- A convex mirror could work, sure. A lens would be impossible to construct for the size necessary.
- I don't get what u mean by "contrast at night", but sure - let's assume that you would need 5% of the power at noon. You would still need a mirror with a surface area of 5% of the area you are illuminating.
UraniumBlazer
joined 1 year ago
It's so dumb uggh. Getting the same power output as the sun would need a MINIMUM surface area of the size of the area on earth it would illuminate.
So say the use case is extending daylight time in Anchorage, Alaska during winter. You would need a mirror that has MINIMUM surface area that of Anchorage. Somehow, it would need to be in an orbit that can reliably reflect light to Anchorage at all points.
Then, it would most likely be in low Earth orbit as putting it higher would require bigger mirrors. However, if u are in LEO, u are also moving incredibly fast. You would thus need an array of these super large mirrors.
All of this for what? Something that an led can do incredibly easily?
Yea, I used an LLM for the TLDR. The article was too long for me to just sit writing it haha
Yea. I can't see why people r defending copyrighted material so much here, especially considering that a majority of it is owned by large corporations. Fuck them. At least open sourced models trained on it would do us more good than than large corps hoarding art.
Honestly I find it really hard to imagine a humanoid robot (at least without muscle induced mobility) maintaining an aircraft/plumbing and so on.
I can imagine the use case. I don't see this tech being anywhere close to maturity in this decade though. The amount of processing power would be CRAZY to deal with these tasks, no? Computer vision + motor skills. Add actual mobility to that. What would be the power source? Definitely not a battery! Would it be like a cable connected to a wall outlet or something?
What even is the purpose of humanoid robots? Is there even a use case for it?
Ew the new one sucks. Why can't they spend the money that they have on important stuff instead of changing logos every couple of years? Uk, considering that their funding is going to dry up because of the Google anti trust case?
The main problem is the definition of what "us" means here. Our brain is a biological machine guided by the laws of physics. We have input parameters (stimuli) and output parameters (behavior).
We respond to stimuli. That's all that we do. So what does "we" even mean? The chemical reactions? The response to stimuli? Even a worm responds to stimuli. So does an amoeba.
There sure is complexity in how we respond to stimuli.
The main problem here is an absent objective definition of consciousness. We simply don't know how to define consciousness (yet).
This is primarily what leads to questions like u raised right now.
Interesting perspective, although I don't see how some of your points might add up. Regardless, thank you for the elaboration! :)
These things are like arguing about whether or not a pet has feelings...
Mhm. And what's fundamentally wrong with such an argument?
I'd say it's far more likely for a cat or a dog to have complex emotions and thoughts than for the human made LLM to actually be thinking.
Why?
I'm in the camp that thinks the LLMs are by and large a huge grift (that can produce useful output for certain tasks) by virtue of extreme exaggeration of the facts, but maybe I'm wrong.
Why?
I too see how grifters use AI to further their scams. That's with the case of any new tech that pops up. This however, doesn't make LLMs not interesting.
I am not in disagreement, and i hope you wont take offense to what i am saying but you strike me as someone quite new to philosophy in general.
Nah no worries haha. And yeah, I am relatively new to philosophy. I'm not even that well read on the matter as I would like to be. :(
Personal philosophy
I see philosophy (what we mean by philosophy TODAY) as putting up some axioms and seeing how logic follows. The scientific method differs, in that these axioms have to be proven to be true.
I would agree with you with the personal philosophy point regarding the ethics branch of philosophy. Different ethical frameworks always revolve around axioms that are untestable in the first place. Everything suddenly becomes subjective, with no capacity of being objective. Therefore, it makes this part of philosophy personal imo.
As for other branches of philosophy tho, (like metaphysics), I think it's just a game of logic. Doesn't matter who plays this game. Assume an untested/untestable axiom, build upon it using logic n see the beauty that u've created. If the laws of logic are followed and if the assumed axiom is the same, anyone can reach the same conclusion. So I don't see this as personal really.
but i would suggest first studying human consciousness before extrapolating psychology from ai behavior
Agreed
Personally i got my first taste from that knowledge pre-ai from playing video games
Woah that's interesting. Could you please elaborate upon this?
I saw this here as well haha. However, last time I linked his videos, people didn't seem to like it. Regardless, I guess it would be better to link his vids in the TLDR.