ok, but if you chatted with a 10 year old and they failed to handle complex logical structures... would you claim the child has no intelligence? Like, none? Similar to a rock or a protein or a chemical reaction. Hopefully you still consider the child sentient and conscious, right?

I think you're absolutely right when it comes to the business side of things.

Sure. But it has really real servers it's really running on. Just because you can show up at it's door-step in an HTML-formatted representation doesn't mean you don't really exist behind a keyboard somewhere. Likewise, just because it shows up as text in your browser, doesn't mean it doesn't exist just the same.

Don't be that monster that argues that people with "locked-in syndrome" are less conscious than you or I. You know, other than when they're asleep.

It existed before, it just wasn't well known. Early 2023, it became publicly available and took the world by storm and everyone sorta freaked out. The current array of LLMs are artificial general intelligence. That's not a real popular stance to have, but this debate is absolutely lousy with hype-trains trying to get rich quick, laughable hollywood tropes, the next wave of Luddites who kinda have a point, and buzzwords getting new definitions faster than anyone can learn what they mean.

But before anyone tears into me for dissenting, you have to remember that any human with an IQ of 80 is most certainly a natural general intelligence. If that blows your mind or you have some sort of knee-jerk "but this is different" sort of reaction, then you've got some misconceptions about the term "AGI". It doesn't mean the thing is a god. It doesn't even mean that it's particularly smart by human standards. A general intelligence can be REAL dumb and make all sorts of mistakes and still most certainly be generally applicable. If you actually wanted to talk about some god-like all-knowing machine that has "woken up" and must hunt Sarah Conner... I just don't care. That's lazy soft sci-fi drama. Use a better term that actually has the meaning you want. Skynet or Omnissiah or or Landru.

GPT is certainly artificial.

It displays some level of intelligence. But that bar is REAL low. Ants have some intelligence. White blood cells and Amoebas display intelligence, even if they're just following their programming. ELIZA displayed some level of intelligence, even after you spotted it's tricks. The intelligence of a goomba can be explained with a single "if" statement and that still counts. The fact that this trait that we are able to measure can come in very small sizes does not mean anything that isn't god-like isn't intelligent. We wax poetical about the sanctity of life while ignoring the billions of gut bacteria that we kill all the time and they are most certainly living biomass.

The real crux is that GPT can generally chat about anything. It's not very good at a whole lot of stuff, but it can try. (a big failing of it's part is that it fails to be answer uncertainly when it's just making stuff up. It's confidently wrong.) The reason that so many people used the Turing test as a means of judging if something was a general intelligence is because natural conversation can generally cover any and all topics. The thing would have to be generally intelligent if it could consistently pass a Turing Test and be mistaken for a human (at least as often as humans are). That was the goal-post circa 2010. And it was there for a good solid reason. I've failed to hear any good reason that goal-post needs to move.

And if you want to talk about artificial SUPER intelligence... remember than anything displaying an IQ of 101+ could technically be considered super-intelligence. Which has probably already happened although tests for AI has it's challenges

Let me double-post this here: there's a specific part of the design about making sure you die after 50. The whole system of having a lit fuse at the end of your DNA?

Telomeres are ~10,000 base pairs repeating blank data (TTAGGG) at the end of your DNA (every chromosome). The act of cell replication (in humans) snaps off 50-200 pairs and shortens your DNA. Once the cell runs out of telomeres to snap off, THE PROCESS CONTINUES and it keeps snapping off meaningful parts of your DNA. Your skin cells replicate a lot and eventually you get thin fragile skin because those cells have lost a good chunk of their code they need to be skin cells.

Lobsters don't do this. Their cells replicate just fine. But they die once they get too big to molt. When every evolutionary branch has some means of designating a maximum age, you'd think this guy talking about "not being programmed to die" would get clued in. It's not an intelligent design, it's just a random chance directed by the real world. That's evolution. But you'd be a fool not to see the pattern and connect the dots that there's a reason for this.

Really? What about what are pretty obviously checksums?

Methylation as a means of adding flags to sections of DNA/RNA looks awfully synonymous to LONGJMP.

The START and END codones that dictate what a gene are practically a 1:1 for the parts of opcodes that switch CPU tracks for the code to flow through dedicated hardware. Instead of voltages in traces flowing to the arithmetic logic units, the RNA strand gets shunted to the ribosome to make proteins. Which are themselves system level I/O calls to go do stuff and they have their own wholly separate language. Even just the system of 3 base pairs summing up to 20 different ways to put a kink in a protein tube is pretty obviously encoding.

Have you never heard of planned obsolesces? Yeah man, they absolutely choose when your engine will give out and you'll have to go buy a new one. That's by design. I mean, it's less malicious than most people think. They just want to skrimp and save as much as they can while still fulfilling the warranty. But they DO choose how long a part should likely last and they choose a date that's as close as possible to the warranty expiring.

That's eugenics.

Uh, there's a specific part of the design about making sure you die after 50. The whole system of having a lit fuse at the end of your DNA?

Telomeres are ~10,000 base pairs repeating blank data (TTAGGG) at the end of your DNA. The act of cell replication (in humans) snaps off 50-200 pairs and shortens your DNA. Once the cell runs out of telomeres to snap off, THE PROCESS CONTINUES and it keeps snapping off meaningful parts of your DNA. Your skin cells replicate a lot and eventually you get thin fragile skin because those cells have lost a good chunk of their code they need to be skin cells.

Lobsters don't do this. Their cells replicate just fine. But they die once they get too big to molt. When every evolutionary branch has some means of designating a maximum age, you'd think this guy talking about "not being programmed to die" would get clued in.

Isn't the point of a scapegoat to kill the goat instead of yourself? That sort of shell/front company is like a fuse that blows protecting the main company from the consequences of their actions.

Senator... they sell ads.

You mean... The serfs, locked into their pace of toil, are mewling about the harsh treatment of their fiefdom lords.

Oracle knows their cries. They just don't care. They buy up tech with users that are locked into it and are rich enough to pay, but not rich enough to go elsewhere. It's rent-seeking. Usury. An anti-social leech upon society providing zero benefit while they suck as much wealth as possible out of the host long enough so they can move onto destroying the next good thing.

yeaaaaaah, except for the part where "freedom from surveillance" and "safeguards against hate speech" never actually show up anywhere in [the sales pitch](https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpixelfed.org%2F), which really only mentions "Privacy and safety".

The "freedom" and "hate speech" parts are from the "Digital Platform Charter of Rights".... which, sure, is also made by the same guy. But Pixelfed being decentralized... he really has bupkis to say about you starting your own pixelfed server catering to... gay black jewish clansmen for the resurrection of the 3rd Reich. There are currently 3 sex servers catering to... kinks, implied nudity, and... the french. The charter is really a pile of aspirational goals. It's 30 bullet points. And of course, you'll notice "freedom from surveillance" isn't the same thing as free speech, which doesn't show up anywhere. No, they aspire to a lot of moderation. "Zero Tolerance Policy", "Moderation teams", an "Intersectional Approach", "Moderation Tools", "rate limits and thoughtful friction".

And this:

"Right to Deletion: Upon request, a user's data will be permanently deleted from the platform, subject to legal or safety exceptions."

. . . How exactly is this expected to work if I'm running a pixelfed server following the federated protocols?

Yes, any Linux dev can just walk into a random RHEL customer and demand source code.

If they get told "no, we can't, we agreed not to share the altered open source code" Then the dev can for sure sue Red Hat for taking their code and making it closed sourced, a clear violation of the GPL.

Which is all well and dandy. It'll only take a single customer to simply turn around and make the source code publicly available. Thank you GPL for all your fore-sight. .....EXCEPT they're making all their customers sign an agreement where they can no longer openly share the open-source GPL licensed source code with ANYONE.

And so any linux developer can go to any of their clients, ask for the source code that Red Hat gave them, and if they say "no", then the lawsuits start flowing.

Cute.

But they've agreed to play in the open source pool:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
        source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
        1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;

There's some other methods and clauses in there about how they can do that... but they MUST share the source code. No extra fees (past delivery), requirements, agreements, hoops, or any such thing. Otherwise every contributor to Linux can sue their pants off. There's no going back from this embrace. We're in this together now.

Oh wow. It's Reggie Fils-Aime. Ninento's bean-counter. Of course any dev or gamer is going to spot this as the obvious bullshit it is, but Zuckerberg has been seeding the managerial circles with his flavor of propaganda and it's weird to see the wealthy elites turn on one of their own. They usually just worship the pile of money as always being right.

I still think the whole thing is just a PR stunt to get everyone to talk about anything other than the congressional hearing.

Just the central authority. of course. And the admins in charge of IT at the central authority. All those who can bribe the admins. Cops with warrants. Hackers. Criminals, and HOLY SHIT have you thought about the security aspect of this AT ALL?

Anonymized LOCATION data? How does that work? Most anonymized data is bullshit. Location though? Double bullshit. If it sends location data, it needs to at the very least know the location of other people in the same location. So the location is... what? the gps coordinates run through a random function? If they can decode it and match it up, then ANYONE can decode it and it's no longer anonymized. It's one of those things where if it's really anonymous, then it's useless. If it's useful data, it CAN'T be anonymous.

And I've read up on this one. It does NOT use GPS data, so you're just guessing at your bullshit, so fuck you. It uses blue-tooth to ping other devices that also run the software. That way they only know you were within X distance of other users. Which is MUCH more sane, but still carries with it a boatload of potential issues. It has to have some sort of timestamp (or be implicit from when it's sent) and the other users you've had contact with. If they limit messages home to the central authority to once a day and a simple list of those you've had contact with (with no repeats), then it's not AS horrifying. Abuseable. But less terrible. As it's completely useless unless most people use the app, it's really tempting for authority figures to mandate it or try to slip it in as being "helpful", but that hopefully isn't going to fly.