Removed by mod

Das ist eine Definition. Hast du auch einen Beleg?

“LLMs going mainstream is a new thing so social codes relative to them haven’t had time to solidify.”

Good argument for going max aggro, but I’d still use restraint here, despite the desperate need to establish norms of running people out of town with thrown wasp nests when they use an LLM.

Oder: % Leiharbeitssteuer = (% Leiharbeitis)^2

0% = 0% 50% = 25% 60% = 36% 70% = 49% 80% = 64% 90% = 81% 1=1

“Is so weil is so und is doch klar ist halt auch kein Argument.” Kannst du das belegen?

Infrastruktur, Privatisierung, bla bla bla, wir kennens alle.

Gut.

You should ask for your money back.

Nimmste das Feedback etwa persoenlich?

There’s a series called The Bite, it was filmed during earlier quarantine times of the ongoing pandemic and features a bunch of cast from The Good Fight. Is good.

Ah, because of the pro eugenics position in the movie? I dunno, I feel like they’d like for there to be more “past good, present degeneracy” type narratives around.

In unserrm System gibts eine unspezifische allgemeine Arbeitspflicht (Alternative: gesellschaftliche Teilhabe, Nahrung, Unterkunft haben etc werden extrem erschwert). Diese wird in Einzelfaellen ausgesetzt oder reduziert (Behinderungen, Renten, Besitz haben, Kind sein, von Partnerperson versorgt werden…).

Ersteres ist moralisch schlecht, aber innerhalb der Praemisse ist letzteres extrem wichtig. Ausserdem erfasst letzteres bei weitem nicht alle Faelle hinreichend die innerhalb der Praemisse zu erfassen waeren.

Diese genestete Struktur wird bei Arbeitsverbot verschlimmert. Die beidem Kompomenten kompensieren die komplementaeren Fehler ein wenig. Faellt eine einfach weg, dann ist das hier strikt schlechter.

Arbeitspflicht ist schlecht, aber das Komplement ist halt nicht Arbeitsverbot und sie ist hier nicht gross anders als die gesellschaftliche Baseline.

I guess (4), neither, is also thinkable, but internally quite contradictory.

Shorter: “Minds are computers” can imply views of (1) minds as simpler than they are, (2) computers as potentially very complex and general, or (3) both.

1 and 3 are not only wrong but also bad.

Those "you"s were meant as general yous. ESL here, sorry.

It seems to me like when you say “human minds are computational things” you can mean this in several ways that can be roughly categorized by what your ideas of “minds” and of “computational things” are.

You can use “computational things” to be an extremely expansive category, capable of containing vast complexity but potentially completely impractical for fully recreating on a drawing board. In this use, the word user would often agree with the statement but it wouldn’t belittle the phenomenon that is the human mind.

Or you can use “human minds” in a way that sees them as something relatively simple - kinda like a souped up 80486 computer, maybe. Nothing all too irreplaceable or special, in any case. Maybe an Athlon can be sentient and sapient! Most who say it like that would probably disagree with the sentiment because it small-mindedly minimizes people.

Then there’s the tech take version, which somehow does both: “Computation is everything and everything is computation, but also I have no appreciation for complexity nor a conceptualization of what all I don’t see about the human mind”. Within the huge canvas of what can be conceived of if you think in computation terms, they opt for tiny crayon scribbles.

Ok.

Koennen wir offene Sabotageplaene erstellen die den Rahmen des legalen maximal ausreizen? Was soll schon passieren, man wird gefeuert?

https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health

:o

Das Abendmahl!

https://youtu.be/rNcQMAHlMB8

Back to back Belly to belly