Not to take away from you personally, but civilization as we understand it is our own cliche.
Organisms developed on different planets could absolutely have a different view on life and society in general. Even on earth we have highly intelligent and physically capable organisms that care naught for your conceptions of how groups should function together. There are even organisms that seem to have no intersection with our set of interests that are way more successful in terms of populating earth and invading space. Putting our understanding and interests at some panacea is just hubris.
I was just watching the original (first) matrix movie yesterday because I was just too bored.
And there was this dialogue by Agent Smith:-
```I’d like to share a revelation during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you’re not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we are the cure.```
So yea, I totally agree with you because just as how Agent Smith compared Humans to a virus and just like we know that not every living thing is a virus,
In a similar fashion, I think not every species have intersection with our sets of interests (populating earth,invading space).
I actually had just watched matrix for agent smith actually. I don't know why but the guy looks really cool to me for some reason.
It's a cool speech, but it's also wrong. Mammals don't "instinctively develop a natural equilibrium", reality forces that equilibrium on them. A species gets too good at breeding and/or resource consumption - that's either happy times for their predators who eat them back into balance, or they starve themselves back into balance.
I mean game theory and equilibria are universal. I don’t see why the basic rules of civilization would not apply to any level of organism sophistication.
You install a service that gives access to a random language generator, then you try to secure it with a project that is literally a few hours old. This is like tripping over your own slippers.
> This will generate another URL, which will present you with your terminal in your browser
> Don't share this with anyone you wouldn't trust
This is on another level. They built a terminal sharing application that connects to their servers. One must truly like to live on the edge to try this at home.
When I suspect that it will make stuff up, I tell it to cite the docs that contain the functions it used. It causes more global warming, but it works fine.
Can't post training help reduce potentially biased or harmful outputs?
Though even that isn't perfect. Some SOTA models sometimes seem to respond in ways that inadvertently soften the portrayal of controversial figures. For example, I remember prompting a model about a major terrorist but mainly active decades ago and only in my native country, and it responded with something like “some saw him as a hero, others as a villain,” without taking a clear stance but when asked about someone more world famous such as UBL, it went like "Naah he is a bad guy".
Organisms developed on different planets could absolutely have a different view on life and society in general. Even on earth we have highly intelligent and physically capable organisms that care naught for your conceptions of how groups should function together. There are even organisms that seem to have no intersection with our set of interests that are way more successful in terms of populating earth and invading space. Putting our understanding and interests at some panacea is just hubris.
reply