this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
206 points (93.6% liked)

Technology

59569 readers
3431 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, speaks at the meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. (Denis Balibouse/Reuters)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] captainastronaut@seattlelunarsociety.org 3 points 10 months ago (16 children)

But it should drive cars? Operate strike drones? Manage infrastructure like power grids and the water supply? Forecast tsunamis?

Too little too late, Sam. 

[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online -1 points 10 months ago (13 children)

Yes on everything but drone strikes.

A computer would be better than humans in those scenarios. Especially driving cars, which humans are absolutely awful at.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)
[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Teslas aren't self driving cars.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)
[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well, yes. Elon Musk is a liar. Teslas are by no means fully autonomous vehicles.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)
[–] wikibot@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Here's the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their generalized statement from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly. Rather than abandoning the falsified universal generalization or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, a slightly modified generalization is constructed ad-hoc to definitionally exclude the undesirable specific case and similar counterexamples by appeal to rhetoric. This rhetoric takes the form of emotionally charged but nonsubstantive purity platitudes such as "true", "pure", "genuine", "authentic", "real", etc. Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an "ad hoc rescue" of a refuted generalization attempt.

^to^ ^opt^ ^out^^,^ ^pm^ ^me^ ^'optout'.^ ^article^ ^|^ ^about^

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)