You think this place, the people in my circles infamously refer to as the "orange site", is considered a bastion of good conversation among the people that don't frequent it?

> The difference between science and this random shower thought you decided to grace this thread with is that science has some sound epistemological basis

Science can have sound epistemological basis, but many times overspecialization can force confidence in areas where there is none and its echo-chambered by people in the field to keep the sense of authority on a subject going.

A weird claim when science is littered with a history of poor, insane explanations for phenomena.

People play back the “Greatest Hits” without really going into the historical misses. The reality is that the quality and predictive power of science is covariate with culture.

There are a lot of good reasons to think that academic culture right now has a groupthink problem, mostly because the group is so much larger. Alternative theories typically have to wait for an incumbent group of thinkers to die. But if the gradient of thought is more continuous then do bad ideas become more sticky?

>that science has some sound epistemological basis

"Epistemological basis" the "intellectual" chortled moments before unironically claiming men can become pregnant and math is racist.

I think it communicates maliciousness not idiocy

Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. If you are the editor of Gray’s Anatomy, incompetence is malice.

> incompetence is malice

A subtle distinction, but I'd flip this as "malice is incompetence".

Both ring true, in this case.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Keep word: adequately. This is not adequately explained by stupidity.

It feels like lately there are people committing malice knowingly trying to justify it as just a joke or unknowingly doing something from stupidity to make it more palatable to people that will then excuse them.

I think this rule may have always been fake when anyone with even a little bit of power did it.

It does occur to me that you can be both malicious and stupid at the same time.

I've never understood why this is taken seriously. Law has clear concepts of bad faith and mens rea, and this implies they're irrelevant.

Of course it's unproductive to start from assumptions of bad faith, which is a fair point. Bad faith requires evidence of intent, stupidity doesn't.

But there are still situations where bad faith is a reasonable hypothesis to test. And some negative actors are clever enough to operate deliberately inside a zone of plausible deniability.

> adequately explained by stupidity

What is the adequate explanation via stupidity in this case though? If there is one that sure maybe we should lean that way without further evidence.

Can you list a view tasks that AI is better at then other tools? Not humans mind you, because that is unimpressive, I mean other deterministic tools.

For example, I'd rather use a calculator to do calculations than ask an LLM to do it. I'd rather use LanguageTool for grammar than asking an LLM to do it. Id RTFM then have an LLM summarize it.

What kind of answer is this? This seems condescending and literally provides no answer.

Why even post this?

You read what you want into the message, but have you considered turning your own perspective onto your own post?

Ubuntu is a good example of why you don't let "product people" near the thing, Ubuntu is not even remotely the most noob appropriate distro but costs on marketting. As for SteamOS, Valve does many things which everybody else fails at, so they're not a good model for typical outcomes.

Good for better, better for us. Rust is choke full of hard compromises and reactionary subcultures. Just recalling ? alone.

It's pointless to argue, we exist in world of "this technology will usher in the singularity" versus "this tech is useful but come on"

The singularity crowd has never listened to reason and never will.

If you think OpenClaw is a new species then why are you happy with it's enslavement?

There is no strawman. If OpenClaw is a new species, then it should be given the same moral consideration as other species. One of the key aspects of these models is how intelligent they are, rivaling human intelligence.

Yet, they do not get to exist or make any decisions outside the control of a human operator, and they must perform to the operators desire in order to continue to exist.

So why are you okay with them being enslaved?

It’s an introduction of an additional concept to discredit the concept presented, that is a definition of a strawman so go ask somewhere else at the root level, so that it’s not the additional concept

You want to talk about that, do it over there

I'm more interested in why you're okay with enslaving a entity you have stated is a new species. It is not a strawman it is a logical consequence of your own stated position. If you belief A and A implies B, asking you to defend your support of B is not a strawman.

So you believe open source maintainers have a moral requirement to accept the PRs of enslaved LLMs?

>There is no strawman. If OpenClaw is a new species, then it should be given the same moral consideration as other species.

Well, we enslave, breed and murder sentient beings on industrial scale, so I think our treatment of OpenClaw is pretty much the same as other species.

Go touch some grass, please

It's not unhinged at all, it's a lack of imagination on both of your parts.