My Thinkpad p16s does not have s3 sleep. And s2idle lasts for a couple hours before it dies because every device has to sleep before it goes to true idle, but can never get all the USB devices to sleep. It's crap. S3 worked fine and was robust.
That's like saying you can split a dinner plate into smaller and smaller pieces until you no longer have a plate. It's presupposing that "plates" are an inherit physical property "out there" that would exist without human categorization.
This question boils down to whether consciousness is emergent from physical substrate and processes or not. If so, then yes, anything can be conscious, if not, you probably believe in spirit.
This is the exact issue (conscious calculations on pen and paper) that made me much less confident in materialism. I think both of the options seem far fetched from that perspective.
I would still like to think that the first one is right just because it seems so… unexpected?
Looks like the Oscars of reporting, mostly awarded to mainstream mouthpieces, ignoring any journalism of real depth that challenges anything outside the overton window.
What does the past have to do with it? Have you paid attention to his recent work? He's reporting on things that virtually no one else is, e.g. leaks of calls between Ehud Barak and Eptsein as well as Israeli government involvement in wiring Epstein's residence in New York with cameras.
Not to disparage Ryan Grim at all. That's fabulous work. And grimly fascinating, because it means that Israel may have horrifying kompromat on active senior politicians. And the insights into the horrors of Israeli political sausage getting made pretty much confirms what was obvious already, but it's really nice to see a first-hand account. I get it.
But given a choice between a 20 year old spy thriller involving a Prime Minister who retired 25 years ago, and a dead man, versus a revealing exposure of the dystopia we are all going to be living in imminently (whether Chinese or American), I think the balance tips toward the current winners.
Since you seem to know of his reporting, you probably have seen his work, or that of Drop Site, that falls squarely into the category of exposing the dystopia by reporting on a genocide, the profiteering from military contractors and Big Tech, the complaisance from world leaders, the corruption, the media bias.
You can hold the view that other issues (including the NBA) are more important, but pretending that criticism of Israel has any chance of being recognised by a Pulizer prize would be lying to yourself.
It's all so obvious that the Israeli government was explicitly part of the epstein op huh? That's why NYT and WaPo don't report on these things? Yet they get a Pulitzer on an expose on Trump, who no one knew was a bad guy. Got it.
I don't think I've seen even a single mention in any mainstream news source that there is a risk the dirt that Israel has on trump is being used by Israel to blackmail him to do their bidding.
For anything to do with Israel, you have to hope for posthumous awards and recognition in 50-100 years, but obviously everyone working on this topic is mostly aware they're doing a bad career decision, but the right thing.
Exactly, people could have "consulted Google" or "consulted stack overflow" and had the same issues. It's about the end result, not how the code got to that end result, and the submitter is responsible to make sure of the quality of the submission regardless of whether AI was used or not.
To reject submissions where the dev "consulted ai" is like rejecting iron ore that was mined by a machine rather than a human. The quality of the ore is what should be measured, not how it was obtained.
I agree, but the problem comes back to how to evaluate quality at scale. That is very hard. It’s easier to just say no AI because that at least turns off the fire hose.
It sounds like they are even rejecting submissions where they even get a whiff of ai being "consulted" though. That's not quite the same as turning off the firehose.
The discourse around AI in the arts, and other creative and craft fields, is utterly identical to the discourse around photography when it came out to the point that you could search and replace terms and have the same dialogue.
Is there a layer zero though? What does that even mean? It implies the universe is designed and built upon layers of abstraction. That's just in our heads though, not out there. The layered model is a human abstraction.
a) Actually pouring a cup of water into a pond (layer zero), and
b) Running a fluid dynamics simulation of pouring a cup of water into a pond (some layer above layer zero).
I understand the original framing which is what you are repeating. I'm saying the framing itself is an illusion. It's an arbitrary distinction and also implies fully understanding all the underlying processes that go into pouring a cup of water in a pond (we don't) and that running a fluid dynamics simulation is some trivial thing (it's not).
Are you saying that, in some abstract sense, that actually pouring the cup may be isomorphic to running a perfect simulation of pouring the cup?
Genuinely curious about your statement that its an illusion / arbitrary distinction, to figure out if there's a gap in my thinking / reasoning. To me there's a clear distinction between the actual thing happening via physical dynamics vs. us (humans) having creating a discretized abstraction (binary computation) on top of that and running a process on that abstraction.
Maybe there's some true computational universality where the universes dynamics are discrete (definitely plausible) and there's no distinction between how a processes dynamics unfold: i.e. consciousness binds to states and state transitions regardless of how they are instantiated. I did use to hold this view , but now I'm not so sure.
No, because calling them isomorphic would imply that we understand both processes well enough to make that comparison. Sorry I didn't reply sooner, HN blocked me for making three comments in a row.
It's not arbitrary because people are making exactly this distinction in order to argue that it's possible for computers to be conscious, which this paper argues against. So the distinction exists at least for the purposes of this argument. Whether it "really" exists of course depends on your perspective.
reply