orlando [they/them]

From the first adjective on you described yourself with 100% accuracy

deleted by creator

/ɡeɪzˈbɹoʊ̯/

What are you some kind of communist?

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Why don’t you put all my references in a bottle ClathrateG?

AI being used for cancer research is detrimental to our interests so long as it’s used to justify every violation this tech will be used for, just like every sob story used to justify an tyrannical development (it’ll catchremoveds, it’ll protect kids etc) especially when you factor that the cure for cancer will only be used to treat the ones exterminating everyone else. Don’t pretend human intelligence isn’t enough to make that kind of progress without help. Technology is not inherently neutral, its providence is important. The only reason guns and weapons of mass destruction are useful is because someone else built them. That’s nothing. These things are by their own nature or the nature of what it took to bring them into the world biased towards being bad. And like with any new technology it’s no good contriving a niche context where they might be useful after all just so you can plunge ahead recklessly like an accelerationist that thinks building the singularity is more important to themselves than clean water. In the end this tech is more odious than what a communist should want to make, you need to to ask who’s labor it is when you use something by open-ai or anthropic. There’s a difference between y’know critical support for deepseek and trying to stifle liberal anti-ai sentiment by arguing from toy model first principles like a conservative doing a “rational debate”.

regexes

I understand this word, yes.

You invented a vegetarian quiche for your coronation, that’s what it is.

Don’t read Red Son

some high key nazi particle shit you’re not kidding

Ok but did they remake the space stone or did they use the replica from Asgard? I still don’t understand why they want to put it back in after Thanos proved it was just the housing for it.

What if the democratic will, in a world without capitalism, insists on not developing the technology regardless?

It’s all fine to say that the technology is value neutral in principle, but it simply isn’t how it manifests today. The technology can only be detrimental under capitalism, it is going to be used for genocide wherever it hasn’t already begun and thus far the capitalists are not only the sole faction building them but are also the only ones with the resources to commit to “frontier” LLMs. There’s just not enough momentum from our side to turn that around from manifesting a fascist destiny with these things, the destruction of all the capital left to the working class accelerates with every land purchase these red-tech theoretics enable.

I disagree. The tech is indistinguishable from the ideological bias of its creators since by its nature it is exclusively a machine that communicates and surveils on their behalf. That and the fact that the AI companies in the lead would destroy the earth faster than global warming chasing a singularity ought to demonstrate by example that ‘tech’ is not value neutral.

I saw Adamsomething’s video, where he reconstructed the concept of a reservoir piece by piece without saying that was his intention, and I made notes:

-iron is denser than water or concrete

-one crane and one mass is simpler

-if you put it in a brick tower there’s no/less weathering

-all of the above would make it low tech and could be built in urban areas instead of valleys for community storage