Please provide an evidentiary basis for human consciousness.
Please refrain from reductio ad absurdum.
The building blocks of 3D graphics, cryptographic encryption, protein folding algorithms, and much more are not trivial, rather they are critical elements of our current understanding of how to make something 'compute' like a brain does.
If you think a human synapse is a trivial part of human thought and consciousness I'd say you are the absurd one. (Not saying you think or would say this, just flipping the scenario to beg the question: what do you think consciousness is exactly?)
And not that I am saying LLMs are conscious, nor currently capable of consciousness. I just don't think it's trivial, absurd, or arbitrary to suggest or discuss it.
> Please provide an evidentiary basis for human consciousness.
Direct experience. No further justification is necessary.
All arguments against consciousness presuppose the existence of consciousness (the so-called stolen concept fallacy). Any attempt to refute it necessarily relies on it.
You can’t even have a coherent concept of “knowledge” without it, let alone knowledge of specific things like 3D graphics, algorithms, and synapses.
So utterly bizarre that a tech CEO can take this approach. It seems plainly obvious that they've tasked their internal teams with a challenge to come up with an AI product they can sell. Probably during a hackathon or something. And the most viable buzz-y thing the produced was 'remixes and cover songs' for 'superfans'.
In a normal world there'd be a market research phase and the tech CEO would be looking at topline stats on where they think users are looking. And then they'll develop products to meet their requirements before competitors do.
Instead we have a made up product (that other AI platforms may offer for free) and a market research report that is telling the CEO that consumers consider the product 'slop'. And the result is a brand deal, money put down, and the CEO having to try to convince consumers it's not slop before it even launches.
I'm not convinced they won't succeed. Streaming content providers use surveillance and consumer's lack of taste/discernment against them. They know people are likely to click on whatever they put on the personalized home screen. That's why so much Netflix trash gets watched. They've weaponized passivity.
Damn you got scammed out of 60 bucks, the end result looks awful.
Check out https://www.youtube.com/@noisygroup JOEY on YouTube to see how it should be done. Their work still fails a lot of sense checks but it's orders of magnitude better than the slop your $60 got you.
Your attempt is full of visual inconsistencies like the architect's drawn line behaving like taut string as it's drawn (and being a pointless shape over the blueprint). The safe handle wheel turning by itself whilst the guy smiles idiotically at the camera like a 70s comedy show. The reviewer reviewing absolutely nothing on multiple screens at the same time. The orchestrator doing pretty much the same thing but with DNA helixes?!?
The overall message and feeling derived from the video is - sloppy, cheap, shallow, as if produced by a company promoting a product that will be all those things.
People are going to generate some pretty effective media from this tech eventually but there's a sliding scale from free slop to million dollar ad equivalents. And yours is closer to the free slop end of the scale, closer than your $60 budget would even suggest.
Parent here is prickly yet unfortunately correct (sorry OP!) but the reason why is interesting.
As I watch this, I realized that, inconsistencies notwithstanding, I would have been floored by this result in 2021, even 2022. But we've all been ingesting slop now for long enough to recognise that unique metallic aftertaste immediately. The minute I do, I immediately lose traction with the piece, as if intellectual antibodies have begun to attack.
The result, comms-wise, is worse than failure -- not only do I not receive the information (or affect) that the piece is trying to convey, but I find myself ill-disposed toward it.
I'm reminded of the starships in Douglas Adams oeuvre that were said to have long ago used bad news to power near-instantaneous spaceflight (because bad news is the only thing to travel faster than light, get it?) only to discover that there was no point in going anywhere, as it became the practice to shoot such vessels on sight; no one wants bad news.
Similarly, if I get your pitch via slop-powered craft, I'm going to dismiss it with prejudice.
Not from the USA, but I used the site to keep an eye on US politics.
538, named for the combined number of senators, representatives, and electors in the US, was a political journalism site. It used polls and data to ground its articles and opinions. Largely helmed by Nate Silver for a large portion of its run, until he left.
It got 49/50 states correct in the 2008 presidential election which catapulted it to fame. It never scored that accurately again but it's data driven charts and tables were a great pulse point for US politics. You could see recent aggregated polling data day by day in the run up to an election. And you could read analyses of polling data and trends.
There's nothing like it anymore, it didn't make money and didn't make spot on predictions reliably. It didn't need to do either, it was a good pool of data at the end of the day.
Everyone seems to rely on Polymarket now, which is a much more cynical way to aggregate polling data - by betting on predictions.
Depends on the field of work. Typically for me (red/green) it just means I need to steer clear of creative work/QA of creative work because I appraise colours differently to many.
Within technical work most of the interfaces I deal with are high contrast, and do not rely on colour in a way that would lead me to get things wrong. There are some issues with documents containing black and dark red text that I can miss. That's solved by telling the author not to mark important changes/highlights in dark red. There's a tracked changes function, there's a highlight function. I am covered.
The more technical my work gets the more I tend to be covered by WCAG 2.2 guidelines. I don't have to do anything based on colour, or report colours during a task often if ever. So as long as I can see the contrast between things I am fine, they can be whatever colour they want.
One thing on colour correction though, you don't have a colourblind person's 'profile'. In fact really, any given healthy person's profile of colour vision is not going to be the same as anothers. A lot of colourblind 'filters' in things like games and apps are barely serviceable. When I use them I find the colour profile I am used to in the wider world flipped, and the semantic meanings given to colours, or their hierarchies, completely changed. Within a UI that often isn't helpful.
My colour blindness causes some frequencies to bleed into each other in my perception of them. That means I struggle in some degree of overlap of red and green to pick out or identify that colour. So make the colour purer for me. Do that with contrast, and saturation. Don't flip it to a set profile or palette. Don't make STOP signs Cyan instead of Red. I CAN see Red, sometimes I struggle when a Green comes along on the edge of its spectral profile and triggers my red cone the same way a similarly fringe red frequency might. But pure Red? Easy, I know that one. Don't do anything to pure (primary) RGB values.
And note that computer monitors are doing all this with RGB, in their own available gamut and brightness/contrast settings, possibly with OS-based HDR setting son or off.
You can try to make a perfect system for every variation but the end user won't see it as precisely as you intend.
Why not? As far as my understanding of color blindness goes, you just need to find a precise transformation matrix and offsets to be able to correct any type of deficiency (except for achromatopsia, I guess).
> When I use them I find the colour profile I am used to in the wider world flipped, and the semantic meanings given to colours, or their hierarchies, completely changed.
I think the correction applied to digital content is a positive thing. At once you can perceive color the way it was intended to be perceived. May be wrong here because I don't have daltonism.
> You can try to make a perfect system for every variation but the end user won't see it as precisely as you intend.
My goal is not cover every case, but to create exactly one profile (and perhaps create a usable correction workflow for someone else)
I can only speculate of course, but I'd suspect a far simpler reason, driving subscriptions. Even limited use for video editing can fill up the free 5GB tier very quickly and if iClouds rather aggressive nudges to upgrade and their success amongst the people around me are anything to go by, there is a lot of potential in getting people to subscribe for a few bucks.
The scenario I envision is basically, a user just edits a few 4k files together and starts approaching the 5GB limit. Because OneDrive is also by default used for other things such as documents and even the desktop nowadays, they soon thereafter hit the 5GB limit and start being inundated with offers to upgrade to the 100GB tier. "Just 1,99 per month, nothing major, barely felt", at least that's the pitch. Maybe they acquiesce, maybe they ignore it. That's the play I'd wager. And if enough people resist, maybe in an upcoming update a full OneDrive could lead to (artificially) degraded functionality. Not in the sense of local storage being impossible, just slightly less convenient over direct OneDrive. Say what you want about the iCloud nagging (I have and will continue complaining about that as well), at least it isn't required to have free iCloud storage to locally edit ones videos with iMovie.
In any case, forcing OneDrive for a video editor (arguably one of the highest storage requirement programs most people will ever use at the moment) is anti-consumer and showcases how little any commitment [0] by them actually means. Took less than a week, which is honestly longer than I'd have suspected...
I've got to say that it does seem like the approach to the gaming sessions appears poor. Any given activity like board gaming can be done purely transactionally or not. It's up to the people around the table to chat and discover things about each other.
I'm married to someone I went to board game meetups with before we dated. I'm very good friends with several people from that group now. We play board games periodically still despite the group no longer being active, and our reasons to meet up are now more about socialising than board games. Board games was a brilliant icebreaker, but it took effort from everyone involved.
Perhaps board games are not the best socialisation method, but I'd argue against that too. It's a very good way to get like-minded people in a room, sitting down, and collaborating.
However, "I know many people who say they’ve tried a couple of board games like Catan and really enjoyed it, and are surprised to hear that I think it is a bad game." is spot on and the author cannot be faulted for that opinion. I'd rather play Russian Roulette than Catan.
I gave up on Spotify as I started to listen to more podcasts which had their own ads inside them let alone Spotify's. Now I'm paying for Youtube (never thought I'd be doing that) and using the new(ish) jump ahead feature to skip in-video ad segments including in video podcasts. Problem largely solved?
This is a long long log fuelled by your very obtuse way of talking to Gemini. It's matching your tone, and feeding your loaded questions with loaded answers to fit your narrative.
I don't see any threats, I likely missed them in my scan down the sections, but it does just seem like it tried to meet you in the middle and its output flew over your head as it miscalculated the bro-speak conspiracy theory level you were at.
"honestly i know where the next "revolution" should be happening. those who get it, get it.
let those who dont waste their money
bye"
Hilarious way to speak to Gemini. It's going to spew that right back at you.
Please refrain from reductio ad absurdum.
The building blocks of 3D graphics, cryptographic encryption, protein folding algorithms, and much more are not trivial, rather they are critical elements of our current understanding of how to make something 'compute' like a brain does.
If you think a human synapse is a trivial part of human thought and consciousness I'd say you are the absurd one. (Not saying you think or would say this, just flipping the scenario to beg the question: what do you think consciousness is exactly?)
And not that I am saying LLMs are conscious, nor currently capable of consciousness. I just don't think it's trivial, absurd, or arbitrary to suggest or discuss it.
reply