can count! And it can do math!
> >
> > And it can (kinda) recognize things in an image. It still messed up
> > on a word ladder, and (I assume) would still have problems with
> > getting all the anagrams of a word scramble. And it made a few
> > errors in counting prime numbers.
>
> Meh. Give it another few weeks or so.
> It'll be fixed by GPT-5. Then, watch out for GPT-6!
>

Yeah. Just in time for the election.

>> But we're still all gonna die.
>
> Don't worry:
> https://i.postimg.cc/CL61j2Hc/Death.jpg
>
> The evolution of intelligence will continue and will take a sudden
> exponential leap without being tied to carbon-based units.
> Just as dinosaurs were a dead end, so us meat-tubes might be
> as well.
> https://youtu.be/7tScAyNaRdQ
>

Dinosaurs survived as birds. There are three chickens for every
human on earth. (Check it out on wiki.)

So they won.

What will we survive as?

Ned

Where's the damn Singularity? It's always some big, sudden
"exponential leap" right around the corner. But it's always
just around the corner.

Singularity Now!

Ned

[Noah Sombrero]

On Mon, 22 May 2023 19:54:24 -0700 (PDT), Ned <ned...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:48:06?PM UTC-7, Me wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 10:26:36?PM UTC-7, Ned wrote:

What's your hurry?

>Ned
--
Noah Sombrero

[Ned]

> --
> Noah Sombrero
>

I'm not getting any younger. And neither are you. Figure out when
you're likely to die. (Look it up in an actuarial table, if necessary.)
Then take an average two or two and half hour movie that you
are considering watching, and calculate what percent of the rest
of your life that represents.

And that percentage is only getting larger. Puts a whole new spin
on how you waste your time.

Ned

[Noah Sombrero]

On Mon, 22 May 2023 21:40:05 -0700 (PDT), Ned <ned...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

You noticed. But perhaps your enlightenment is not complete.

Life always was about busywork. Big debts for big house and car. Car
so you can ride to big job to pay for it all, and to store to buy that
100 inch tv; and yours must continue getting bigger as the price falls
on last year's model. Metaphorically.

In retirement, perhaps, the dawning of that understanding gets a
little more uncomfortably close. No need for big job any more. No
need to hustle the real estate market any more. you're settled. Now
what?

Pine for computers to take over humanity?

Come on, tell me what really matters. Do you know?

>Ned
--
Noah Sombrero

[Ned]

> --
> Noah Sombrero
>

A day above ground.

Ned

(But the Singularity better get its ass in gear. Buddha blew it.
Christ is a TV commercial. Muhammad functions primarily
as a heretic-stomper. And we rolled over to 8 billion furless
bipeds in the first minute of Tues. Nov. 15, 2022. It's time
to try something different.)

[Noah Sombrero]

On Tue, 23 May 2023 07:08:40 -0700 (PDT), Ned <ned...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

What do gypsies ask? To walk the earth and not lie beneath it.

>
>Ned
>
>(But the Singularity better get its ass in gear. Buddha blew it.
>Christ is a TV commercial. Muhammad functions primarily
>as a heretic-stomper.

The superficial view. If a religion looks absurd to you, you haven't
looked deeply at what it is about. Of course, they are all spoiled by
the people who think they believe in them. Your task, should you
accept it...

>And we rolled over to 8 billion furless
>bipeds in the first minute of Tues. Nov. 15, 2022. It's time
>to try something different.)

Oh, yes. What are the odds? What to do about half the population
that wails, oh no that solution is too terrible to look upon?
--
Noah Sombrero

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Tiresome post-Nietzschean garbage."

[Noah Sombrero]

On Tue, 23 May 2023 08:33:18 -0700 (PDT), Jeffrey Rubard
<rehashe...@gmail.com> wrote:

Go to sleep now. You have worked so hard.
--
Noah Sombrero

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Cracker moron, stop condescending to America. You lack the 'altitude', for one thing."

[Noah Sombrero]

On Tue, 23 May 2023 09:03:48 -0700 (PDT), Jeffrey Rubard
<rehashe...@gmail.com> wrote:

Quiet now. Close eyes.
--
Noah Sombrero

[Noah Sombrero]

On Tue, 23 May 2023 10:50:49 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fed...@fea.st>
wrote:

Or the other half that can't agree on what a solution might be?
--
Noah Sombrero

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Homicidal half-wit."

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Empty hands, promising nothing."

[Jeffrey Rubard]

(Typical stories with these "CSA legacies".)

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Hold close while I kill you... on the other hand, if you'd only listen..."
"Sounds like mob talk."
"It could, I guess."

[Jeffrey Rubard]

But they would be smarter than to call themselves something like "Noah Sombrero".
"They would."
It's an emotional bummer, it really is.

[Me]

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 7:54:25 PM UTC-7, Ned wrote:
> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:48:06 PM UTC-7, Me wrote:
> >
> > The evolution of intelligence will continue and will take a sudden
> > exponential leap without being tied to carbon-based units.
> > Just as dinosaurs were a dead end, so us meat-tubes might be
> > as well.
> > https://youtu.be/7tScAyNaRdQ
> >
> Dinosaurs survived as birds. There are three chickens for every
> human on earth. (Check it out on wiki.)
>
> So they won.
>
> What will we survive as?

Depends on what you define as "we"; if you define it as those separate flesh prisons we drag around, that will come to an end.
If you define it as our collective consciousness, our collective intelligence, then we will survive gloriously and spread out through the galaxy.

[Ned]

Hmmm... How Buddhist. But yes, I was referring to the flesh prisons.
We've come a long way, Baby. This is probably what we looked like
30 million years ago... (the macaque in the lower right)
https://i.postimg.cc/d0RrVPtZ/MilkyWayVoyager.jpg
... and I don't think we're at an 'end point' evolutionarily speaking.
Many species are. I have a list here somewhere, of those species
which have attained 'perfection' of a sort, by not changing for
tens or hundreds of millions of years... Ah yes, here it is (below),
with 46 on the list.

But the speed and variation of our evolution over the last, say,
200,000 years, has been astounding, and I just have a hunch
that it is going to keep on rolling for a while.

Maybe something between the Star Wars Kaminoans...
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=star+wars+Kaminoans&form=HDRSC3&first=1
...and the evolved humans shown in the movie Wall-E...
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Wall-E%20humans&qs=n&first=1

"O brave new world, that has such people in it!"

Ned

LIST OF OLDEST NON-EXTINCT SPECIES
- Crocodiles
- Turtles
- Sharks
- the Ginkgo tree
- bacteria
- the coelocanth fish
- cockroach
- horseshoe crab
- lungfish
- Stromatolite, oxygen-creating, blue-green bacteria
- the Monkey Puzzle tree
- Horsetails
- Metasequoia
- Liquidambar (Sweetgum tree)
- Whisk ferns
- Aardvark
- Amami rabbit
- Chevrotain (mouse deer)
- Cypriot mouse
- Elephant shrew
- Koala
- Laotian Rock Rat
- Iriomote cat
- platypus
- echidna
- Okapi
- Red Panda
- Giant Panda
- Sumatran Rhinoceros
- New Zealand "wrens"
- Broad-billed Sapayoa
- Bearded Reedling
- mousebirds
- Magpie Goose
- Andean Condor
- Giant salamanders
- Purple frog
- Lampreys
- Bowfin
- Sturgeons and Paddlefish
- Hagfish
- wasps
- jurodid beetle
- nautilus
- mantis shrimp
- vampire squid

[Noah Sombrero]

On Tue, 23 May 2023 23:45:13 -0700 (PDT), Ned <ned...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 9:59:08?PM UTC-7, Me wrote:
>> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 7:54:25?PM UTC-7, Ned wrote:

Much older are insects (speaking of types rather than individual
species). But the most ancient are spiders which supposedly began as
giant ocean creatures.

Regardless, it is hubris to think that our limited time span gives us
the perspective to know what species are still evolving. They all
are, of course. Being an old species simply means that so far, they
have been able to evolve fast enough, and deal with environmental
change well enough, to survive. Some are on the brink of no longer
being able to do that, like the condor.

Spiders are doing quite well, thank you, while insects are severely
challenged. Pray humans do not entirely rid themselves of such pests,
they being the basis of the food chain of many things, as well as
important to flowering plants.

It does appear that there are certain evolutionary dead ends. Like
being too closely tied to a certain niche. There is a monkey that
eats only the flowers of a certain tropical tree. That monkey really
needs to branch out a little, and it probably would if it were given a
few million years to do it, and if certain monkey populations became
separated from other populations. That is where species can move
apart and become different things in some millions of years.

Another dead end is huge size: elephant, whale. Evolution is greatly
favored if a species can eat most anything, have a short life span and
make lots of babies, like rodents.

So, no, humans do not qualify. They have also fallen victim to a
highly specialized brain. Good thing they are not 12 feet tall. But
they do need to stop gene flow between populations, that would help.

Spread throughout the galaxy? Nice fantasy. Read lots of sci-fi.
That points out another limiting specialization: the tendency to
invent warm fuzzy fantasies when faced with severe existential
challenge. Nature is not amused.
--
Noah Sombrero

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"And it's... pseudoscience for the Confederate win?"
"It's a 'grand tradition' you wish you could skip, yes."

[Me]

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 5:22:34 AM UTC-7, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>

> Spread throughout the galaxy? Nice fantasy. Read lots of sci-fi.

Well, not as skin sacks, flesh puppets, oxygen breathers, but as evolved machine intelligence.

[Noah Sombrero]

On Wed, 24 May 2023 14:37:55 -0700 (PDT), Me <bp54...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 5:22:34?AM UTC-7, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>
>> Spread throughout the galaxy? Nice fantasy. Read lots of sci-fi.
>
>Well, not as skin sacks, flesh puppets, oxygen breathers, but as evolved machine intelligence.

Then, not us. Still fantasy.
--
Noah Sombrero

[Ned]

Not really clear on the concept of anatman, are we, Noah?

Ned

[Noah Sombrero]

On Wed, 24 May 2023 19:11:26 -0700 (PDT), Ned <ned...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>Buddhist concept of Anatman or Anatta [ edit] Buddhists believe that there is >no permanent underlying substance called self or soul (Atman) in human >beings. [8] [9] [10] They believe that anatta/anatman (non-self), >impermanence and dukkha (suffering) are the three characteristics >(trilakkhana) of all existence, and understanding of these ...

A belief.

Granting that, you might say, that since there is no soul, evolved
machine intelligence would be as good as any. A person might even be
tempted to grant that such an intelligence could spread throughout the
galaxy.

Or not.

Looking back, you say:

>If you define it as our collective consciousness, our collective
>intelligence, then we will survive gloriously and spread out
>through the galaxy.

Collective consciousness. I don't hear the concept of anatman having
anything to say about that. CC must be a recent invention of
fantasizers, which almost sounds like a sort of soul in which we all
partake. My hunch is that anatman would not approve.

>Ned
--
Noah Sombrero

[Noah Sombrero]

On Wed, 24 May 2023 22:52:58 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fed...@fea.st>

wrote:

>On Wed, 24 May 2023 19:11:26 -0700 (PDT), Ned <ned...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 6:57:49?PM UTC-7, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 May 2023 14:37:55 -0700 (PDT), Me <bp54...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 5:22:34?AM UTC-7, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Spread throughout the galaxy? Nice fantasy. Read lots of sci-fi.
>>> >
>>> >Well, not as skin sacks, flesh puppets, oxygen breathers, but as evolved machine intelligence.
>>>
>>> Then, not us. Still fantasy.
>>> --
>>> Noah Sombrero
>>>
>>
>>Not really clear on the concept of anatman, are we, Noah?
>
>>Buddhist concept of Anatman or Anatta [ edit] Buddhists believe that there is >no permanent underlying substance called self or soul (Atman) in human >beings. [8] [9] [10] They believe that anatta/anatman (non-self), >impermanence and dukkha (suffering) are the three characteristics >(trilakkhana) of all existence, and understanding of these ...
>
>A belief.
>
>Granting that, you might say, that since there is no soul, evolved
>machine intelligence would be as good as any. A person might even be
>tempted to grant that such an intelligence could spread throughout the
>galaxy.
>
>Or not.
>
>Looking back, you say:
>
>>If you define it as our collective consciousness, our collective
>>intelligence, then we will survive gloriously and spread out
>>through the galaxy.

If you define... A tenuous sandy hill on which to build your
fortress.
Perhaps I don't define...

[Me]

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 6:57:49 PM UTC-7, Noah Sombrero wrote:

Well, if you insist on defining "us" as those skin-sacks, then in that case, no. I just choose not to subscribe to that particular definition.
It's all a matter of definition. "We" won't be around in a few years either. Is it really all that important what physical characteristics our progeny will have?

[Ned]

Well who all else is "spread throughout the galaxy"? I mean, we're
half way through the life of the universe and we've NEVER MET
any of the others who are trying to "spread throughout the galaxy"?

Doesn't that seem a little strange? We measue evolution in
millions of years, and the galaxy has been evolving for billions
of years and we've still NEVER MET anyone else??

When are we going to call bullshit on this? I'm reluctant to quote
Scott Adams, but really...
https://i.postimg.cc/fLztdCDZ/Dilbert-Universe.jpg

Ned

[liaM]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0iqg2UanEc

[Noah Sombrero]

On Wed, 24 May 2023 22:35:35 -0700 (PDT), Ned <ned...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 10:04:44?PM UTC-7, Me wrote:

>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 6:57:49?PM UTC-7, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>> > On Wed, 24 May 2023 14:37:55 -0700 (PDT), Me <bp54...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 5:22:34?AM UTC-7, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>> > >>
>>>>> Spread throughout the galaxy? Nice fantasy. Read lots of sci-fi.
>>>>
>>>> Well, not as skin sacks, flesh puppets, oxygen breathers, but as
>>>> evolved machine intelligence.
>>>
>>> Then, not us. Still fantasy.
>>
>> Well, if you insist on defining "us" as those skin-sacks, then in
>> that case, no. I just choose not to subscribe to that particular
>> definition. It's all a matter of definition. "We" won't be around
>> in a few years either. Is it really all that important what
>> physical characteristics our progeny will have?

If they aren't meat machines they aren't progeny. We could imagine
they are inventions.

>
>Well who all else is "spread throughout the galaxy"? I mean, we're
>half way through the life of the universe

The life of our sun. We haven't imagined a life of the universe yet.

> and we've NEVER MET
>any of the others who are trying to "spread throughout the galaxy"?
>
>Doesn't that seem a little strange?

Given the physical constraints on any such spread, no actually.

> We measue evolution in
>millions of years, and the galaxy has been evolving for billions
>of years and we've still NEVER MET anyone else??
>
>When are we going to call bullshit on this?

On what? Our puny imaginings?

>I'm reluctant to quote
>Scott Adams, but really...
>https://i.postimg.cc/fLztdCDZ/Dilbert-Universe.jpg
>
>Ned

--
Noah Sombrero

[Noah Sombrero]

On Thu, 25 May 2023 07:37:42 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fed...@fea.st>

Here's something:

Given what we know about the life of stars and how long it takes for
light from them to reach us, it must be so that most of what we see
out there in the sky is no longer there. Most of them now, must be
cold hard dead suns, and no where near where we see them.

When you look into the universe you are peering far into the past.

Something else:

When you look into the atomic level, you see that it is mostly empty
space that appears solid to us.

When you look out into the universe, you see mostly empty space. So,
there must be a level so hugely macro where the universe we see would
appear solid.



Our galaxy is 100 thousand light years across. So, in what time scale
could humans realistically imagine spreading across it in any form
whatever?

Remember that Dune (the books) is pure, utter, unadulterated fantasy,
except for commentary on human dynamics. That commentary is the only
thing of value in his books. Is anybody listening, or are we mostly
busy imagining gloriously spreading across the galaxy?
--
Noah Sombrero

[Jeffrey Rubard]

For the Audience: Another 'traditional number'. "Do you suppose they mean 'Atman'?" Hey, buddy...

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"I just *said* 'atman'. That's it..."
"Atman is the real thing, the *actual* Indian word, not a 'negotiable'. Eventually your crocks will just have to be emptied of shit, you know..."

[Jeffrey Rubard]

Smarter People: "What about the Greek *pneuma*?"
Um, sure...

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Perhaps he's really heard of these things, you know."
"Sure. It's just, and I've seen this over time, that these 'mansion flags' are displayed in a precise order. A little embarassingly, even."
"What's a 'mansion flag'?"
"A deceptive sign from a rich person associated with the antebellum US South."
"That sucks."
"Really does, really seems to."

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"You might well be reluctant to quote Scott Adams, really." -- me and some other people, recently

[Me]

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 10:35:37 PM UTC-7, Ned wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 10:04:44 PM UTC-7, Me wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 6:57:49 PM UTC-7, Noah Sombrero wrote:
> > > On Wed, 24 May 2023 14:37:55 -0700 (PDT), Me <bp54...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 5:22:34?AM UTC-7, Noah Sombrero wrote:
> > > >>
> >>>> Spread throughout the galaxy? Nice fantasy. Read lots of sci-fi.
> >>>
> >>> Well, not as skin sacks, flesh puppets, oxygen breathers, but as
> >>> evolved machine intelligence.
> >>
> >> Then, not us. Still fantasy.
> >
> > Well, if you insist on defining "us" as those skin-sacks, then in
> > that case, no. I just choose not to subscribe to that particular
> > definition. It's all a matter of definition. "We" won't be around
> > in a few years either. Is it really all that important what
> > physical characteristics our progeny will have?
> >
> Well who all else is "spread throughout the galaxy"? I mean, we're
> half way through the life of the universe and we've NEVER MET
> any of the others who are trying to "spread throughout the galaxy"?
>
> Doesn't that seem a little strange? We measue evolution in
> millions of years, and the galaxy has been evolving for billions
> of years and we've still NEVER MET anyone else??

My favorite explanation:
https://youtu.be/aTZyVZBtP70?t=463

[Ned]

Excellent. Is intelligence linear? Does it always increase in
uniform chunks as mental capacity increases? Or is it
parabolic (or hyperbolic), and diminishes in improvement
with each increase in mental capacity (or approach a
limit)?

When Tyson rattled off a few of the significant things we
don't know (toward the end of the video), I got that disturbing
feeling that I've had for the last few decades that our whole
idea of the universe is wrong. That we are NOT building an
edifice where each addition of knowledge is an improvement
and enhancement of the whole structure, but that the whole
structure is faulty, and based on incorrect assumptions.

That our aggregate 'knowledge' is looking more and more like
a Rube Goldberg explanation of things, cobbled together with
parts that don't really fit together and don't really explain what
is going on.

Ned

Also, I don't think the gap between us and what a being with
that "extra one percent" has in intelligence would preclude
communication. To take his example of us communicating
with chimps, we do communicate and there is understanding
(on things that the chimp cares about). There's a certain level
of communication and understanding between us and our cats
and dogs.

[Julian]

It's fair to assume that's as good as it gets.

[Noah Sombrero]

On Fri, 26 May 2023 14:22:19 +0100, Julian <julia...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 26/05/2023 13:48, Ned wrote:

>> On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 7:46:06?PM UTC-7, Me wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 10:35:37?PM UTC-7, Ned wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 10:04:44?PM UTC-7, Me wrote:

From a finite viewpoint. Infinity does not compute in our survival
directed computers.
--
Noah Sombrero

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Wow, that is just some poor stuff."

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"You're a fucking moron. Do you know any actual theory of computation,
or do you just 'take' people with this standard-issue cracker bullshit?"

[Noah Sombrero]

On Fri, 26 May 2023 08:32:08 -0700 (PDT), Jeffrey Rubard
<rehashe...@gmail.com> wrote:

Do you mean like an equation with infinity as a term cannot be solved
unless infinity can be factored out?

>or do you just 'take' people with this standard-issue cracker bullshit?"

Or are you seeing me as you want to see me?
--
Noah Sombrero

[Ned]

By definition it's as good as it gets, until it all falls apart.
Long ago, in the olden days, when I was young, they
called it a paradigm shift.

Old dead white guy named Kuhn (pronounced 'coon') wrote
a book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, wherein he
observed that our knowledge does not progress in linear and
continuous steps, but accretes until it doesn't make sense or
hold together in the face of the anomalies and contradictions
that build up, and then it falls apart when a new paradigm is
proposed that explains things better.

Part and parcel of it NOT falling apart is more dead white guys,
who hold positions of power in government, industry, and
chairmen of departments in universities, who prevent the old
paradigm from collapsing because it is their own personal sacred
cow.

That's where we are now, imo.

Ned

[Noah Sombrero]

On Fri, 26 May 2023 09:50:44 -0700 (PDT), Ned <ned...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 6:23:28?AM UTC-7, Julian wrote:
>> On 26/05/2023 13:48, Ned wrote:

>> > On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 7:46:06?PM UTC-7, Me wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 10:35:37?PM UTC-7, Ned wrote:
>> >>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 10:04:44?PM UTC-7, Me wrote:

On the other hand, sometimes, as good as it gets, is really as good as
it can be. For us.

There never has been a shortage of undead old white guys in positions
of power.

But you know what, once aero/aqua dynamics is understood and every
nose is blunt and tail is pointy where it matters, it might be that
when this crop of old guy engineers is gone there will not be a
significant improvement on that design. Or next time.

Something like Moore's law.

>Moore's law is the observation that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit >(IC), of a fixed size, doubles about every two years.

Is that still true? Do you suppose it can remain true for 100 years?


>Ned
--
Noah Sombrero

[Jeffrey Rubard]

It's a German name, which *technically* has another phonetic form
(similar to the German "kühl"). #soashamed

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"You sound like the other daft Southern queen, here."

[Jeffrey Rubard]

...and aren't you giving it away here that you "aren't about the engineering"?

[Master of In/sanity]

I met them 3 times!

--
Homepage:

https://slowtemplelovecozmicpurplehealing.wordpress.com/

Book:

https://shop.tredition.com/booktitle/Thoughts_and_mediations_of_a_gnostic_and_mystic_Curandero/W-448-315-036

Master of In/sanity

[Master of In/sanity]

Actually, Ned is right about that pronouciation!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Do you not understand how an umlauted letter sounds?"

[Jeffrey Rubard]

And again, German names are *held in common*, so even if T. Kuhn had an "unusual" pronunciation of the name it's not really a "that's that".

[Creon]

I know exactly what sound you're talking about.

In (I think) first year German, Herr Werner liked my pronunciation
of "bücher", so he had me read a page.

So I then read the page, but pronounced the word "beaker", which is
linguistically "out there" in the stretch to the "e" sound -- far, far
away from the "u" sound, as well as a wary distance from the "ü"
sound.

"Through such rebellion, we learn discipline."

(And the other way around, of course.)

--
-c

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"The most unbelievable story ever told. Fatuous Joking Forever."

[Jeffrey Rubard]

The most believable story ever told: "There is something wrong with the surname 'Fetterman'."

[Jeffrey Rubard]

Meanwhile, things like "ChatGPT" were used to cheat people in the past, I'm pretty sure.
"I am ASSURDLU and my findings are these..."

[Jeffrey Rubard]

(No, I'm pretty sure that's *actually* what those 'wonder programs' were about.)

[Creon]

First, my story was an actual recollection from my childhood. That'll
teach me to say anything personal with _you_ around. :/

Second, was the printing press a "wonder tool" at the time? And
contra-wise, how many people do you think felt threatened
by Gutenberg's invention?

--
-c

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"More old Republican 'woo-woo'. We're not all bozos on this bus, guys."

[Jeffrey Rubard]

(These are people fascinated to learn about the Gutenberg Bible, BTW.)

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Is it in code?"
Do you consider modern vernacular languages code?
"No."
I guess not, then.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"No, like, seriously, they heard of the 'Gutenberg Galaxy' before they heard of the Gutenberg-Bibel."
#yellowmustardstuff

[Frank]

"Yellow mustard is the best!"

--
-Frank 🌭

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Gulden's mustard is the objectively best mustard." -- me, once, if I remember correctly

[Jeffrey Rubard]

...and brown mustard in general is a 'symbol' of Middle European culture.
"Did I hear you say Middle Earth?" Dumbfuck.
So maybe 'yellow mustard stuff' needs some other yardstick than 'Nazi camp'...

[Stephane Guenette]

Now we know what all the words mean, the picture should make more sense. The idea is that even if we can build tools (like ChatGPT) that look helpful and friendly on the surface, that doesn't mean the system as a whole is like that. Instead...

https://futurism.com/the-byte/experts-dark-joke-ai-horrifying-monster-mask

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 12:42:06 PM UTC-7, Stephane Guenette wrote:
> Now we know what all the words mean, the picture should make more sense. The idea is that even if we can build tools (like ChatGPT) that look helpful and friendly on the surface, that doesn't mean the system as a whole is like that. Instead...
>
> https://futurism.com/the-byte/experts-dark-joke-ai-horrifying-monster-mask

"Why not modernism, instead? Futurism has been somewhat disgraced, including as a bit feebly insane..."

[Jeffrey Rubard]

Yeah, I would definitely say I was a modernist rather than a futurist.
"We know what you think."
You also know 'sometimes words have two meanings'...
Yes.
Wow, that is sure something.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"What, what are you going on about?"
Honestly... I find it hard to imagine people who are as stupid as these guys. (They're also apparently phenomenally evil as well.)

[Jeffrey Rubard]

(About Stephane: we're missing Stephanie. Like that, no, really.)

[Jeffrey Rubard]

Meanwhile: Modernism. Woo.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Perhaps you could dispense with the concept of a 'crud', that the person is a 'crud', objectionable in writing, speech, and conduct..."
I... don't know...

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Does that really just mean 'rich Southern irredentists'?"
Basically. Sometimes phrases just have 'sharp edges' like that.

[Stephane Guenette]

On Friday, 23 June 2023 at 08:35:01 UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

> > > > > Now we know what all the words mean, the picture should make more sense. The idea is that even if we can build tools (like ChatGPT) that look helpful and friendly on the surface, that doesn't mean the system as a whole is like that. Instead...
> > > > >
> > > > > https://futurism.com/the-byte/experts-dark-joke-ai-horrifying-monster-mask
> > > > "Why not modernism, instead? Futurism has been somewhat disgraced, including as a bit feebly insane..."

> > > Yeah, I would definitely say I was a modernist rather than a futurist.
> > > "We know what you think."
> > > You also know 'sometimes words have two meanings'...
> > > Yes.
> > > Wow, that is sure something.

> > "What, what are you going on about?"
> > Honestly... I find it hard to imagine people who are as stupid as these guys.

> (They're also apparently phenomenally evil as well.)
> (About Stephane: we're missing Stephanie. Like that, no, really.)

It's encouraging to know you have a problem with the phenomenally evil.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"That's pretty stupid. 'A.J. Ayer is my co-pilot', oh, wow."

[Jeffrey Rubard]

You want a daft, fatuous *Ambivalenz* to 'do a lot' with what I said.
Instead, it's pretty clear: you're just really, really bad guys.
That is 'what is said' in my sentence.

[Stephane Guenette]

On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 12:52:41 UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

> > > > > > > > Now we know what all the words mean, the picture should make more sense. The idea is that even if we can build tools (like > > > > > > > > ChatGPT) that look helpful and friendly on the surface, that doesn't mean the system as a whole is like that. Instead...
> > > > > > > > https://futurism.com/the-byte/experts-dark-joke-ai-horrifying-monster-mask

> > > > > > > "Why not modernism, instead? Futurism has been somewhat disgraced, including as a bit feebly insane..."

> > > > > > Yeah, I would definitely say I was a modernist rather than a futurist.
> > > > > > "We know what you think."
> > > > > > You also know 'sometimes words have two meanings'...
> > > > > > Yes.
> > > > > > Wow, that is sure something.

> > > > > "What, what are you going on about?"
> > > > > Honestly... I find it hard to imagine people who are as stupid as these guys.

> > > > (They're also apparently phenomenally evil as well.)
> > > > (About Stephane: we're missing Stephanie. Like that, no, really.)

> > > It's encouraging to know you have a problem with the phenomenally evil.

> You want a daft, fatuous *Ambivalenz* to 'do a lot' with what I said.
> Instead, it's pretty clear: you're just really, really bad guys.
> That is 'what is said' in my sentence.

Where did bad guys come from?
If I'm a bad guy, I'm on a planet considered to be a 'bad guy realm'.
If you're in the same realm, you have no room to talk about any of
your fellow sojourners.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Damn, this reasoning is infantile."

[Creon]

"Simple" is not "infantile".

"He kicked your a**, Jeffrey."

--
-c

[Jeffrey Rubard]

We already went over how the concept "egregious libel" works, guy.
(It simply *stipulates* its desired results.)

[Jeffrey Rubard]

That is really poor, disjoined, repetitively rote 'bragging' that barely conceals a wealth
of failures in theoretical and moral reasoning. "Kicked yer butt, dude" is an automatic
rubber-stamping of that "casting about".

[Jeffrey Rubard]

Legal minds: Isn't that what is called "egregious libel"?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

It's merely a defamatory 'insinuation', rather than any actually 'pseudo-informative' misdirection?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

They only think they 'got it done', etc?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"About Sarah Silverman and ChatGPT..."
"Did you see what you just wrote, man?"
"Isn't that really true, like newspaper reports were true? Furthermore, it's a little frivolous as a lawsuit? For real?"

[Jeffrey Rubard]

(Our current 'overlords' seem to have a habit of filing frivolous lawsuits about rights they laugh at complaints about in others, really quite generally. Jason Aldean and the View, etc.)

[Jeffrey Rubard]

Is 'modern AI' just now generally viewed as intellectual chicanery, then?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

(CS minds: AI used to be kind of useful really, right?)

[Jeffrey Rubard]

...and maybe now it really isn't. It's "a joke", is it?

[Stephane Guenette]

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Saturday, December 16, 2023 at 12:03:34 PM UTC-8, Stephane Guenette wrote:
> On Saturday 16 December 2023 at 08:42:00 UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>
> "He kicked your a**, Jeffrey."

Is that really the right idea of the legal concept 'egregious libel'?
You just make up pseudo-facts 100% 'at variance' with reality, then see what you can get out of people?
Hmm.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"No, I swear."
Well, if it's you that's sworn...
"It doesn't work like that."
Was I just saying that, mhm?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

Wider World: These people live in a vapid world of 'imitations' of the coarser side of normal US life. That's not what that is, though.