Drewelite

I think the point being made here is that many people clearly enjoy what Starbucks offers. So, saying they suck is preaching to the choir. The only people listening to that are the people you aren't trying to convince. If you want an impact, suggest an alternative that will make those people happy. To do that, start with an understanding of the value Starbucks brings them. Failing that, you are just signaling that your thinking isn't for them. They'll just ignore you and continue to happily give Starbucks their money.

Many people's entire thought process is an internal monologue. You think that voice is magic? It takes input and generates a conceptual internal dialogue based on what it's previously experienced (training data for long term, context for short term). What do you mean when you say you understand something? What is the mechanism that your brain undergoes that's defined as understanding?

Because for me it's an internal conversation that asserts an assumption based on previous data and then attacks it with the next most probable counter argument systematically until what I consider a "good idea" emerges that is reasonably vetted. Then I test it in the real world by enacting the scientific process. The results are added to my long term memory (training data).

Seems like there are a lot of half baked ideas online about AI that seem to come from assumptions based on some sci-fi ideal or something. People are shocked that an artificial intelligence gets things wrong when they themselves have probably made a handful of incorrect assumptions today. This Tom Scott talk is a great explanation of how truth can never be programmed into anything. And will never really be obtainable to humanity in the foreseeable future.

Could not have said it better. The whole reason contemporary programs haven't been able to adapt to the ambiguity of real world situations is because they require rigidly defined parameters to function. LLMs and AI make assumptions and act on shaky info - That's the whole point. If people waited for complete understanding of every circumstance and topic, we'd constantly be trapped in indecision. Without the ability to test their assumptions in the real world, LLMs will be like children.

So you're saying that in whatever system is created for libertarianism there will be a potential for people to use their freedom to subvert libertarianism, right? That makes sense to a point, but it's the same issue that exists in every other system. Socialist need to have checks and balances to ensure the government doesn't subvert the needs of the people, capitalists need to bust monopolies to ensure someone doesn't takeover the market, etc. I know I'm mixing economics and politics, but I hope you see my point.

You could just open an LLC that researches if having lunch everyday kills you and each day report, "Not yet." For this to work you'd have to prove the value of anything you'd want to do for work to the government and what happens if the government is bad at knowing what has potential. You know, hypothetically.

Conservatives think the same thing about liberals. When you think you're right, you also think you're doing the world a favor by speaking your mind.

Yeah how is this not me paying for everyone else's guac at Chipotle when I don't want it?

What I think is astonishing to some people lately about Cyberpunk, is that they got most of their information from the popular channels on the internet. Despite its name, these channels (reddit r/all, Twitter, etc) are a (loud) minority of the actual opinions.

Pretty much every one I talked to IRL about Cyberpunk was aware of the controversy, but had a much more nuanced opinion than I was seeing online. Many of them enjoyed it and weren't really experiencing that many bugs (myself included). But this wasn't an "allowed" opinion online. Anyone who said the game was enjoyable or they didn't personally experience many bugs were attacked for being a CDPR fanboy (myself included) and down voted.

I'm not a CDPR fanboy. Or at least I wasn't before Cyberpunk. Cyberpunk and Hades are probably the best games I've played in a decade.

The whole game has an amazing story, that actually hooks the player's emotions. It's fantastic. It's so refreshing after so many games with lazy writing or voice acting. I also played shortly after release, only experiencing 2 major bugs in my playthrough. I know others had it worse, but it was actually refreshing on that front too.

Totally get where you're coming from. But you can enjoy the game and dislike the way they marketed and released it. 90% of life isn't a zero-sum game. Despite what the internet would have you believe.