member since 30 Jan 2025 22:44
Meta’s new personal artificial intelligence agent now sits atop Apple’s App Store, ahead of No. 2 ChatGPT, as more consumers put their faith in AI to save them time and money — existential AI fears be damned.
It must be nice to have hair that doesn’t devolve into frizzy chaos every night.
A shower in the morning is the only way I can make my hair look somewhat decent for the day. I have a feeling this is more common for black people, therefore OP is racist
the technology has plateaued and is beyond the point of diminishing returns.
The technology is still advancing at a good pace and there’s no sign they’ve plateaued, especially in math and “reasoning”. For example the frontier math benchmark is showing big strides for the frontier models. A year ago they were only getting <10% of questions, now sol from openai is scoring 89% and they’re reporting the unreleased astra is at 98% .
They even had to create a new frontier math benchmark called erdos that all previous models scored 0% on and astra got 3% , which may not look like much but is a huge relative jump.
The pace of advancement is still going strong, especially in math and “reasoning”. For example the frontier math benchmark is showing big strides for the frontier models. A year ago they were only getting <10% of questions, now sol from openai is scoring 89% and they’re reporting the unreleased astra is at 98% .
They even had to create a new frontier math benchmark called erdos that all previous models scored 0% on and astra got 3% , which may not look like much but is a huge relative jump.
The models are still advancing, especially in math and “reasoning”. For example the frontier math benchmark is showing big strides for the frontier models. A year ago they were only getting <10% of questions, now sol from openai is scoring 89% and they’re reporting the unreleased astra is at 98% .
10 years ago OP would’ve been labeled a schizo, now we just accept there’s microphones in everything
Tip: if you are tall at a concert, just stand still. People will naturally move from behind you and find windows to see. If you move around a lot though it can block someone’s view until a reshuffle of spaces can happen
For abortion I wouldn’t argue a fetus is a part of society. If you deny it care then I have no problem with that. If you deny a child care though that’s neglect and we as a society should step in to ensure that child gets a good upbringing. Same with child support, if we’re going for the full libertarian personal freedom principle then a deadbeat dad has no obligation to his children and should be free to abandon them. His actions aren’t directly physically harming the child so he should be able to do what he wants.
Abandoning your child is shunting your responsibilities and putting real costs on society .
anyone who argues that position is on the slippery slope to supporting slavery.
Do you recognize any case where societal duty trumps bodily autonomy or is that always a slippery slope to slavery?
I think that moral view is too value hierarchical and Deontological, reliant on rules, such as bodily autonomy always trumps societal duty.
While this is true in a lot of cases, such as drug use and abortion, there are some cases where it isn’t. One of them pertaining directly to slavery is the civil war. How does Lincoln end slavery without violating the bodily autonomy of millions of men to fight a war with the south? If we follow the rule that bodily autonomy trumps societal duty then a draft can never be justified, and then the north loses the war and my ancestors are enslaved for way longer then they needed to be.
Of course a draft is not always justified, we shouldn’t be violating the bodily autonomy of millions of men to fight communists in vietnam. This is where deontology fails as the ethics of something like a draft are based more on the specifities of the case rather then any general rule or hierarchy of values.
This is where a more dialectical approach to ethics is valuable. We can recognize the values of bodily autonomy and societal duty in tension. They are in conversation and sometimes one is more relevant to the situation while other times the other value is.
So in the case of suicide we can look at the harm it’s doing to society against the value of bodily autonomy. If that person has no societal value or obligations, say a retired person, then sure there bodily autonomy can be more important and they should be able to kill themselves. But if there value to society and there dependents and obligations are greater then I say there can be cases where societal duty trumps bodily autonomy.
My argument isn’t we shouldn’t do it because it’s hard and messy, it’s that we shouldn’t do it because it irrevocably harms the community and society so the community and society has a right to try and stop it.
It does serve people, if that father fails the suicide attempt or gets busted by the cops before he can duel, then we can put him in treatment and try and help him out which can keep him alive and supporting his family. If we just throw our hands up and say “you do you” and he gets himself killed for sure then there’s no helping him or his family.
Your seems like an argument against having laws against anything then. Yeah people are going to do crimes, that doesn’t mean we as a society shouldn’t try and dissuade them from doing it.
If you go by this logic why shouldn’t we have ash trays in bars? Sure we as a society think smoking in bars is a nuisance, but some people are going to do it any way so why make it messier and more complicated for them? Should we not even have laws in place banning smoking indoors?
Laws and rules also have a normative function as well. An indoor smoking ban isn’t really enforced by the state, and not even by the bartender as much, it’s enforced by everyone at the bar who understands it’s a nuisance and will yell at you if you do it. We as a society shame those who break the rules, and we should be shaming people who do extremely selfish acts like suicide or dueling. If it were allowed and normal more people would engage in these acts as there’s less of a cost to them.
I think this is too individualistic of a framing for something that has a real cost to the community and society as a whole. Even putting aside the moral problems with you killing yourself and leaving your family, there’s also a legal issue with you abandoning your dependents.
If a father goes and gets himself killed in a duel he’s not just harming himself, he’s harming both the children and mother of the children who depend on him.
And on a grander scale society has taken care of you for many moments in your life and it is only fair that you contribute back to the society that raised you.
Whether you like it or not you have certain duties to society and society has a legitimate interest in preventing you from getting out of those obligations by killing yourself.
Can you reasonably train a local model? Inference is one thing and can be run on a decent gaming graphics card but training requires a lot more compute.
Millennials: Boomers had it so easy, they could buy a house for $20k when they were 25
Gen Z: Millennials had it so easy, they could get a job paying more then $20k when they were 25