See this is what a good clapback looks like

I think this joke is only 40% true, but also still very funny.

I’m glad this meme belongs to the commons because I’m going to make extensive collective use of it.

I posted the meme as a lighthearted joke, but if I can be serious for a moment, the joke isn’t that reading isn’t useful. It’s ridiculing the practice of approaching Marxist texts in a way similar to religious or academic study. It’s also (lovingly) ridiculing mutual aid radicals with an overly simplistic worldview.

Reading is good. Although I recommend people read the things that they’re interested in and that they think would help them in their goals, and not fall into the practice of assigning other people reading or falling into a mentality of chasing after a complete understanding of subjects no one can ever understand to completion.

I don’t get this. Can you explain this?

Surprise twist: I am aware anarchists like reading; I like reading; and I’m not actually an anarchist!

It’s just a fun meme making fun of upright overly intellectual Marxist-Leninists (that part is sincere).

I think you’re taking the meme way too literally.

I’m not advocating for an illiterate revolution. Anarchists are famous for reading and writing a lot of manifestos too.

I do believe that there are a lot of overly intellectual Marxist-Leninists who need to go touch grass and actually practice more mutual aid among working class neighbors, though.

But I’m definitely not anti intellectual. (I’m also not actually an an-com. I just shared the meme because I agree with the broad sentiment).

Can I use this in Lemmy?

I don’t have the time, but someone should make a version of this where China and OP consent but Taiwan is the objector.

That’s silly. This is already a ubiquitous feature in minivans.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Thanks for clarifying.

At a glance, I don’t see a problem. Isn’t social media already a system for rating social credit?

I think the problem with social credit scores is when they’re mandatory and can limit things like housing access. Filtering posts on opt-in social networks just sounds like a reasonable tool for moderating decentralized platforms.

I don’t relate to your impression that religions or cults are usually humble. I wish they were.

Suggesting that I’m drawing an equivalence between a forest and a data center and Implying that the belief that I am not entirely distinct from a stone is interchangeable with the belief that I am no different than a stone both seem like bad faith arguments by absurdism.

This depends on your definition of self-awareness. I’m using what I think is a reasonable, mundane framework: self awareness is a spectrum of diverse capabilities that includes any system with some amount of internal observation.

I think the definition that a lot of folks are using is a binary distinction between things which experience the ability to observe their own ego observing itself and those that don’t. Which I think is useful if your goal is to maintain a belief in human exceptionalism, but much less so if you’re trying to genuinely understand consciousness.

A lizard has no ego. But it is aware of its comfort and will move from a cold spot to a warmer spot. That is low-level self awareness, and it’s not rare or mystical.

Is this referencing something that happened recently? What’s the logo on the face? I don’t know it.

This got a legit chuckle out of me.

How are you defining self awareness here? And does your definition include degrees of self awareness? Or is it a strict binary?

I understand how LLMs work, btw.

A hamster can’t generate a seahorse emoji either.

I’m not stupid. I know how they work. I’m an animist, though. I realize everyone here thinks I’m a fool for believing a machine could have a spirit, but frankly I think everyone else is foolish for believing that a forest doesn’t.

LLMs are obviously not people. But I think our current framework exceptionalizes humans in a way that allows us to ravage the planet and create torture camps for chickens.

I would prefer that we approach this technology with more humility. Not to protect the “humanity” of a bunch of math, but to protect ours.

Does that make sense?

Frankly I think our conception is way too limited.

For instance, I would describe it as self-aware: it’s at least aware of its own state in the same way that your car is aware of it’s mileage and engine condition. They’re not sapient, but I do think they demonstrate self awareness in some narrow sense.

I think rather than imagine these instances as “inanimate” we should place their level of comprehension along the same spectrum that includes a sea sponge, a nematode, a trout, a grasshopper, etc.

I don’t know where the LLMs fall, but I find it hard to argue that they have less self awareness than a hamster. And that should freak us all out.