ProfessorOwl_PhD
@ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net
- Comment on How are they this naive 1 month ago:
I’m not sure if you understand that we’re comparing how long it takes a bear to kill someone to a person’s entire remaining life span. I can absolutely 100% guarantee that a bear kills you a lot faster than natural aging.
And no, obviously it isn’t because of people like me, I actually respect women and their opinions - you, on the other hand, are very happy to diminish them and tell them to shut up because you know better. You demean and objectify them like every common or garden rapist - you, specifically, are exactly the type of man they’re thinking about in the hypothetical.
- Comment on How are they this naive 1 month ago:
Delete this you fucking child, it’s embarrassing that you would misinterpret their choice this much - women aren’t thinking about fucking the bear, its your obsession with fucking that threatens them - the unwillingness to see the world from any point of view but your own.
Do not think that women are thinking about a best case scenario in this question: they are very much thinking about how much they’d rather be killed quickly than raped by someone like you and left traumatised for the rest of their lives. Men like you who laugh at the idea that you’re more threatening than a bear haven’t just misunderstood their answers, you’ve fundamentally misunderstood the question.
- Comment on Surprised no one has noticed yet 2 months ago:
Amazon has also been stealing people’s information and credit card numbers. eBay, instacart, even stores like Walmart and target. We have to stop this epidemic of people giving their addresses and paying online in exchange for items being delivered to their houses.
- Comment on Afghanistan interpreter told his British citizenship bars family from UK visa 2 months ago:
The cruelty is the point.
- Comment on Caption this. 2 months ago:
Bukak-tree
- Comment on this one goes out to the arts & humanities 2 months ago:
Don’t you have a baby mobile to be gurgling at?
- Comment on this one goes out to the arts & humanities 2 months ago:
And still you avoid the question, because you have no idea about art or machine learning. You just think the patterns are pretty.
- Comment on British watchdog has 'real concerns' about the staggering love-in between cloud giants and AI upstarts 2 months ago:
The Union Jack is actually defined by the ratios of the lines constructing it, rather than being a set design printed at various sizes. The two most common size ratios are 1:2 and 3:5, with 1:2 being used in official capacities and 3:5 generally being flown on land otherwise. When printed at a 3:5 ratio the design changes slightly due to the corners being positioned differently relative to each other, so the diagonals become steeper and the corners of the bottom left and top right diagonals get cut off.
Afaik it’s the only flag with a design that causes this to happen when printed at different size ratios.
- Comment on this one goes out to the arts & humanities 2 months ago:
All those mountains of images and you can’t even link a single one and explain what about it shows creativity.
Anyway, you can’t be so stupid as to not know what my problem is, I’ve spelt it out specifically in every single comment: My problem is that you won’t give an answer to my question (as a reminder, that question is “how will an AI show creativity”). Use your words to provide an explanation, backed up with specific linked images to demonstrate it. Stop saying “uhhh i saw it on ebaumsworld” when you’re asked an actual explanation articulated through language.
- Comment on this one goes out to the arts & humanities 2 months ago:
No you can’t.
- Comment on this one goes out to the arts & humanities 2 months ago:
So you don’t know how AI works? And can I remind you that you literally haven’t offered a single image as evidence, just vaguely told people to go look at websites? Even if you weren’t avoiding my question, you do understand that you have to show specific examples to back your claims up?
- Comment on this one goes out to the arts & humanities 2 months ago:
No, it uses appropriate coordinating conjunctions. A run on sentence isn’t just one that’s long.
- Comment on this one goes out to the arts & humanities 2 months ago:
How do you plan to tell stable diffusion things like “make the star a bit bigger” or “move the words slightly further to the left”? Have you ever actually used a graphic designer? You don’t just ask them to make you a logo and they’re done, there’s a lot of back and forth between artist and client to reach the final product.
- Comment on this one goes out to the arts & humanities 2 months ago:
I don’t fucking care if it’s on the moon, answer my question: by what mechanism will a machine learning model exhibit creativity? Like you understand my question, right - you know how “AI” works?
- Comment on this one goes out to the arts & humanities 2 months ago:
I didn’t ask when, I asked how. How is a prediction engine, that is something that guesses a likely output based on past information, going to display creativity?
- Comment on this one goes out to the arts & humanities 2 months ago:
How will AI take over creative professions when it can’t even perform rote professions? AI chatbots keep going rogue and lying to customers about company policies (and even the actual law), image generators can’t get enough of illegal and violent imagery, facial recognition AI’s keep identifying black people as all looking the same - in art the value of a peice is constrained by the meaning it has to people, so why do you think that LLMs and all the other predictive generators we laughably call intelligent will be able to create meaningful peices by putting together the most likely set of pixels?
- Comment on this one goes out to the arts & humanities 2 months ago:
enables a lot of ordinary people to create art.
Exactly the type of fucking idiot that’s never created art in their life.
“Art is paintings of horses”-ass motherfucker.
The reason you can’t make art isn’t because you’re bad at drawing or painting and need AI to help you, it’s because you don’t have the creativity to overcome those limitations. No matter what words you put into stable diffusion, you will only create pictures, not art - there’s no meaning underlying the piece, you just typed “t-rex with massive tits” and called the output art because you can’t tell the difference. - Comment on The incredible pixel-smashing game Noita got a huge free update 2 months ago:
It’s partly a joke, but going down the levels until you beat the final boss really is the tutorial. The “real” game requires online collaboration to dig up its secrets, so having to go on the wiki for wand basics is in many ways just priming you for the serious stuff.
- Comment on double slit 3 months ago:
You mean the same man who rejected superpositioning and made the famous cat analogy to explain how it makes no sense? Like I said, you literally know nothing about quantum mechanics or it’s history, and are just googling for famous names to point at.
- Comment on double slit 3 months ago:
Hey, notice how that’s the only part you responded to? Not the part where I laid out exactly how you don’t know shit about the subject. It’s because you don’t have a response; like the big comment explains, you’re in completely over your head.
- Comment on double slit 3 months ago:
Stop trying to copy the first thing you find on google you dumb fuck, Wigner dropped his and Neumann’s interpretation because of its flaws, Penrose postulated that consciousness arose from quantum interactions not that they collapse them, and Stapp and Schrodinger were exactly the type of panpsychic new-age mystics I was talking about.
On top of that, literally not a single one is still working in quantum theory or research. Neumann died 70 years ago. In fact, none of their research is even from this century, where the majority of progress has been made. I used the present tense. Contemporary opinions, not the wild theories of the earliest days.
Now stop being a redditbrained contradictory little shit and read my comment. It contains actual information about quantum theory.
- Comment on double slit 3 months ago:
Look spacey, I need you to understand that it’s offensive that you consider yourself intelligent enough to have this conversation. To butt in and spew your completely baseless hypotheticals around as if they hold any scientific weight.
If you knew enough to have this conversation, you’d already know from the language we’ve used around superpositioning and observation that we’re discussing the copenhagen interpretation - even if you weren’t certain, you’d at least know it’s overwhelmingly the most popular theory (like you better have some fucking great evidence if you want to dispute it), and that consciouness based theories are the fringest of the fringe. You’re not going to find anyone actually employed in quantum theory or research espousing it.
If you knew enough to have this conversation, you would have at least attempted to define consciousness. You’d have some sort of working definition that you could share and we could analyse, but you haven’t because you don’t. You have no idea what consciousness is, you don’t even know that there’s a debate about whether consciousness even exists - you think, therefore you have accepted that there exists a nebulous, undefineable set of aspects that makes something conscious. Despite not being able to articulate a single aspect of it, you deeply, truly believe both that it exists and that everyone else believes it exists.
If you knew enough to have this conversation you’d know that I’ve haven’t actually discussed quantum physics at all - the only thing in each of my comments is an attempt to get you to confront your own lack of knowledge - to admit that you can’t define consciousness. I have been playing softball with you this entire time trying to lead you to your own logical conclusions, instead of pointing out that the most basic possible demonstration of quantum interaction - the double slit experiment - inherently proves that consciousness is not required, because otherwise the observation media - gold foil or a modern detector - wouldn’t be able to record the results.Lastly, you’d know that there isn’t a “consensus definition” because it was defined by Heisenburg and Bohr when they created the copenhagen interpretation. Here are some quotes from them:
Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the “possible” to the “actual,” is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory.
all unambiguous information concerning atomic objects is derived from the permanent marks such as a spot on a photographic plate, caused by the impact of an electron left on the bodies which define the experimental conditions. Far from involving any special intricacy, the irreversible amplification effects on which the recording of the presence of atomic objects rests rather remind us of the essential irreversibility inherent in the very concept of observation. The description of atomic phenomena has in these respects a perfectly objective character, in the sense that no explicit reference is made to any individual observer and that therefore, with proper regard to relativistic exigencies, no ambiguity is involved in the communication of information.
Of course, I’m sure you can find some sort of peer reviewed data or study that provides literally any evidence at all for your totally sensible and informed idea that isn’t otherwise pushed by con artists and new age mystics, instead of demanding I work to both define and disprove your idea.
Don’t you fucking dare try to lecture me about belief when you have literally nothing but. You believe so strongly you refuse to provide a single shred of proof, because deep down you know there isn’t any.
- Comment on double slit 3 months ago:
No, I don’t have to define it, because I’m talking about observability in quantum mechanics, not some philosophical metaphysical bollocks about what consciousness is. My definition of observation does not in any way include consciousness, so defining consciousness adds nothing to my definition. Your definition of observation is being seen by something with consciousness, so you have to define what consciousness is. I have to define things like interactions and particles, I do not have to provide you with definitions so that your stupid ideas make sense.
- Comment on double slit 3 months ago:
No, you dumb fuck, I don’t need to define consciousness for my explanation of observability in physics to make sense - my interpretation of quantum mechanics doesn’t mention consciousness at all. You have to define it because your interpretation of quantum superpositioning claims that it only collapses when a conscious mind observes it, so you have to define what conscioussness is.
- Comment on double slit 3 months ago:
A consciousness-based interpretation of quantum mechanics would need any conscious observer
If you’re going to claim that consciousness is the influencing factor in quantum mechanics you need to define consciousness. You need to define the point at which consciousness starts. You saying “yes a dolphin is conscious” only tells me you think humans and dolphins are conscious, and nothing about what you think consciousness is, what things you think are conscious, or why consciousness would influence particles. So either you give a real answer to their question of what you think consciousness is or you start listing the things you think are conscious until smarter minds can work out what connects the dots.
- Comment on double slit 3 months ago:
that would include dolphins
This is literally the closest form of consciousness to our own - the easiest and most obvious case. They weren’t actually asking if dolphins would count, they’re asking at what point it counts as consciousness. The ones you need to answer are things like tardigrades, bacteria and viruses, or nonphysical forms of consciousness. After all, you’re seriously claiming that the scientific definition of observation is observation by a conscious mind, not interaction with another aspect of the universe, so why don’t we consider all the nonfalsifiables? Do ghosts collapse the quantum superposition?
- Comment on Dishwasher guide: salt will harm the stainless steel lining. What about salt water in stainless steel pots? 4 months ago:
Yeah. Not immediately, the chromium in stainless steel gives it a good amount of resistance, but if you’re leaving it for days at a time you’ll find the surface becoming pitted as the chlorine reacts with the protective layer.
- Comment on Slap a "quantum" on it = Instant flux capacitor 6 months ago:
The various interpretations help in processing the math, but isn’t the same as understanding - there are a bunch of fundamental facts about quantum mechanics that we just don’t understand, even though we know the elements exist, that they happen, and even how we can take advantage of them.
The difference between quantum mechanics and other high level theories like relativity is actually quite large, because the higher level interactions all derive from quantum level states and interactions. At the point where question marks really start popping up (weak and strong nuclear forces, gravity, dark matter &/ energy) it’s almost always a matter of quantum mechanics getting involved and being weird.
My quantum mechanics professor started our first lecture with “if you think you understand quantum mechanics you do not understand quantum mechanics”, because there are still some really big question marks around our understanding of it. Especially what in the fuck spin actually is.
- Comment on Slap a "quantum" on it = Instant flux capacitor 6 months ago:
Not quite - observability in quantum mechanics is about the event producing an interaction that could potentially be measured, regardless of whether we actually attempt to measure it. By interacting with other things the superposition is collapsed and we can determine it’s current properties, but it’s still the “real” behaviour of things, because we can only determine things behaviours from their interactions with other things - not knowing what they do when left alone isn’t just about there not being a human around to interacts with them, but about there not being any other particles - no atoms, no electrons, no quarks - for them to interact with either.
- Comment on AAAAtoms 7 months ago:
Yeah, no, that’s not helpful at all - what I consider cold and what my mum considers cold are very different temperatures, and what I consider hot and my neighbour considers hot has an even bigger difference.
You rationalise it with the “human scale” idea, but really you just know the range of temperatures you’re personally comfortable in, just like everyone using Celsius does.