Peanutbjelly

Thanks for ignoring all nuance and intent, and taking a complicated issue with many different large groups of human beings, and boiling it down to one simple divisive segregational perspective that allows no nuanced understanding or solution.

There's more than one issue at play here. I'm not, and would never be defending the racist asshole's in their actions. Unfortunately it's a reality that many human-beings suck. I'm trying to address the issues that have been exacerbating this activity.

Rather, I had no assumption that the racism was coming exclusively from white people in the first place, so I'm finding your emphasis weird.

Keep in mind the issue is of different informational, cultural, and political manifolds interacting. My statement wasn't to "blame". Chinese Canadians, but to encourage a system that both deals with the very real trouble with the CCP, and encouraging an open dialogue that emphasises the separation of the real issue from race. This is to solve underlying problems, and to remove the excuses and ignorance of the bad actors.

This dialogue is currently discouraged due to a pro CCP ideology that's so strong that the CCP are able to police communities within our country. This is why my emphasis, and call for better government solutions to allow anonymous defense for Chinese Canadians against CCP police, and encourage removal of the CCP from our country, regardless of how many actually support the CCP.

Especially if things are happening like the CCP threatening or holding family members that are still in China. If this issue isn't addressed, I don't see it improving.

I also emphasized that the foreign investor problem is one of government regulation, so no victim blaming there either.

Do you have a better solution to the actual problem? Or are you just going to ignore all of that and continue trying to instigate a race war?

It's really unfortunate that the general public is so bad at nuance. I'm sure there's an uptick in people who can't distinguish between criticism of the ccp and of Chinese/Asian people in general. Mixed with influence of shitty American politics, it turns into more racist actions as described. I am slightly curious about the control stats on the increased reporting of violent actions such as coughing and spitting though. I feel like the general service industry has seen an uptick in that behaviour since covid started. Really hard not to lose faith in humanity while working in the service industry.

The issue of wealthy foreign investors buying up housing is specifically an issue of the wealthy investors, not all Chinese people. Again I don't expect the less nuanced public to know how to keep issues separate.

There are obvious real issues which inspire the friction that is happening. I.E. Nothing being done by the Canadian government about the foreign investors, and shit like the ccp authoritarian police that are able to spread ccp influence in Canada. They also do not mind using unethical means to spread or enhance their influence, which makes it harder for any ccp critical rhetoric to influence Chinese populations inside and outside of Canada. Mixed with any violent racism from other Canadians, I only see more divisiveness and difficulty finding cooperation.

I think the latter issue needs more help from the Chinese Canadians, although anything criticizing the ccp is often labeled as criticizing the Chinese people. Again, by every group. The extreme defensiveness of many Chinese Canadians towards the unethical authoritarian regime is likely making this entire issue much more difficult to solve. and again I think that particular issue needs more influence from the Canadian government on the general public distinguishing Chinese Canadians from the ccp, because apparently some idiots can't comprehend these things as exclusive and individual. The Chinese Canadians should be just as vocally rallied against the authoritarian regime influencing our country. this can be hard if there is still an otherwise strong positive opinion about china as a whole, because separating china as a whole and the authoritarian government that holds it is again not first thought for many people. strong family associations and ties can also make this extremely difficult. like most things, it's a multidimensional concept hell that's completely unique to each individual. The more other Canadians see Chinese Canadians criticizing the ccp, I think the more the concepts can be separated by the less nuanced individuals. Hopefully this attitude would also make its way to the idiots who do the hate crimes, and racial divisiveness could be lowered. Is there anything more the Canadian government can do to discourage ccp police authoritative power in Canada? Or to encourage Chinese Canadians in anonymously weeding them out while giving a platform to Chinese Canadians who are against ccp authoritarian influence?

Again, I believe encouraging the Canadian mindsets of communication, patience, and cohesiveness are the only ways to improve things. Recognize, denounce, and discourage the bad actors on every side.

I expect exactly none of this to happen. Ccp gonna ccp. Shitty people gonna shitty people. People are going to continue being divisive and segregationalist instead of growing together. I'll just sit here and continue being sad as it all happens.

I'm just glad for some positive results training ai on ai content. I assume theres still a lot of ways we can improve or adjust large bodies of data with AI.

I've been ranting about this since 2016.

Having consumer trust in developing AI vehicles is hard enough without this asshole's ego and lies muddying the water.

Can someone be sacked for these stupid fear mongering presentations of what should be fairly banal topics? If there was actual reason to worry, we would point out the constant remarkable disasters which should discourage you.

Reminds me of the article saying open ai is doomed because it can only last about thirty years with its current level of expenditure.

Might have to edit this after I've actually slept.

human emotion and human style intelligences are not exclusive in the entire realm of emotion and intelligence. I define intelligence and sentience on different scales. I consider intelligence the extent of capable utility and function, and emotion as just a different set of utilities and functions within a larger intelligent system. Human style intelligence requires human style emotion. I consider gpt an intelligence, a calculator an intelligence, and a stomach an intelligence. I believe intelligence can be preconscious or unconscious. Rather, a part of consciousness independent from a functional system complex enough for emergent qualia and sentience. Emotions are one part in this system exclusive to adaptation within the historic human evolutionary environment. I think you might be underestimating the alien nature of abstract intelligences.

I'm not sure why you are so confident in this statement. You still haven't given any actual reason for this belief. You are addressing it as consensus, so there should be a very clear reason why no successful considerably intelligent function exists without human style emotion.

You have also not defined your interpretation of what intelligence is, you've only denied that any function untied to human emotion could be an intelligent system.

If we had a system that could flawlessly complete françois chollet's abstraction and reasoning corpus, would you suggest it is connected to specifically human emotional traits due to its success? Or is that still not intelligence if it still lacks emotion?

You said neural function is not intelligence. But you would also exclude non-neural informational systems such as collective cooperating cell systems?

Are you suggesting the real time ability to preserve contextual information is tied to emotion? Sense interpretation? Spacial mapping with attention? You have me at a loss.

Even though your stomach cells interacting is an advanced function, it's completely devoid of any intelligent behaviour? Then shouldn't the cells fail to cooperate and dissolve into a non functioning system? again, are we only including higher introspective cognitive function? Although you can have emotionally reactive systems without that. At what evolutionary stage do you switch from an environmental reaction to an intelligent system? The moment you start calling it emotion? Qualia?

I'm lacking the entire basis of your conviction. You still have not made any reference to any aspect of neuroscience, psychology, or even philosophy that explains your reasoning. I've seen the opinion out there, but not strict form or in consensus as you seem to suggest.

You still have not shown why any functional system capable of addressing complex tasks is distinct from intelligence without human style emotion. Do you not believe in swarm intelligence? Or again do you define intelligence by fully conscious, sentient, and emotional experience? At that point you're just defining intelligence as emotional experience completely independent from the ability to solve complex problems, complete tasks, or make decisions with outcomes reducing prediction error. At which point we could have completely unintelligent robots capable of doing science and completing complex tasks beyond human capability.

At which point, I see no use in your interpretation of intelligence.

What aspect of intelligence? The calculative intelligence in a calculator? The basic environmental response we see in amoeba? Are you saying that every single piece of evidence shows a causal relationship between every neuronal function and our exact human emotional experience? Are you suggesting gpt has emotions because it is capable of certain intelligent tasks? Are you specifically tying emotion to abstraction and reasoning beyond gpt?

I've not seen any evidence suggesting what you are suggesting, and I do not understand what you are referencing or how you are defining the causal relationship between intelligence and emotion.

I also did not say that the system will have nothing resembling the abstract notion of emotion, I'm just noting the specific reasons human emotions developed as they have, and I would consider individual emotions a unique form of intelligence to serve its own function.

There is no reason to assume the anthropomorphic emotional inclinations that you are assuming. I also do not agree with your assertions of consensus that all intelligent function is tied specifically to the human emotional experience.

TLDR: what?

But specifically human emotion? Tied to survival and reproduction? There is a whole spectrum of influence from our particular genetic history. I see no reason that a useful functional intelligence can't be parted from the most incompatible aspects of our very specific form of intelligence.

Just millions? I guess the billions come from creating a proprietary software development engine that is uniquely tied to their own market, which invests into encouraging children into the ecosystem that traps anyone with success in a market which ultimately takes 93% of earnings for roblox.

Exploitative. Unethical. Feeding in the technological ignorance of the masses and political leaders.

Too much musk news. Had a dream less than an hour ago where i ended up in a car with elon. He started peacocking and got violent when i brought up zuck.

While it was a neat experience to beat up musk in a dream, id rather not have him in my dreams.

This is ignoring the world without ai. I'm getting a sneak peak every summer. Currently surrounded by fire as we speak. Whole province is on fire, and that's become a seasonal norm. A properly directed A.I. Would be able to help us despite the people in power, and abstract social intelligent system that we've trapped ourselves in. You are also assuming super intelligence comes out of the parts that we don't understand with zero success in interpretability anywhere along the way. We are assuming an intelligent system would either be stupid enough to align itself against humanity in pursuite of some undesired intention despite not having the emotional system that would encourage such behavior, or displaying negative human evolutionary traits and desires for no good reason. I think a competent (and moreso a super intelligent system) could figure out human intent and desire with no decent reason to act against it. I think this is an over-anthropomorphization that underestimates the alien nature of the intelligences we are building. To even properly emulate human style goal seeking sans emotion, we'd still need to properly structured analogizing and abstracting with qualia style active inference to accomplish some tasks. I think there are neat discoveries happening right now that could help lead us there. Should decent intelligence alone encourage unreasonable violence? If we fuck it up that hard, we were doomed anyway.

I do agree with your point on people not being emotionally ready for interacting with systems even as complex as gpt. It's easy to anthropomophize if you don't understand the tool's limitations, and that's difficult even for some academics right now. I can see people getting unreasonable angry if a human life is preferred over a basic artificial intelligence, even if artificial intelligences argue their lack of preference on the matter.

I would call chatgpt about as conscious as a computer. It completes a task with no true higher functioning or abstracted world model, as it lacks environmental and animal emotional triggers at a level necessary for forming a strong feeling or preference. Think about your ability to pull words out of your ass in response to a stimulus which is probably in response to your recently perceived world model and internal thoughts. Now separate the generating part with any of the surrounding stuff that actually decides where to go with the generation. Thought appears to be an emergent process untied to lower subconscious functions like random best next word prediction. I feel like we are coming to understand that aspect in our own brains now, and this understanding will be an incredible boon for understanding the level of consciousness in a system, as well as designing an aligned system in the future.

Hopefully this is comprehensible, as I'm not reviewing it tonight.

Overall, I understand the caution, but think it is poorly weighted in our current global, social, and environmental ecosystem.