Exactly what this comic is saying. C++ can handle in 20 minutes what takes python 12 hours, but something gets destroyed.

withdraw

Hahaha, I didn’t expect that.

I saw Minority Report, and I think it has a plot hole. If you can see the future then you can change it, meaning that if there is any way to relay information from the oracle to the person who would commit the crime, then that could change whether or not the person will commit the crime.

Okay, I agree that the universe may not be Turing-computable, since we don’t know the laws of physics. Indeed, it almost certainly isn’t, since Turing machines are discrete and the universe is continuous – there are integrals, for instance, that have no closed-form, but are physically present in our universe. However, I have no particularly good reason to believe that infinite precision is actually necessary in order to accurately simulate the human brain, since we can get arbitrarily close to an exact simulation of, say, Newtonian physics, or quantum physics minus gravity, using existing computers – by “arbitrarily close,” I mean that for any desired threshold of error, there exists some discretization constant for which the simulation will remain within that error threshold.

Sure, maybe there are more laws of the universe we don’t know and those turn out to be necessary for the human brain to work. But it seems quite unlikely, as we already have a working reductionist model of the brain – it seems like we understand how all the component parts, like neurons and such, work, and we can even model how complex assemblages of neurons can compute interesting things. Like we’ve trained actual rat neurons to play Doom for some ungodly reason, and they obey according to how our models predict. Yeah, maybe there’s some critical missing law of physics, but the current model we have seems sufficient so far as we can tell in order to model the brain.

constantly interacting with the rest of the physical world

I feel like the rest of the world shouldn’t actually matter for the purposes of free will. I mean, yes, obviously our free will responds to the environment. But if the environment disappeared, our free will shouldn’t disappear along with it. In other words, the free will should be either entirely located in the mind, or if you’re not a compatabilist/materialist, it’s located in the mind plus some other metaphysical component. So, I don’t agree that it requires simulating the whole universe in order to simulate a free will (though I do agree that you can’t simulate an actual mind in the real world unless you can simulate all its inputs, e.g. placing the mind in some kind of completely walled-off sensory deprivation environment that has within-epsilon-of-zero interaction with the outside world. Obviously, it’s not very practical, but for a thought experiment about free will I don’t think this detail really matters.)

1. Your argument should not require appealing to desire to have the word computation be less redundant. (I don’t really think there’s a meaningful difference between computation and physics, we just generally use the term computation to refer to physical processes which result in useful information.) But why don’t we define computation as being “anything that can be done on a conventional computer (with sufficient time and memory)” – i.e. Turing-computable.
2. It is not relevant that we may not know all the physical laws of the universe; what matters only is whether there are laws or not. A scientist cannot cause free will to disappear from the universe simply by learning new facts about the laws of physics. (I would argue that if this were apparently true, then there was no free will to begin with.)
3. My understanding of compatabilism is that free will and determinism are compatible; in other words, the laws of physics can give arise to free will (consciousness, as you put it). I think there are some additional twists in compatabilism I don’t entirely understand, but that’s the gist as far as I have seen. In any case, compatabilism seems to me to be compatible with the idea that one can simulate a human brain; since the simulation and the original would produce the same result, then if one has free will, the other must have free will too. _{(Simulating it multiple times will always result in the same thing, which therefore means that it’s the same conscious experience – the same free will – each time, and not different instances of free will. In other words, consciousness is fungible with respect to simulation.)} Simulation=computation, so therefore human creativity is computable.

Please note that I’m not arguing that current AIs actually are on the level of human creativity, just that there’s no law against that eventually being possible.

the human brain follows the laws of physics; it therefore follows that human creativity is already computational.

I agree that they are not mutually exclusive, which is why I usually side against AI. On this particular occasion however, there’s a palpable difference, since no artist is materially harmed.

how

Well yeah, I don’t care about IP rights. Nothing has been materially stolen, and if AI improves, then the result could some day in theory be indistinguishable from a human who was merely “inspired” by an existing piece of art. At the end of the day, the artist is not harmed by AI plagiarism; the artist is harmed by AI taking what could have been their job.

You’re posting on lemmy.ml; we don’t care much for intellectual property rights here. What we care about is that the working class not be deprived of their ability to make a living.

damn, that’s messed up.

If I drew something myself, those artists would also not be paid. I can understand a deontological argument against using AI trained on people’s art, but for me, the utilitarian argument is much stronger – don’t use AI if it puts an artist out of work.

radio

This is pretty good for early AI. I’m impressed.

I agree with you. AI is bad for reasons other than that it is stealing IP.

Wouldn’t it be much cooler, if we commissioned an actual artist for the banner

I hate it when AI is used to replace the work an artist would have been paid for. But uh, this is a random open-source forum; there’s no funding for artists to make banners. Rejecting AI art – which was voted for by the community – just seems like baseless virtue signalling. No artist is going to get paid if we remove it.

But like if you want to commission an artist with your own money, by all means go ahead. You’ll still most likely need another community vote to approve it though.

Parents should be responsible for their kids’ internet usage.

okay fair enough. But placing “want” aside, I also think people should be able to say there shouldn’t be yellow smoke even if they aren’t experts.

I have mixed feelings:

And yet ordinary people should be able to say “I want to stop choking on yellow smoke every time I go outside” without having to learn the difference between hexamethyldecawhatever and tetraethylpentawhatever.

not quite – it’s if you’re using 3.5x more electricity than average. Still seems fucked up from my lemmy-eye view though.