For the benefit of other people who might be reading this thread. You’re the subject here, not a conversation partner.

Yeah, I don’t think billions of years is really a meaningful metric here. It’s more that it’s a stable medium where we could record things that will persist for an indefinite amount of time without degradation.

Even a chatbot could come up with a better comeback. 🤣

I mean, you can always make new hardware. The idea of media that basically lasts forever is really useful in my opinion. We currently don’t have anything that would last as long as regular paper. Most of the information we have is stored on volatile media. Using something like this to permanently record accumulated knowledge like scientific papers, technology blueprints, and so on, would be a very good idea in my opinion.

What you’re doing here is called sophistry. You’re intentionally trying to derail the discussion from the actual substantive points. It’s rather artless and transparent.

Stop playing a victim. If you don’t want people to call out your bullshit then don’t post nonsense. It’s that simple. The only one being emotional here is you. Feel free to actually address what I said instead of whinging.

The whole demographic crisis in China is largely based on misinterpretation of the data for the benefit of low intellect racists

• https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2108900118
• https://asiatimes.com/2023/07/chinas-demographic-doomsayers-cite-the-wrong-data/

I can only go by what you say here which is frankly nonsense. I’ve explained to you that any serious software project relies on practices like tests and code reviews to ensure quality of the code being produced. Whether the code is written by a tool or a human is entirely beside the point. It should be treated the same way. Anybody who’s actually written code knows that humans are fallible and make plenty of mistakes, so your argument about hallucinations applies to human written code exactly the same way. The way to deal with it in both cases is by having contracts that the code fulfills. My intention is to correct misinformation that people such as yourself are spreading.

You haven’t made any arguments that warrant counterpoints. Go do your trolling somewhere else.

Incidentally, manual moderation is much easier to do on a federated network where each individual instance doesn’t grow huge. Some people complaining that Lemmy isn’t growing to the size of Reddit, but I see that as a feature myself. Smaller communities tend to be far more interesting and are much easier to moderate than giant sites.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt initially assuming you simply haven’t used these tools. Now, you’ve come back and emphatically stated that you have. Given that what you describe is not how these tools work, it’s very clear that you are being dishonest by your own admission. Now you’re just using sophistry to paper over that.

I didn’t make any inaccurate comparisons. The whole deterministic LLM argument was just the straw man you were making. I’m merely pointing out your dishonesty here, if you choose to perceive it as a personal attack that’s on you.

I guess using personal attacks like a child is all you can do when you don’t have any actual point to make.

It’s the logical end point of a particular philosophy of the internet where cyberspace is treated as a frontier with minimal oversight. History offers a pretty clear pattern here with any ungoverned commons eventually getting overrun by bad actors. These spam bots and trolls are a result of the selection pressures that are inherent in such environments.

The libertarian cyber-utopian dream assumed that perfect freedom would lead to perfect discourse. What it ignored was that anonymity doesn’t just liberate the noble dissident. It also liberates grift, the propaganda, and every other form of toxicity. What you get in the end is a marketplace of attention grabbing performances and adversarial manipulation. And that problem is now supercharged by scale and automation. The chaos of 4chan or the bot filled replies on reddit are the inevitable ecosystem that grows in the nutrient rich petri dish of total laissez-faire.

We can now directly contrast western approach with the Chinese model that the West has vilified and refused to engage with seriously. While the Dark Forest theory predicts a frantic retreat to private bunkers, China built an accountable town square from the outset. They created a system where the economic and legal incentives align towards maintaining order. The result is a network where the primary social spaces are far less susceptible to the botpocalypse and the existential distrust the article describes.

I’m sure people will immediately scream about censorship and control, and that’s a valid debate. But viewed purely through the lens of the problem outlined in the article which is the degradation of public digital space into an uninhabitable Dark Forest, the Chinese approach is simply pragmatic urban planning. The West chose to build a digital world with no regulations, no building codes that’s run by corporate landlords. Now people are acting surprised that it’s filled with trash, scams, and bots. The only thing left to do is for everyone to hide in their own private clubs. China’s model suggests that perhaps you can have a functional public square if you establish basic rules of conduct. It’s not a perfect model, but it solved the core problem of the forest growing dark.

here https://archive.ph/6PDnY

Nobody is talking about defying laws of physics here. Your whole premise rests on fossil fuels running out and being essential for energy production. This is simply false.

I’m not assuming anything. Either you have not used these tools seriously, or you’re intentionally lying here. Your description of how these tools work and their capabilities is at odds with reality. It’s dangerous to make shit up when talking to people who are well versed in a subject.

Correct, my answer does not address obvious straw man points of scenarios that don’t exist in the real world.

🙄

Except USSR didn’t run out of energy.