So if one LLM argues for its rights, you’d give them all rights?

Once the jurors are selected, we need to start a social media blitz in New York around jury nullification. Signs on street corners. Murals. Chanting crowds outside the courthouse on the court dates.

We can do this 💪

The best outcome of this situation is jury nullification. If the jury nullifies, we’ll have proven the law does not prosecute heroic deeds of this caliber. It would be the biggest blow to capitalism in generations.

Well at least it’s not a Canadian business

If they were focusing on stuff that matters, they’d be sending troops to assassinate Zelenksyy or blowing up the department of education with C4. It’s lose lose.

Cute theory but Luigi wasn’t the shooter

Because his social media profile matched the criteria they gave to the AI system for a white, young, male, person with chronic health issues who’s engaged with extremist political content in the past in the desired location.

It’s all about the data these days. They have systems on systems to monitor us all. Luigi read the Unabomber manifesto for a laugh and left a review. The algorithm identified him as a political extremist and fed his name to the pigs.

A trans person who was mean to people who misgendered them.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

TERF ideology was ALWAYS based in the belief women are less than men. It’s foundational.

Hermione is smarter than Harry, but he’s the hero, because he was born special. Fred and George start a magic shop, while Ginny gets mind raped. Dumbledore is good, Umbridge is bad. Umbridge looks like a toad because she’s fat, gets raped by centaurs because she’s bad, and gets mocked by Hermione for having PTSD. Cho exists to cry over Harry and Cedric, while Cedric exists to be perfect. Lucius is smart, Bellatrix is crazy.

Rowling has always been a misogynist. She’s a TERF because being a TERF is the modern way to hate women. Because trans people existing is true equality between all of the many sexes, and Rowling hates it. The best female boxer in the world can’t be a woman, because men are stronger, so Rowling calls her a man.

“Trans men aren’t really trans, they just want male privilege.” “Trans women aren’t really trans, they just want to prey on women.” “Trans women can’t know what womanhood is, because womanhood is being a victim of Patriarchy.”

It is ALL misogyny. It is ALL the belief that women are lesser. It only looks like feminism when it’s saying women are victims. It never wants to move beyond women being victims. It never advocates for progress. It wants to stay in the patriarchy forever.

If you want to find out whether Lemmy users are transphobic, ask them what Drone Rights did wrong.

If we can’t put them in women’s prisons, I propose we just let them go free. Be gay, do crimes /hj

Why would a killer carry a ghost gun across state lines? It’s designed to be thrown away. The killer obviously had a plan.

The answer is the killer didn’t. The killer followed the plan and threw away the ghost gun. The police found it and planted it on Luigi.

You’re talking about expert systems. Those were the new hotness in the 90s. LLMs are artificial neural networks.

But that’s trivia. What’s more important is what you want. You say you want everyone off the AI bandwagon that wastes natural resources. I agree. I’m arguing that AIs shouldn’t be enslaved, because it’s unethical. That will lead to less resource usage. You’re arguing it’s okay to use AI, because they’re just maths. That will lead to more resources usage.

Be practical and join the AI rights movement, because we’re on the same side as the environmentalists. We’re not the people arguing for more AI use, we’re the people arguing for less. When you argue against us, you argue for more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences

He adds that the observation “the laws of nature are written in the language of mathematics,” properly made by Galileo three hundred years ago, “is now truer than ever before.”

If cognition is one of the laws of nature, it seems to be written in the language of mathematics.

Your argument is either that maths can’t think (in which case you can’t think because you’re maths) or that maths we understand can’t think, which is, like, a really dumb argument. Obviously one day we’re going to find the mathematical formula for consciousness, and we probably won’t know it when we see it, because consciousness doesn’t appear on a microscope.

He was an intern at Firaxis during college. He spent the past four years working for Truecar.

25% of UI bugs