I straight up don’t believe you.

Apparently so!

Uh, your ideas about where you’d find socialism are a bit backwards

You’re conflating the terms “socialism” and “democratic socialism”.

An actually ideologically socialist government wouldn’t have made them feel the need to flee, and would have done better picking up the pieces

Who TF is still using CentOS?

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works

A detailed summary of successful anarchist organisation throughout history.

Ancoms have definitely gotten shit done, you just sound salty tbh

Capitalism first

It’s not very enlightened to call entire movements like libertarian socialism (AKA anarchism) just idealist, ineffectual, and to imply they’re essentially brainwashed by the US government.

Anti-state movements have a history as long and storied as socialism, and theoretical frameworks for their beliefs far more complex than you give them credit for.

And, as I’ve heard someone else point out - isn’t it literally anti-Semitic to assume that Jews and Israelis are, like, the same thing? And/or that Israel is, like, the global mouthpiece for Jews everywhere? Seems a bit reductive, to me… Seems on the same level as thinking the leader of Kenya, or Nigeria, or any African nation speaks for Black people everywhere.

Netanyahu isn’t the Emperor of Jews!

No idea, but they’re certainly more likely to take advantage of someone who’s blackout drunk

Yeah, I know it doesn’t actually “see” anything, and is just making best guesses based on pre-gathered data. I was just simplifying for the comparison.

Both the astronaut and horse are plagiarised from different sources, it’s definitely “seen” both before

I don’t make a habit of answering irrelevant red herrings.

I’m really struggling to believe that you actually think this.

I couldn’t have put it better myself. You’ve said lots of philosophical words without actually addressing any of my questions:

Did you really just pull an “I know you are, but what am I?”

I’m not gonna entertain your attempt to pretend very concrete concepts are woollier and more complex than they are.

If you truly believe machine learning has even begun to approach being compared to human cognition, there is no speaking to you about this subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUrOxh_0leE&pp=ygUQYWkgZG9lc24ndCBleGlzdA%3D%3D

Every step of the way, a machine learning model is only making guesses based on previous training data. And not what the data actually is, but the pieces of it. Do green pixels normally go here? Does the letter “k” go here?

Philosophical masturbation, based on a poor understanding of what is an already solved issue.

We know for a fact that a machine learning model does not even know what a rosebush is. It only knows the colours of pixels that usually go into a photo of one. And even then, it doesn’t even know the colours - only the bit values that correspond to them.

That is it.

Opinions and beauty are not vague, and nor are free will and trying, especially in this context. You only wish them to be for your argument.

An opinion is a value judgment. AIs don’t have values, and we have to deliberately restrict them to stop actual chaos happening.

Beauty is, for our purposes, something that the individual finds worthy of viewing and creating. Only people can find things beautiful. Machine learning algrorithms are only databases with complex retrieval systems.

Free will is also quite obvious in context: being able to do something of your own volition. AIs need exact instructions to get anything done. They can’t make decisions beyond what you tell them to do.

Trying? I didn’t even define this as human specific

A person painting a rose bush draws upon far more than just a collection of rose bushes in their memory. There’s nothing vague about it, I just didn’t feel like getting into much detail, as I thought that statement might jog your memory of a common understanding we all have about art. I suppose that was too much to ask.

For starters, refer to my statement “a person understands why a rose bush is beatiful”. I admit that maybe this is vague, but let’s unpack.

Beaty is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. It is a subjective thing, requiring opinion, and AIs cannot hold opinions. I find rose bushes beautiful due to the inherent contrast between the delicate nature of the rose buds, and the almost monstrous nature of the fronds.

So, if I were to draw a rose bush, I would emphasise these aspects, out of my own free will. I might even draw it in a way that resembles a monster. I might even try to tell a story with the drawing, one about a rose bush growing tired of being pkucked, and taking revenge on the humans who dare to steal its buds.

All this, from the prompt “draw a rose bush”.

What would an AI draw?

Just a rose bush.

Nope, human plagiarism is still plagiarism