Ok, big plot hole here—and what is really troubling me about AI rise up. We have dead internet theory. When everyone is a bot on the internet, then every single human on the internet is isolated, and as we become more isolated we drop the internet. Until finally, the internet is nothing more than an empty hall filled with bots talking to bots and no human inside. Which begs the question, why even bother having it in the first place? as it is plainly dead.

The problem with this gradual disempowerment is two-fold. If, and it is a big IF, robot and AI take up all of the economy. The example given here is making hammers. Then, when every single labor is substituted with a robot, this will inevitably include the companies that acquire hammers for their human workers. As human workers are replaced, the demand for hammer makers will collapse. Leaving the robotic hammer makers no one to sell their hammers to. Which in turns collapses other markets, etc. Until all of the economy collapses for there are no human beings to acquire the commodities.

Instead we got robotic and AI companies producing and acquiring products for other robotic AI companies, who in turn have no human customers. Then, what is it all for? Why bother keeping such an economy rolling when nothing of value is created? It is a dead economy, that serves no one and provides no profits for any of the owners.

Of course, the endgame for the top 1% is the collapse of civilization and the implementation of a post-apocalyptic feudal slavery system. But speaking against that is leftist thinking and that is apparently the worst crime that the technopedo class can imagine.

Remember when chatgpt first went viral and everyone said that “prompt engineer will be the new career path”. So, how’s that going?

Many indexers have donations optional, or a points system today. The tradeoff is that invitations are now even rarer and harder to get.

Removed by mod

Split versions is usually the first step. Many projects have done so before. Next year there will be some technical reason they can’t keep feature parity with the commercial repository, and it will drift from the OSS repository. Oops, we broke compatibility, sowwy guys. A couple of years later the OSS repository will be closed because it is a security risk. By that point the company and management would’ve drifted so far from the initial values of the project that people won’t notice. Those who cared will have jumped ship to alternatives sooner, those who noticed later will be already too deep into depending on the software that they will keep paying the subscription.

I have no evidence, but I also don’t have any doubts this is the plan.

It currently doesn’t work with Vaultwarden. The Linux client doesn’t accept custom certificates. And the Android client is paid. It is a dead-end for self-hosting.

The license is also stupidly a single sentence. Which means that use could be nuked at any minute, and any money you use to pay the developer means nothing. If they wanted to kill the project today and nuke the repo, you have no legal rights, the project dies and fuck you and your passwords. That doesn’t exactly inspires confidence.

Two entities can be shit, and also malicious, at the same time.

Never said they developed it. They bought it for a reason though.

Can we self-host a RCS server and hub with all the RCS network?

Then federate, decentralize it, or abandon it to die. Let’s not pretend Google is saving something sacred like a baby’s life. They took up RCS to compete with Apple. This is not a tragedy, it was made this way by design.

I like RCS. I hate it was kidnapped by Google and they’re the only ones hosting the servers instead of the carriers as it was supposed to be. Instead of the agnostic infrastructure we were supposed to have, we got another corporate monopoly hell scape.

What part of:

If pain is true:
  Token =- 1

Is not equivalent to a chicken feeling pain do you not understand? Is just math on a data base.

Those are not equivalent, at all. Bird share genetics with us and all animals. Mathematical models do not. If I write “I died here” on a bathroom stall, no one actually died. How is this so hard to understand?

The LLM model of pain used here is just a name. It is the equivalent of writting “if ‘pain’ > 0 then ‘suffering’= true” in a programming language. Numbers have no feelings.

Except that’s not what’s happening. It is a rough mathematical model that approximates the behavior of an extremely minuscule part of a brain from a really narrow definition of it.

It is a model so far away from the real thing that if it were a map of the globe it would look like what a 3 year old would draw.

The Turing test was never, ever, about consciousness. Nor was the Chinese room and other similar thought experiments.

Now, this one is incredibly useful. Picture an author who writes a vivid first person description of a character surviving extreme torture. Has any real pain or suffering occurred? Was the author tortured as a result of having written that?

We can only suppose the author, at the very least, imagined what it would be like to be tortured. This is where LLMs are at. They are not the thing, they are an algorithmic emulation of what the thing might have written if it would’ve written about an experience. By all accounts, the experience didn’t happen. The most we can interpret is that it was emulated.

I just noticed they removed the button to report ads as inappropriate.