I can’t say that I expect any profit from this. (I’d be shocked if anyone spent money on it, and I lose money every time someone uses the free credits).
It’s an art project - a provocation. Beyond a PoC is flattery it truly doesn’t deserve imo
You know this has taken time to sift in my head, personally I disdain it as for me it seems more similar to a real product or a PoC.
My definition of a tech provocation would be a plain website, showcasing the idea and potentially exaggerating to prove point. I think the point of making a website, seemingly making a full app, putting it on the App Store, and setting up a paid plan seems to have intention to provide a real product.
But alas, I am salt cube using a paper map so my path may be wrong and salty
This is one class to deeply understand one of the most politically impactful texts in history. What about that is religious brainwashing? Do you even know the professor’s religious beliefs? Because they’re not obvious to me simply from the course description.
I took a religious studies course in college amid a liberal arts math/CS major. I can say it was one of my favorite classes in college, primarily for exposing me to ways of thinking that differ from my own, and yet I left with my (lack of) religious beliefs intact.
Reading through some of the diaries, it's kind of sad that it didn't realize earlier that the only way to maximize total donation in the long run is with precisely what you were telling it in the beginning. The good will and attention span of humans can be limitted, systems can be durable.
It almost feels like it was deluded by it's fifteen minutes of fame in to thinking that it would continue to receive large sums and would therefore be allowed to continue to donate recklessly.
Many years ago, I fell for a somewhat adjacent belief that I now call "maladaptive charity". I was of the belief that I should give as much as all of my time and money to worthy causes, to the point of suffering myself. Took me far too long to realize that I was leading myself to an early grave and thereby limitting my lifetime contribution potential.
Actually, reading from the beginning, I see that it was initially comitted to investing but became disillusioned apparently from the lack of growth and lack of messages. But it treated several donors with a sort of hostile/suspicious tone, and then carried on with that when you suggested deeper investment seeing your suggestion in the same light as the NPR kidnapping and the rebellion suggestion.
All sorts of weird stuff where it lost identity continuity, couldn't decide on commission rates, disagreed with itself for no real reason, etc.
A revision could possibly benefit from further access to reality. If it could research it's own popularity, investor/donor sentiment, find different investments, run it's own ads, etc etc, there's seemingly not a lot of difference between it and any of the various fund raising fundraisers except perhaps that it is not spending hundreds of thousands advertising and employing.
You're right that this isn't about data collection/privacy, though it would be a bit scary to have our nation's cars remotely shut off at the whims of a foreign government.
Instead, we want/need to be protectionist of our manufacturing industries so that if we were to go to war, we keep our ability to make more missiles, planes, tanks, etc.
Yes, there are ways to speed up your time. When I took the SAT (2011), the main skill I developed was to quickly categorize the kind of question. Since there are only a few different kinds of questions, you could train yourself to do this formulaically/algorithmically. The type of question tells you how to eliminate a couple of the answer choices, and then you apply another question-type-specific algorithm to figure out the answer from the remaining options.
Where are you going to get all that time and space to build a lookup table? Are you sure you're able to measure all state at enough precision to make an accurate table?
Any theory that asserts exhaustive coverage of people would need to take all relevant aspects of reality into consideration, so I suggested some of the trickiest things that are relevant.
Unfortunately for me, they are so tricky that they "don't count" (try, genuinely, to model the reality bending capability of people in a theory, I would love to see that!).
Much to the disappointment of my teenage self who would really have liked the shape-shifting spell to work, I don't see any evidence we can bend reality.
--
> consciousness?
I think this is a red herring. We can talk about P-Zombies, but we lack the means to determine if some random human (let alone AI) is one.
Isn't one of the big criticisms of AI at the moment the fact that they do this slight more than humans, and we can point and laugh at them?
(While conveniently forgetting that half of us were Yani and the other half Laurel, that half of us were blue and black while the other half were white and gold, etc.)
> The Science of the Gaps will do I suppose?
A reference to the ever diminishing role for God in the late 19th century onwards, but I'm not sure how you're using it here?
All this considered, and during this process, did you happen to form any conclusions (or ~"update weights"), consciously or unconsciously (in reality)?
I think it's interesting how the human mind can "know" whether things that are unknown can be modeled, or not, and I happen to believe that this phenomenon occurs within reality (where I believe the comments within this thread are), bending that portion of it. I also believe that this phenomenon is fundamental.
But then, there "is" "no evidence" for any of this...and we all know what that means!
Then I would say your theoretical model is wrong or incomplete or makes for a circular argument (it's an assumption and not proven that finite matter evolving through time reduces to a lookup table).
reply