Yeah, I’m not a model for good programing. I don’t program professionally, I just like challenging myself in my hobby projects.

No, I don’t do anything professionally. I just enjoy challenging myself.

I am both the left guy and right guy. If you can’t program without using a memory safe language, it’s a skill issue. But I also don’t want to switch to rust because I like the challenge of manual memory management. (Also rust’s syntax and semantics looks like it was designed by a monkey attacking a typewriter.)

Rust is already obsolete, compared to Stingpie’s excellent assembly language, paired with object oriented programming!

This is the SEALPOOP specification:

1. an assembler must create a binary program which satisfies the programmer’s specifications.
2. a compiler must translate the programmer’s code into SEALPOOP’s parallel instruction set source, which should be fed into the SEALPOOP PISS assembler.

Ok. I’m getting tired. You bested me this round. Have a nice day.

You say it’s the goal of the proletariat to protect the revolution, but why would they? Each proletariat would benefit from the revolution’s failure- they could live better lives as the bourgeois. You talk about the proletariat like they are some monolithic entity, with a single mind and goal. You talk big about helping the individual, but cannot see beyond their class. The proletariat is a person, with needs, desires and opinions. What father would hold the abstract ideals of the “revolution” over the life of his sick daughter? Any father I know would do anything for the safety of his children, even hoard life-saving medicine from others.

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’m a big fan of cataclysm:dda. It’s a rougelike, so it needs some time to get good at, but there is a ton of content and I can run on a potato. It’s got violence against zombies, but with even the most advanced graphics it can use, it isn’t particularly graphic.

Let’s play a little game, then. We bothe give each other descriptions of the projects we made, and we try to make the project based on what we can get out of ChatGPT? We send each other the chat log after a week or something. I’ll start: the hierarchical multiscale LSTM is a stacked LSTM where the layer below returns a boundary state which will cause the layer above it to update, if it’s true. the final layer is another LSTM that takes the hidden state from every layer, and returns a final hidden state as an embedding of the whole input sequence.

I can’t do this myself, because that would break OpenAI’s terms of service, but if you make a model that won’t develop I to anything, that’s fine. Now, what does your framework do?

Here’s the paper I referenced while implementing it: https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.03595

Sorry that my personal experience with ChatGPT is ‘wrong.’ if you feel the need to insult everyone who disagrees with you, that seems like a better indication of your ability to communicate than mine. Furthermore, I think we’re talking about different levels of novelty. You haven’t told me the exact nature of the framework you developed, but the things I’ve tried to use ChatGPT for never turn out too well. I do a lot of ML research, and ChatGPT simply doesn’t have the flexibility to help. I was implementing a hierarchical multiscale LSTM, and no matter what I tried ChatGPT kept getting mixed up and implementing more popular models. ChatGPT, due to the way it learns, can only reliably interpolate between the excerpts of text it’s been trained on. So I don’t doubt ChatGPT was useful for designing your framework, since it is likely similar to other existing frameworks, but for my needs it simply does not work.

ChatGPT has never worked well for me. Sure, it can tell you how to center a div, but for anything complex it just fails. ChatGPT is really only useful for elaborating on something. You can give it a well commented code snippet, ask it to add some simple feature to it, and it will sometimes give a correct answer. For coding, it has the same level of experience as a horde of highschool CS students.

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.

All of science is based on the assumption that what is observed and experienced exists. You cannot gather data without at some point experiencing some representation of that data. In this sense, qualia is the most real thing possible, because experience is the essence of evidence.

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