Ok, "exhibit a limited form of creativity" :)
Maybe you need some different mechanisms / models to allow what you are describing. But I'm sure we'll get there sooner or later.
Flumpkin
joined 9 months ago
Wow. I honestly don't understand how people think these AI models don't exhibit creativity.
But aren't these key pairs generated per session and/or per contact? So once you switch to a more secure / auditable client this only matters when communicating with people on whatsapp. But they presumably have a backdoor in their app for the NSA anyway.
Even if you can just add to it, you could have some sort of journalism file system to replace or delete previous files in newer records.
Yeah I think paying the creators generously and allowing them to make a good living is how tiktok got off the ground so fast.
I really love the vine 6 sec sketch format but I only ever watches compilations on youtube. It's like a box of chocolate, you never know what you'll get, but eat enough of them... :D PS: Man this makes me nostalgic about those ancient times when everything wasn't going to shit yet
Ghostery works too for me
Not sure what you mean, of course WhatsApp can disable it's own encryption. That would be an argument for open source third party apps and interoperability.
It would be nice to have a "patreon" like monthy support and then an open accounting - so we know the money is split to development, instance server hosting costs and maybe admin wages. Or maybe can vote on it. I think fediverse is only the first step, we're going to need some kind of global non profit funded by users to create federated software and content for users.
And how do you determine who falls in this category? Again, by a set of parameters which we’ve chosen.
Sure, that is my argument, that we choose to make social progress based on our nature and scientific understanding. I never claimed some 100% objective morality, I'm arguing that even though that does not exist, we can make progress. Basically I'm arguing against postmodernism / materialism.
For example: If we can scientifically / objectively show that some people are born in the wrong body and it's not some mental illness, and this causes suffering that we can alleviate, then moral arguments against this become invalid. Or like the gif says "can it".
I'm not arguing that some objective ground truth exists but that the majority of healthy human beings have certain values IF they are not tainted that if reinforced gravitate towards some sort of social progress.
You needn’t argue for the elimination of meaning, because meaning isn’t a substance present in reality - it’s a value we ascribe to things and thoughts.
Does mathematics exist? Is money real? Is love real?
If nobody is left to think about them, they do not exist. If nobody is left to think about an argument, it becomes meaningless or "nonsense".
view more: next ›
On the bright side, once AI actually CAN answer things like this we'd have "Artificial Ethics". A way to judge questions objectively or at least without emotional tempering for each specific case. This could solve some fundamental problems like "who watches the watchers" - we simply build the perfect watcher.
Of course we're far away from that yet. And then we'd just ignore our perfect watcher anyway 🤣