🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

I dunno whats worse, the fact that Biden's senility is so bad he is a laughing stock, or the fact that people, fully seeing his senility, might still find it better than Trump, and they arent entierly wrong either.

@curtis

Huge red flag, no translation of the text.

I suspect the first time a human invented anything, the first human invention if you will, it seemed unremarkable, not because the invention itself was unremarkable but probably because inventing things was already common place and he or she didnt even know they were a human, likely the first human. Then again im not even sure how we would define the "first human" in general...

@ambihelical @trinsec

The extra features arent much help on third party clients. Why not just install qoto as an app directly and use that as the client?

@ambihelical

We actually have more features than the original, by quite a bit margin. What features they finally implemented came years after we had them in most cases.

There are two features we hired people to bring in and should be coming early next year now that we have developers hired. Those are editing posts without reposting, and in-line translation. Everything else we are ahead of the curve on.

As for clients, if you use a generic ActivityPub client it should work fine as we adhere to all AP standards. Just avoid mastodon specific clients and you should have the full clients features working fine.

@trinsec

@mxtthxw

Sure thats easy to explain, and its not magic at all.

> What I don’t quite get is how this applies to equities, leveraged trading schemes

Equities, and the stock exchange as a whole, is just investment vehicles. Its an open public marketplace that allows for investors to invest in a company in exchange for ownership. When you buy stock you put more money in the pockets of the company through multiple mechanisms, this in turn enables the company to have the resources to generate more wealth (produce more products for example) and thus produces wealth. Over time as wealth increases the price of stocks increase along with it usually (though its based on perception so the real price and the market price may be mismatched at times)

> ... and accumulating real estate

Real estate is different but similarly easy to explain. Land has wealth based on its utility. Maintained land is more wealth the same land that isnt maintained since it has more utility if it can be used than if it cant. So by investing in infrastructure, or even just managing the land so it has trails all increase wealth through land ownership. Even if you buy the land pre-developed because physical assets like building slowly degrade (thus causing destruction of wealth) the constant input to maintain it effectively creates wealth (though only just offsetting the wealth being destroyed).

Moreover even unmaintained land can change in wealth based on what it is around. A piece of land on its own int he middle of a dense forest has less wealth (use) than the same plot of land that is accessible and next to a road. Also lots of smaller plots of land have less wealth (utility) than those same plots of land as one large plot. So even just buying land in an area from many different owners to collectively make them a single plot of land will add wealth.

@Daojoan

@Daojoan

Thats not how money, wealth, or economies work. We dont "transfer our wealth to billionairs", and in general buying things does not transfer wealth.

Wealth is generated, not a fixed value. When you buy things that you need (has utility) then wealth is generated, not transfered. When you buy something that does not provide utility wealth is destroyed (though keep in mind simply providing happiness can be a utility). Most billionairs are generating wealth, not having wealth transfered to them. Others are destroying wealth if the products they produce are harmful (for example cigerettes). But the idea wealth is simply moved around is simply not true.

@georgetakei I dunno man, every one of these guys that drops out means more support for Trump. Not sure thats what we want.

@jaykuo

Objectively its bad, real bad. Food prices alone can tell you that.

Perception: Whoever has their politician in office thinks its going good, whoever doesnt will think its going bad. Despite things still being bad when it switches everyone will flip-flop

@trinsec We cant specify specific mastodon versions we pull from since it is pulled from many versions. We can only have our own version, and it must be something less than mastodon's latest version in order to be listed in directories.

@ambihelical Huh? We arent mastodon we are a fork. Mastodon's version has no relationship to us.

@skyblond The problem with logical systems is they are just as bias as their axioms dictate as well.

In any logical system you have your axioms (antecedent, known facts), logical rules, and your consequent (conclusion).

If your axiom includes "All black people are violent" you will have logically valid, yet racist, conclusions.

Even if you create a logic rule that is bias it can be an issue, for example "if skin color is not pale, and income is low, then high liklihood of violence" would be a rule that would add racial bias as well.

Just FYI I have a script that auto-unfollows anyone who unfollows me. Its not intended to be retaliation or anything wrong. I just prefer two-way interactions. So if you got unfollowed please dont take it personally.

@skyblond Im not sure limiting types of information is the right ethical solution. I want AI thatis free to talk about anything but the facts it state should not have racial bias applied to its reasoning, for example.

@admin I hope you feel better soon.

@dangrsmind

> is being ethical something that can be quantified and measured?

In theory yes, in practice, sorta.

Being ethical is simply the act of reducing suffering and maximizing happiness. Since these are just chemical states in ones mind it could, in theory, be quantified if you could scan everyone brain effected. In practice we cant do that so we have to observe people to infer their happiness. But yes it is objective in that sense.

The bigger issue is moral intent vs moral action, both have their problems... Moral intent doesnt matter here much if it doesnt produce moral action, so we dont even need to think much on that as it isnt relevant here. Moral action on the other hand could be qualntified as said easrlier but even if we could scan brains part of the problem is you'd have to quantify the long term effect and compare to what that effect would be if you did nothing. Since we dont have time machines we cant provide an actual comparison anyway.

That said subjectively it can be infered.

> I'm thinking of Rice's Theorem which many people in the AGI community like to discount but no one has ever convinced me about that.

Rice's theorem is valid.

> Merry Christmas, I haven't even started drinking yet.

Merry Christmas to you too, have a wonderful one!

@dangrsmind

Or protect us against the unethical ones.

In the case of AGI maybe its ok if we build some that are unethical as long as we build a system where the ethical AIs can keep the unethical ones in check.

So I started a company and received funding to build the next generation of #AI / #agi

I know there are a lot of fears around AI, and I share in most of them. As such a top priority will be for me to address the ethical considerations. I am still branstorming how that should look but I want it to be an open forum where everyone can contribute to solve the ethical considerations.

For now I'd love to hear input from people on how one could build a community to address and solve ethical concerns in AI / AGI