yes they got "smarter" by compiling a corpus of knowledge which future generations could train on.
sarcasm aside, throwing away the existing corpus in favor of creating a new one from scratch seems misguided.
this paper isn't about creating a new language, they are omitting the sampler that chooses a single token in favor of sending the entire end state back in to the model like a superposition of tokens. that's the breadth first search part, they don't collapse the choice down to a single token before continuing so it effectively operates on all of the possible tokens each step until it decides it's done.
it would be interesting to try this with similar models that had slightly different post training if you could devise a good way to choose the best answer or combine the outputs effectively or feed the output of a downstream model back in to the initial model, etc. but I'm not sure if there'd necessarily be any benefit to this over using a single specialized model.
Every single developed country today touting moral rights has its foundation in those "wrongs". Its citizens gleefully consuming the resources those "wrongs" have created, so they can preach morality online.
It is the nature of life itself to "kill and perform violence", children and otherwise. "The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must".
Death is, as of now, life's only mechanism for iteration in its process of endless prototyping.
Every marvel that humankind has produced has its roots in extreme violence. From the creation of Ancient Greece to the creation of the United States, children had to die horrible deaths so that these things could come to be.
Anyone can make arbitrary claims about what's right and what's wrong. The only way to prove such a claim is through victory, and all victory is violence against the loser.
Thanks for summarizing so eloquently what is WRONG with the precept that might equals right.
If she floats she's a witch, if she drowns she must have been innocent is the flip side fallacy, but what you just outlined amounts to: "i am bad on purpose, what are YOU gonna do about it?"
I am disgusted that this is still proferred as a valid moral philosophical principle.
No. A thousand times no.
The answer is A SYSTEM.
The answer to bully predator logic is human society and systematic thought.
This provides the capability to resist such base immorality as you and historical predators have proposed.
That SYSTEM that enables modern enligtened society is called "monopoly on violence".
There's no way out of violence, your system needs to be founded on it.
And I wouldn't say that the what previous poster described is akin to witch trials. It's rather akin to painting the bullseye labelled "right" after taking the shot and hitting something other than your foot. And that was what all human cultures were doing since the beginning of time. Recent western trend to paint the bullseye labelled "wrong" at their hit is novel but equally disingenious.
> I am disgusted that this is still proferred as a valid moral philosophical principle.
Can you explain what makes it invalid besides the fact that you and me don't like it?
There are no "valid" or "invalid" moral principles, there is no objectively correct morality, nor does the idea even make sense. Morals are historically contingent social phenomena. Over different times and even over different cultures today, they vary dramatically. Everyone has them, and they all think they are right. That quickly reduces all discussion in cases like this to ornate versions of "you're wrong" and "no, YOU'RE wrong."
It is better to be precise here. Validity could be a different measure than correct. It might very well be like you reserve the latter for some ethereal mathematical property, free of axioms, to which type you want to cast "validity in the domain of morality", which then has to pass the type checker for mathematical expressions.
In Philosophy and Ethics you strive to improve your understanding, in this case in the domain of human social groups. Some ideas just have better reasoning than others.
To say no idea is good, because your type checker rejects any program you bring up is an exercise in futility.
"might makes right" is a justification for abuse of other people. Abusing other people might be understood as using other people while taking away their freedom. If you think people should rather be owned than free, go pitch that.
I emphasize: it would be your pitch. There is no hiding behind a compiler here.
On topic: "might makes right" prevails in societies where people have limited rights and therefore need to cope with abuse. There is a reinforcing mechanism in such sado-societies, where sufferers are to normalize that, thereby keeping the system in place.
For example the Russian society did never escape to freedom, which is a tragedy. But I think every person has an obligation to do his best in matters of ethics, not just sitting like a slave and complain about how you are the real victim while doing nothing.
A society is a collective expression of the individuals.
All that is fine and good, but it comes down to your personal and non-universal moral intuition that suffering, abuse , etc. are bad. You make that an axiom and then judge moral systems based on that, using that axiom to build beautiful towers of “reasoning” (rationalization). We both feel that way because of the time and place we grew up, not because it is correct compared to the Ancient Greek or Piraha moral systems. That’s why you have to take discussions like this in a non-moralistic direction, because there’s no grounds for agreement on that basis.
> non-universal moral intuition that suffering, abuse , etc. are bad.
You say it perhaps a bit weird, but imho you are stating that there do not exist universal moral values, which is a very non-universal stance.
> not because it is correct compared to the Ancient Greek or Piraha moral systems
- Well, the beauty is that we can make progress.
- If X can only register that system A an B are morally equal, because both systems are a system, then X misses some fundamental human abilities. That X is dangerous, because for X there is nothing wrong with Auschwitz.
- Also, a good question would be if one would like to exchange their moral beliefs for the Greek moral system. If not, why have a preference for a moral belief if they are all equal.
Not saying this is you, but I think the main fallacy people run into is that they are aware of shortcomings in their moral acting. Some might excuse themself with relativism -> nihilism, but that is not what a strong person does. Most of us are hypocrite some of the time, but it doesn't mean you have to blame your moral intuition.
> You say it perhaps a bit weird, but imho you are stating that there do not exist universal moral values, which is a very non-universal stance.
It’s an observation, and a very old one. Darius of Persia famously made a very similar observation in Herodotus.
> Well, the beauty is that we can make progress.
There is no such thing as progress in this realm.
> - If X can only register that system A an B are morally equal, because both systems are a system, then X misses some fundamental human abilities. That X is dangerous, because for X there is nothing wrong with Auschwitz.
No, the point is that there is no basis of comparison, not in moral terms. Of course you and I feel that way, living when and where we did. There are no “fundamental human abilities” being missed, this is just the same argument that “we feel this is wrong, so it’s bad and dangerous.
> - Also, a good question would be if one would like to exchange their moral beliefs for the Greek moral system. If not, why have a preference for a moral belief if they are all equal.
Of course not. Morals are almost entirely socialized. Nobody reasons themselves into a moral system and they cannot reason themselves out of one. It’s an integral part of their identity.
> Not saying this is you, but I think the main fallacy people run into is that they are aware of shortcomings in their moral acting. Some might excuse themself with relativism -> nihilism, but that is not what a strong person does. Most of us are hypocrite some of the time, but it doesn't mean you have to blame your moral intuition.
I do my best to follow my moral intuitions, and I am sometimes a hypocrite, but the point is moral intuitions are socialized into you and contingent on your milieu, so when you’re discussing these issues with other people who did not share the same socialization, moral arguments lose all their force because they don’t have the same intuitions. So we have to find some other grounds to make our point.
They don't do this at all. I know a guy who worked as a cam-girl manager for some time. His job was to communicate in her place with 4-6 people at the same time (via text of course) while the model "acts" on the screen.
And pretty soon, we'll be able to get rid of the model acting on the screen as well. I'd say in about 10 years the entire operation will be automated by AI. Probably less than 10 if things keep developing at this breakneck pace.
(At least, that will be true for run of the mill cam girls. Obviously certain other types of influencers may be more difficult to emulate via AI.)
I cannot figure out if vast multitudes of incels carrying on relationships with AI sexbots is more or less harmful than if they were just being catfished by real, but insincere person(s).
Honestly this dystopia is a big letdown over the one I was expecting.
Essentially that is part the 'male sedation hypothesis'.
Due to the amount of incels or men who aren't really in relationships or even work these days, they should be causing significant social unrest as they have nothing to lose and try and overthrow the current social structure. In reality we hardly see any real violence or trouble from incels other than the odd angry rant on social media and the idea is that things like porn, video games and social media take care of the base needs just enough to stop the angry from boiling over and causing real trouble.
I think the statistics speak for themselves. There were exactly two famous incel terrorists aka Elliot Rodger and another guy whose name I don't remember. They both lived in the US and honestly the only thing that connects them with other shooters is that they had guns.
This type of terrorism did happen in Germany i.e. the "Halle" shooter, but he had to rely on homemade weapons with his own black powder ammunition and his attack failed, because his guns weren't strong enough to breach doors at a synagogue. What he did do is shoot a random woman passing close by (less than 5m distance) who was angrily glaring at him and then he went to a random kebab shop to shoot up an immigrant, before the police caught him.
It's really mostly a matter of keeping guns away from people who shouldn't have access to them.
Here you are primarily focusing on what's happening to them.
But we shouldn't forget that a big part of the "incel" community is actively pushing for reducing rights & liberties of women, because they see them as "things" or just "lesser humans".
If you replace real women by AI sexbots, not only you remove them a source of income (I know, it's not perfect today either, with pimps & stuff like that, but at least some women can make a living with this) but also there's a big risk that the AI are going to be quite extreme in their behavior, alienating "incels" even more, which would be harder for real women to do.
I don't think most of these guys are interested in a Black Snake Moan situation. I know the type and they mostly are content to play video games, eat junk food, and whack off all day. They are predictably unproductive in the political arena.
Besides, whether it hurts women or not, people at the top of that industry are going to replace the vast majority of the women working with AI bots. They'll do so for the profit increase.
Money is in the driver's seat. Not men's rights or women's rights. People can certainly have their preferred philosophies, but that's not going to change what's going to happen.
It's only harmful if you hate men. If you actually like men as fellow human beings (not necessarily as boyfriend material), you wouldn't care about what they are doing to make themselves happy as long as they don't harm anyone.
I don't have the numbers. But I find it hard to believe one can communicate with a few clients at the same time and still work for camera. (with private sessions as an exception)
You're quite simply wrong. I know many cam models who have been very successful afterwards, generally running their own business, not working for someone else.
Just to take one example, I know one who opened a beauty salon in St Petersburg, grew that business, opened additional salons in first Vladivostok, then Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, Moscow, and most recently Dubai. Earlier this year she got residence and moved to Dubai permanently.
To give another example, in the USA this time: Aella. I don't think I need to say anything more there, you can google.
They are occupying a brief period where sex work is white market enough to not be quite as dangerous or "disgraceful" as the old days, but not accepted or legal enough to be clobbered in competition by everyone else.
Feminism and their desire to legitimize sex work will be the death knell to high wages for sex workers, and eventually drive the sex workers asking for it to other occupations that suit their risk and profit appetite. ~50% of the population has a pussy and if it's seen as completely benign, legal, and normal to sell yourself the supply will go up 10 fold to the point it becomes a job every stay at home mom vies for while applying to be a transcriptionist or whatever else.
A brief period that has lasted for almost 24 years already. Livejasmin started in 2001 -- basically as soon as the internet and typical PCs could support streaming video. MyFreeCams started in 2004. I think the FriendFinder spin-off cams.com was in that time period too. All before Youtube was founded in 2005!
Your cam model acquaintance moved to Dubai, why do you think that is? It is a place full of rich people who want escorts and the price is bidding towards infinity because they're operating on a very toned down version of Shariah law that is in place to provide a tenuous balance between not killing the golden goose of Dubai and maintaining effectively an Islamic Monarchy.
She is chasing the grey line of risk, and Dubai is the sweet spot right now of risk:reward. When she is found out, the best she can hope for is a revocation of her visa and a swift kick out of the country.
She is not an escort. She is 40 years old with a family and owns a beauty salon in Dubai (and a chain of them back in Russia). She left webcam around 2010.
> I know many cam models who have been very successful afterwards, generally running their own business, not working for someone else.
What does successful(ness?) has to do with being smart?
I guess we both can name quite a few people (doctors, scientists etc) who are very smart and knowledgeable in more than one field. But are not successful. At least not in any economical scense.
>Just to take one example, I know one who opened a beauty salon in St Petersburg, grew that business, opened additional salons in first Vladivostok, then Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, Moscow, and most recently Dubai. Earlier this year she got residence and moved to Dubai permanently.
>To give another example, in the USA this time: Aella. I don't think I need to say anything more there, you can google.
>Понял?
That's just a typical russian thinking: if one can push through their way through whatever shit they are in - they are smart.
No they are not. Successful? Maybe. Hardworking? Sure, I never said that they are lazy or something like that.
Hotshots as they are - most of them are not smart.
> I know one who opened a beauty salon
I know many people who started working right after school graduation. They worked hard and quite successful too. Some have businises or other goods sources of income. Still - they are borish and anyone with at least few hobbies will have hard time talking to them because they have very few interests outside of money and spending money.
> I know one who opened a beauty salon in St Petersburg, grew that business, opened additional salons ...
I mean, it kinda just makes sense. If you're actually seeing them on a platform competing with countless others then they've demonstrated that they're at least good at marketing. They likely learned it themselves as well.
It is not even as embarrassing as some people think.
Ukraine send well trained troops there while they were needed in the east. Now they are loosing the ground there but cant really pull out. While loosing trained soldiers as well.
reply