peto (he/him)

Generally I find they are. Herbs are leaves, flowers and (herbaceous) stems, spices are other parts. A plant might provide both a herb and a spice, but they will typically be different parts of a plant.

Tea would be a herb.

Yeah, this is much the same kind of use. If you work on the assumption that it is just something that has read everything, and everything that has been written about everything you can find it’s utility. Folk want it to be some kind of fact genie, but the only facts it knows are what words go together, and it literally doesn’t know the difference between real and made up.

Isn’t the entire purpose of copilot that it shouldn’t need much in the way of training? I think the extent of it at my employer is “this is the one you use.”

I’ve tried it a few times, the only thing it seems remotely good for is when your recollection of a source is too fuzzy to form a traditional search query around. “What’s that book series I read in the early 2000s about kids who traveled to another world and the things they brought back from it just looked like junk.” Kind of questions.

Hey, you know that thing you use? What if it had a button on it that opened an AI prompt?

Well my mum says it’s a really smart idea from her special little innovator.

Unironically? Maybe not. But using something ironically is still using it.

But what are they filtering for?

That wrist angle looks uncomfortable as all hell.

So you are at about an A1 and want to get up to around a B1? I don’t like saying impossible but a month is not long at all. If you can already read it you might do better, just focus on the reading and writing skills, get some sample papers if you can.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_Framework_of_Reference_for_Languages?wprov=sfla1

You are probably going to want a tutor that offers an intensive class, that can be done in a month, but you are still going to be looking at 50+ hours.

Do you know what level the exam is expecting?

Oh, that kind of bad usb cable. Still useful I guess.

Good on you for checking in with all those people, it must have taken a while.

Lifting the whole world off of fossil fuels is going to be hard, especially if we want to do it quickly. This isn’t however a problem the capitalist and nation-state models are well equipped to solve. It should not be a question of can a given people afford the technology or if someone can turn a profit on it.

We need to do this as a species, for the species. It should be given not as charity, not because wealthy countries owe it to poor ones, but because it is right that everyone should benefit from this.

The difficulty is how to convince the politicians and their masters of this, and I don’t think throwing paint on things is going to be sufficient.

Generally I find the wait times aren’t really longer. The perceived time maybe, as I can ring ahead and then go pick it up, but for me it’s just the usual calculus of what could I alternatively spend the time doing and is it worth the added cost. It’s the same as do I call a tradesperson or fix something myself. Replace a washer on a tap? Sure I will do that. Install a new toilet? Nah, get a plumber.

If money is tight and I’ve got the time then I’m going to cook myself. If both are tight then there’s always ramen.

Finland.

Or New Zealand if you are a cartographer.

A plastic ice scraper will help get the bulk off, then you can get a variety of solvents for removing any residue. If it is metal then it should be fine with most solvents but check the instructions and do a test patch somewhere discreet to be sure.

The specifics can be argued, (and have been, and will be). The Buddha said that evil action is rooted in greed, hatred, and delusion. He said he understood this when he saw the true nature of reality.

Kant said “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” And says this is evident if you reason through things.

Moses had a great big list of rules that he said the creator of the universe told to him.

Governments establish laws based on the interests of those in power, they say to obey the law is right and to disobey is wrong and they will use violence to punish those that disobey.

These are just some examples, there are loads more including utilitarianism, virtue ethics, various other religions and customary systems.

I think I the difference is that I find ‘human’ to be too narrow a term, I want to extend basic rights to all things that can experience suffering. I worry that such an experience is part and parcel with general intelligence and that we will end up hurting something that can feel because we consider it a tool rather than a being. Furthermore I think the onus must be on the creators to show that their AGI is actually a p-zombie. I appreciate that this might be an impossible standard, after all, you can only really take it on faith that I am not one myself, but I think I’d rather see a p-zombie go free than accidently cause undue suffering to something that can feel it.

Hypotheticals are pretty important right now I think. This kind of tech is very rapidly going from science fiction to real and I think we should try and stay ahead of it conceptually.

I’m not sure that AGI is necessary to achieve post-labour, a suite of narrow-ai empowered tools would be preferable.

By way of analogy, you could take a human child and fit them with electrodes to trigger certain pleasure responses and connect that to a machine that sends the reward signal when they perfectly pick an Amazon order. I think we would both find this pretty horrific. The question is, is it only wrong because the child is human? And if so, what is special about humans?

I think it is short sighted not to at least investigate if we should.

If an AGI is operating on a human level, and we have reason to believe it is a sentient entity which experiences reality then we should. I also think it is in our interest to treat them well, and I worry that we are going to create a sentient lifeform and do a lot of evil to it before we realise that we have.

As others have mentioned, we are already kind of there. I can fully understand how someone could fall in love with such an entity, plenty of people have fallen in love with people in chat rooms after all, and not all of those people have been real.

As for how I feel about it, it is going to depend on the nature of the AI. A childish AI or an especially subservient one is going to be creepy. One that can present as an adult of sufficient intelligence, less of a problem. Probably the equivalent of paid for dates? Not ideal but I can understand why someone might choose to do it. Therapy would likely be a better use of their time and money.

If we get actual human scale AGI then I think the point is moot, unless the AI is somehow compelled to face the relationship. At that point however we are talking about things like slavery.