• 0 Posts
  • 9 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 15th, 2023

help-circle
  • You seem to be absolutely convinced the lens you see reality with is not a lens but reality itself and you are wrong.

    You are misinterpreting the amount of confidence I’m portraying in this discussion, but that aside I don’t see this conversation continuing productively for either of us. I’m also not nearly as invested in it as I am gathering you may be, and there’s nothing wrong with you being passionate about your position. I’m going to break from this conversation here so we stay on good terms with one another. Thank you for taking the time to share your views with me. I appreciate it.


  • partial_accumen@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzNot a good sign
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    The only systems I can think of that function under the axiom that you suggest, which is that scarcity is a necessary obstacle to tackle before systems can resist destroying shared resources, are ecosystems dominated by invasive species and cancer. In both cases, it is the inability to tolerate abundance in a system because of an endless growth mechanism that causes the destruction of a dynamic encompassing stability.

    Well, that sounds like an accurate description humanity in the last 1000 years at least.

    In other words, every society that experienced periods not entirely ruled by an oppressive, authoritarian regime and that had/have some shared wealth whether it be in public spaces, public knowledge, public utilities, public education or other forms of public shared resource.

    I think that statement is more supports my current position. You’re pointing out a temporary state, not an enduring condition. I could probably argue that even many of those temporary states of a successful shared commons were potentially built on the exploitation of others outside of those benefiting from the commons, but lets ignore that for now. None of those endured. Every single one has ended, or in some possible isolated cases that may exist today, have not shown they could endure with changing social or geopolitical conditions. These examples don’t live in a vacuum either. Unless the whole of humanity is onboard, a segment could pillage the shared commons of another society if they did not have adequate defense as has been shown in humanities history an uncounted amount of times. So what, in your approach, would change one of these temporary states to a permanent one that humanity would actually implement?

    The way you understand how scarcity MUST impact systems cannot explain this blatant inefficiency in a natural ecosystem, individuals in nature are supposed to use EVERYTHING they can right?

    Not right. There is no scarcity of resources for the bears because here bears use a form of violent authoritarianism to ensure resource (salmon in your example) availability for themselves. A dominate bear will kill weaker bears to ensure food, mates, and territory are established. In that sense, it mirrors the human reaction. Again, that points away from a non-violent benevolent society of a workable shared commons.

    Except it didn’t because it turns out the Grizzly Bears discarding the Salmon ends up transferring a massive amount of nutrients from the Ocean to the Forest. The system benefits from slack, from a giving up of an individual boon for no perceivable immediate collective gain…

    The only way I can see your example apply to humanity is if you’re suggesting humanity should enforce a class hierarchy where apex predators (small segment of high class humans) get first dibs of the prime resources, and lesser creatures (the middle class) and plants (those in poverty) benefit by what the bears leave behind. Isn’t this the premise of Regan’s much hated “trickle down economics”? I don’t believe you’re suggesting that, but I’m not seeing an alternate interpretation. I’m open to hearing your alternate explanation.


  • partial_accumen@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzNot a good sign
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Provide evidence for this claim.

    I can provide zero evidence. I’m trying to imagine a world where your proposal works. Scarcity elimination the best possible way I could come up with.

    I understand this has been established as our cultural intuition but it is a near axiomatic assumption that upon examination has very little evidence to support it, whether we look to the natural world or to human societies.

    If your proposal doesn’t need to eliminate scarcity, I’m even more interested in how it is done. Whats the secret sauce has society-at-large been missing? You mention examining human societies. Do you have a human society to point to where your proposal exists successfully already?


  • partial_accumen@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzNot a good sign
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I would imagine a system you’re suggesting would first have to eliminate scarcity of resources. We certainly have the ability to do that with our technology today but choose not to do so. Wouldn’t it require a turn to benevolence by all involved in the society to achieve that? If so, that doesn’t sound like a likely outcome. What, in your opinion, would it take to escape the Tragedy of Commons that is likely to actually occur?


  • They are shitting out what you feed them. If you feed them garbage, you get garbage in return.

    This is the missing conceptual understanding that probably 90% of LLM users lack. They really don’t know how LLMs work, and treat them like AGI. Sadly this includes adult policy makers in our society too. Efforts like those of these these researchers act to educate the public. I’m hopeful this will spark some critical thinking on the part of regular, otherwise ignorant, LLM users.


  • That’s a serious breach of ethics and morals. Feeding false information to an LLM is no different that a magazine.

    Hang on. Are you suggesting its unethical/immoral to lie to a machine?

    Additionally, the authors didn’t submit the article to a magazine as factual. They posted the articles on a preprint server which can be very questionable anyway as there is no peer review. The machine chose to ignore rigor and treat them as fact.