Sure, then we can have the republicans and the neo-whigs as the two parties fighting over the presidency. Much better. /s.

We need to change the system, and letting the republicans put their finger on the scale by letting them in office will only solidify and amplify the inequities we have now. Strategic voting is necessary to keep the avenues of change open.

The steel man against my argument (and the actual arguments I’ve heard) is that they do not want to support genocide at all, so they wouldn’t vote for the Democrats.

The problem with that stance is that with only 2 viable candidates on the ballot, there is no option, including abstention, that doesn’t support genocide. Voting Democrat would have let us potentially pressure the government, but staying home has always been a tacit endorsement of the right just due to how the electoral college functions and weights smaller (red) state voters heavier than larger states.

I’d love to hear a steel man from the other side about how not voting was the proper way to go. Especially one that calls out all of the unnecessary loss of life that was caused by the results of that collective choice.

Nah, I’m sick of filling in every possible edge case in your argument. You say you show up, but you’re making a point to point to specific/conditional situations yet ignore the blindingly obvious answers of why you don’t have the representation you want.

Show up and vote consistently and change can happen. As it is, I tire of listening to people complain about lack of representation when they choose not to vote for a viable candidate in the general when they had the opportunity to do so because they didn’t line up 100%.

If that’s not clear enough for you, you’re beyond my help.

Gee, I guess showing up once makes up for the election on either side.

I guess the better statement is you only show up when convenient. Which is the same compliment I hear from the left about the Dems lol

We do though. We’re roughly a third of the voters in primaries.

You don’t show up in the general, so primary participation is a participation trophy. Trump wasn’t on the ballot, so that’s pretty much meaningless in the concept of defensive voting or the actual subject of the conversation. When Trump was in the ballot, the left was comparatively absent. 6.25M fewer people showed up, so objectively they didn’t show up.

I’m not knocking participating in the primary, I do it every time I can. But if that’s the extent of 'showing up, you’re not doing much more than telling yourself you participated so you don’t feel guilty about it.

That’s because you have to show up and show up in numbers. Too many on the left cry about not having a perfect candidate, don’t show up, and then wonder why the Dems keep going right when the left doesn’t show up. Then, surprise, they have no representation and throw away 20 years of progress.

I don’t care for Biden or trump, but I wasn’t dumb enough not to see where we are right now before the vote was cast, so I showed up. So many stayed home that trump got elected with the popular vote despite not getting many more votes than he did last time.

But hey, we didn’t vote in the woman who had some bad policies and could be worked with because one bad policy was worth throwing everything away. So we got the country we collectively voted (or sat out) for

It’s important to note that both Bush and Trump won their initial election by the electoral college and lost the popular vote. So not only do you not have to get >50%, you don’t even have to get a plurality of votes to win.

Also, Roger Stone just happened to participate in both elections, and both had fuckery involved.

Too bad the people who need to hear this aren’t listening. I tried to make the same argument in 24 and constantly got responses that didn’t amount to anything more than

Nope, I’m gonna take my ball and go home, who cares if temu Hitler wins? Both sides blah blah blah

Yeah, then they have to limit the entrance to the school, add wait times to get in because of processing, and it gives a convenient mass of students for wannabe shooters

I would too if my apartment let me change the damn shower head.

Do it anyway and keep the apt head in a baggie somewhere. That’s what I did for like 5 yrs when I lived in an apartment because those heads are fucking trash

Your math is way off, that’s like 2 years of pizza unless you’re somehow paying $2 per pizza. 1 pizza a day at $10 for a year would be $3,650, so a decade would be $36,500. And that doesn’t even factor in delivery or tip…

If you’re running rootless containers, it’s less of a concern. I’m trying to move all of my public containers to podman for this reason

He’s VERY soft on crime, implementing cashless bail for many offenses.

Whoops, looks like you put a good thing in you list of bad things.

Fuck the prison industrial system, and the poor tax that is bail.

That makes more sense, thanks for expanding on your point.

Like I said, I mainly take issue with describing it as ‘understanding’ due to the connotations it gives off. I’m used to AI glazers using the same wordings and actually try to make the argument there is an understanding behind the statistical probabilities.

I don’t care how large the group committing the acts are if there is, in fact, a large conspiracy of people actively protecting them. One person actively committing the crime is one too many, and anyone protecting them is complicit. If this were a bank robbery where someone was killed, the getaway driver still gets the murder conviction, even if he never went in the building.

To bastardize an old saying, if there are 10 people at a table and they choose to let the cannibalistic pedophile sit down and don’t immediately eject them with a brick, you have a group of 11 people conspiring to protect a cannibalistic pedophile.

My point is that saying an LLM understands anything is anthropomorphizing the LLM and leads people into thought patterns that give it an inordinate amount of authority because people equate the simulacrum of understanding/comprehension with actual understanding.

I think we just fundamentally disagree on the concept of llms a being able to understand a topic rather than it being a shallow statistical prediction if the correct answer, and I just can’t equate understanding with statistical predictions. The fact that the underlying math is able to generalize the prediction in novel ways lends weight to the misbelief that it understands concepts, but the decoherence that happens over long conversations should shatter the illusion.

Who has enough money and is motivated to wage a faux grass roots campaign to kill AI data centers?

AI scammers are using AI to generate anti-datacenter slop. Because they get money from engagement. - 404media

But the cast majority of the backlash is more organic than not, since they’re just jumping on the bandwagon

I don’t see it.

Cuz you’re looking at the wrong side of the money

However, the files don’t prove a widespread conspiracy, they instead prove what we already knew, that people in power are shitty people, who look the other way, and readily associate with deeply immoral criminals, just to gain influence and network.

Right, it just proves there’s a widespread group of people who came together and came to an agreement about the crimes they were committing and how they would get away with it. Hmmmmmmm, I wonder what a word for that would be…

conspiracy /kən-spîr′ə-sē/
noun

An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.

Huh, would you look at that, it WAS a conspiracy!

Man, who has ‘delivery pizza nightly for a decade’ money, even if it’s only dominos pizza.

Also, who has the health for that kind of a diet? I’m pretty sure that cause of dominos being able to save his life was also caused by dominos.

While I agree on the second paragraph, I’m gonna argue about the first, partially because I think the second invalidates the first.

These models do have some form of understanding though. There are features for bugs and typos, and general features that map descriptions and pieces of code.

The models don’t understand anything, they have rules that allow for finding tokens that don’t belong and fuzzy match to correct tokens (typos) and the ability to find code that breaks known rules for a language. That is no more understanding the problem than my spelling or grammar checking understands the comment I’m writing. ‘Understanding’ something requires intelligence and the ability to learn something and incorporate that knowledge into itself and use it to better process that information, not just finding tokens that break rules.

It understands the code in so far it helps with next token prediction.

And this is the crux of my beef, I think, because stochastic pattern matching is not understanding, it’s a mathematical representation of how the model processes your input tokens. The fact that it has to start over every time you provide it input, and uses the previous input/output tokens as context is why this is not ‘understanding’, it’s just fancy token prediction that gives a middling-to-passable facsimile to intelligence and understanding things.

The problems you note in your second paragraph fundamentally undermine the argument that there is any form of understanding to the AI, because those are basic mistakes that a trivial understanding of the problem would prevent.