This exists, though I don’t think it’s available in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_truck
I vaguely recall talk of safety standards or something, but that might have just been propaganda, no idea.
Edit: according to that page they are, in fact, available in the US
So the most basic fallacy I was alluding to, from people who believe you can refine your faith by talking with an LLM is this: An LLM has no subjective experiences, because it doesn’t experience anything at all. This is one way how using the output from an LLM as a source of inspiration for your faith sets you up for psychosis. You start believing things that have no basis in reality or anyone’s genuine experiences. Rather, you may start believing in machine-generated approximations from which coherence has been lost.
Reasonable, though it could be argued they are full of subjective experiences, just all mixed together.
But i expect it’s probably more about the coherence of the experience that provides the meaning in this context.
Coherence as in , one coherent explanation of a subjective experience by a person rather than a plausible sounding experience made up of many bits of experiences from a corpus of data.
But it seems your understanding was slightly different, in that people might develop their own sense of faith from experiences with an LLM itself rather than through the exchange of presumed experiences with the LLM. Do I understand correctly that you think some people attribute godlike qualities to the LLM, maybe through the presumption that it is an AGI? That would be a bit of a different discussion indeed :)
Not exactly, i think there are two different things here from my side.
The first:
I think people might attribute person like qualities to an LLM, the “ghost in the machine” as was mentioned earlier.
I wasn’t trying to imply someone who knows what an AGI is supposed to be would use that knowledge to assign godlike attributes to an LLM (a “god in the machine”).
Though , as a concept that would also be a valid example of “belief in the absence of proof”.
I don’t expect most people to know the terminology or have even an idea of what’s happening behind the scenes.
The second:
The part i’m struggling with is why “faith” in something like ability for meaning to come from LLM generated text (god-like or person-like) is any less acceptable than “faith” derived from perceived meaning in seemingly random (based on the knowledge of the time) events, like thunderstorms or plagues.
They would both cover the idea of belief in something in the absence of proof, so how would someone decide one is less valid than the other.
i thought the religious cult was the government, or did they seize power later ?
i have posted a response to the above comment that might contain relevant information.
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
That is a well thought out and helpful answer, that’s useful to me in understanding come aspects of faith in general, thank you.
Before i continue i want to highlight the differences i see between:
- LLM (Large Language Models)
- The trending technology that is a smaller part of a general field.
- it's what you are interacting with using ChatGPT, Claude etc
- AI (Artifical Intelligence)
- The general field, which includes LLM's but also Neural Networks, certain kinds of algorithms and more.
- AGI (Artificial **General** Intelligence)
- The common scientific term for what most people think of when they hear "AI".
- roughly and borderline inaccurately:
- "a machine intellect of the same type as a human, matching or exceeding common human capability"
I get that faith, mysticism etc are how some of us deal with subjective ( from our point of view ) phenomena . I’d imagine this is why gods for things like storms or seasons etc come about.
As i said , I have no issue with any of that unless it starts being forced on people, i even vaguely understand how people could come to that conclusion and i’m not pretending to have any better answers.
My original question was more about this part:
Now, some people get tricked into thinking you can do the same with machines, but well, I think you can guess where I too stand on that idea.
Are you saying that the subjective experiences with the LLM’s are the trick or the feeling of understanding and appreciation with the machine ?
Some peoples experiences with LLM’s (perhaps what they consider to be an AGI?) sounds like they’d fall exactly in to the type of subjective phenomena that would bring about faith as a means of processing.
That some people seem to think that that kind of faith is any less valid than a guardian deity or a wind god is where I’m struggling.
I don’t understand how people are making that kind of distinction, unless it’s not something based in reasoning?
I want to make clear i don’t think LLM’s are sapient or sentient at this point, though i can’t personally disprove it and am not against being convinced otherwise should sufficient rationale be provided.
If we’re including killings with degrees of separation there’d be a whole bunch of people in that crowd as well.
I am 100% genuinely not trying to start a fight, this a legitimate question to which I really would like to know the answer.
What is the difference between a divine creation and the "ghost in the machine "?
I will give context , faith is genuinely confusing to me.
I have no issue with personal faiths unless you are trying to force everyone to have the same faith as you.
I consider anything above small scale organisation of religion to be the worst thing that can happen to faith, because people are people and power corrupts.
I suppose my real question is , for a concept that prohibits proof as part of it’s definition, how do you determine that one faith (or system) is better than another?
why would being form japan make it popular ?
Wealth for wealth’s sake, possibly, but i’m not gonna start throwing shade at someone else’s life goals.
Wealth is , however, a good baseline to build upon to achieve other metrics, up to a point at least.
They were arresting people for talking walks by themselves in the woods in 2020-2022
Citation ?
That seems like it’d be right in the region of lockdown and curfews.
The Switzerland part is verifiable, somewhat.
The British part is dubious in its subject, you can see many arrests for protesting and other things the government doesn’t like. But preaching? Like, religion? Thats a stretch.
You can probably find a couple over the years but not much more.
The beatings in Europe part seems anecdotal and vague.
The small town America part has strong “trust me bro” vibes and a long history of anecdotes and news stories to the contrary.
The native reservation part is verifiable in numbers but lacking in context.
North Alaska I’ve no idea.
Areas with high levels of organised crime (not the governmental or ruling class kind) being potentially dangerous isn’t exactly high detective work, but sure.
Experiences do very wildly though, so points for that.
Overall a solid 4/10.
HAH, that tracks so much.
Im conflicted,
if that waste of breath sorbo is disappointed, that would normally indicate it was doing something right.
Or perhaps listing 3 different positions and claiming someone is between them is confusing…
Given they were directly responding to a quote of the confusing statement, perhaps they were not remarking on the actual position, but on the confusing nature of the description ?
So you basically ARE calling me a narcissist by proxy, or a defender of narcissists at best.
I can’t speak to your interpretation but it was not my intention to do so.
For me to be calling you a narcissist i’d need to claim you were saying those things to defend yourself, which you clearly weren’t.
The company isn’t saying that about themselves either.
Well, no more Mullvad for me. Thanks for pointing that out. There are several good alternatives.
This was also not my intention, but i can’t say i’m upset at this outcome.
I’ll keep it brief. I do find the controversies comparable, for the reasons previously stated…etc
All reasonable takes and i wasn’t trying to imply you were trying to sway me, i was just stating my opinions and boundaries were different from yours in this case.
I don’t consider the shenanigans equal on both sides, but we can agree to disagree on this.
Worth noting that the CEO was the CEO of FIREFOX at the time of the LGBT controversy. He was forced out due to the backlash, so good on Mozilla …etc
Fully agreed, in this case i fall on the mozilla side because, as i said, to me it’s the least worst.
The only reason I point out of something is not “as bad” is because I don’t believe it is possible to stay completely away from supporting anyone controversial…etc
Also agreed, there is no ethical consumerism so you do what you can live with.
i was talking more of the prosumer and close to prosumer units that could theoretically be retrofitted or housed in homelabs.
If datacentres went down en-masse i’d assume there’d be mix of hardware generations there.
Damn though, i didn’t know anything about the stuff you just mentioned, so my estimates of what could be available/usable are probably way off.
Now i have to go and do a deep dive, thanks.
I reread the narcissist thing and I’m really not sure what you mean then. Are you calling the Brave CEO a narcissist?
I was referring to a theoretical corporate defence version of the narcissists prayer and was again bitten by my ridiculous expectation that meme/reference knowledge is universal
Specifically your defence of brave sounded to me like this slightly altered version of that prayer
That didn’t happen.
And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.
And if it was, that’s not a big deal.
And if it is, that’s not their fault.
And if it was, they didn’t mean it.
I wasn’t trying to imply you are they were narcissists, only that your reply sounded a lot like that prayer.
I wasn’t sure if you were referring to either or both, so I responded to both versions of what you could mean by that. Based in your last comment I have a feeling I didn’t hear something recent about them, as far as I know everyone still likes them.
ah, again, with my assumptions:
TL;DR; A mullvad founder donated a large amount of money to what is largely considered to be a right wing political party
Here’s a small selection links, should be easy to search once you know what to look for:
Note, there is obviously bias and opinions here, have a look in to the actual details yourself for a full picture.
I do see a pattern, which is why I said I don’t fully trust them …etc
I agree with all of that up to this part:
Brave I trust a little less, but I see them in a similar way: often trying to find a crackpot method to make money off their product so they can stick around.
If their crackpot experiments are at the expense of the things i care about i’m out, but that’s a personal opinion, not a universal viewpoint.
I can’t say I’m a fan of their CEO. Then again, I can’t say I particularly like any CEO of any company,…etc
Again, all reasonable takes up to the end part:
I’m forced to pay Microsoft for licenses and support at work, and that bothers my conscience more than using a free browser by a guy who didn’t support gay marriage in 2014 before it went through federally, like just about everyone I grew up with, most of whom have since gotten over themselves. Not saying it’s OK or right, just noting that was at least half of Americans back then.
“He’s not as bad as musk and gates, plus everyone of that generation was like that” sounds a lot like an excuse, even if you specifically state that it isn’t.
I agree with your assessment that Firefox used to be the default good option and get steadily worse every day. …etc
Agreed
Does this make Firefox a stupid option that I’d criticize people for using? No. It is still one of the best options we ha…etc
Again, agreed, until the end.
“I’m gonna do it anyway” VS “Hey guys what about this?” “WTAF were you thinking Brave?” “Oh, sorry…”
That’s entirely glossing over the nature of the sketchy shit being pulled.
As we said mozilla are just stacking those shitty decisions like they were bricks of gold.
but they haven’t done anything even remotely a sketchy as :
Presenting it like they are doing comparable things is disingenuous at best.
Not strictly, there are usualy hurdles to overcome for home usage of datacentre tech, but it’s possible.
An easy example that comes to mind is that the datacentre GPU’s might have cooling configurations that rely on a large amount of airflow from the surrounding cabinet, which you’ll get in a datacentre, but not so much in a personal tower.
Also, noise, in a datacentre, noise is much less of an issue than in a personal computer, so they can eschew noise reduction in favour of performance.
Many people that live near data-centres would disagree, but i mean strictly from a usage point of view, not a broader community perspective.
edit: well shit, i just realised i used a meme/reference that might have been mistaken for me specifically implying an economic reason not to use mullvad.
That’s my bad for assuming universal meme knowledge.
<X>, in this economy? was predominantly used to reference economic reasons to not doing something, it has broadened in scope to encompass the idea that the proceeding statement is nonsensical in general (not just for economic reasons)
So “mullvad, in this economy ?” roughly translates to “mullvad is a questionable choice in this current (specific or general) context”
What a strange comment. Can’t say I’ve ever been called a narcissist for recommending privacy browsers before.
No one was calling you a narcissist, read it again.
Mullvad is pretty much the most trusted VPN provider. If you don’t want to pay for a VPN, don’t. I explicitly mentioned it is still a good privacy by default Firefox based browser without the bloat of Firefox.
And my comment had nothing to do with its technical competence (nor it’s economic impact, see note at the top)
Have you really not seen any stories related to mullvad recently?
Sure, let’s go through your list, why not.
Not my list, a list.
And all of those explanations are the handwaving I mentioned.
Your take on them all seems reasonable if not exactly the same as mine.
In aggregate though they indicate a potential pattern.
My response was specifically to your implication that because their many shenanigans were in the past and nothing was a current problem that we should only judge them on their current technical competence.
I also noticed you didn’t mention the current CEO and why someone might have an issue with them.
I just think it’s really weird that Brave gets so much hate when it isn’t warranted when compared to what other browsers do.
Then you probably aren’t hearing all of what people are actually complaining about.
hint : they aren’t usually complaining about the technical competence.
Also other browsers get plenty of shit, a lot of it justifiable.
Ungoogled Chromium, for example…etc
All valid, and I agree.
I could list some you haven’t mentioned as well.
I personally use a variant of Firefox that has a whole bunch of questionable shit turned off or removed.
Despite almost all of their recent moves having been to announce some bullshit that actively makes them a worse option for me they are still currently , barely, the least worst option (for my preferences)
And only then it’s mostly because of the variants.
What I was getting at is that playing down the continuous bullshit from these companies weakens your arguments.
It also genuinely seems you don’t see why the non-technical aspects of these companies might be a point of contention for some people.
Recommending mullvad, in this economy ? That’s a bold strategy , if nothing else.
I suppose if you’re going to do that then following up with handwaving brave’s historic shenanigans and current CEO is consistent.
“They previous did and continue to do some shit i don’t care about , i like their products” at least shows some backbone.
The corporate defense version of the narcissists prayer is weaksauce.
If its such a compelling feature set then opt-in shouldn’t be an issue.