You ever go through a wignats posts and realize dude can literally be eviscerated out of existence and nobody would remember because any LLM diarrhea generator can produce anything of more substance 
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
8
@subnetter incidentally I was arguing with Opus 4.8 and it's really good at looking at your arguments and picking apart if they have methodological flaws. I've found it really useful
@sun@shitposter.world @subnetter@shitposter.world modern llms are a lot more coherent than the average wignat poster, yes
@anemone @subnetter have you ever argued with a die hard holocaust denier? I don't mean like "the truth does not fear investigation" types but the types that really really want to argue specifics about it endlessly. They are basically robots
@subnetter @anemone yeah eventually it will get repeated somewhere and people will start replying, and that's okay. I didn't present it as a falsifiable claim, just expressed my experience dealing with them. probably get tied back to a post repeated a few days ago where I talked about dogpiling. I never was talking about me lol I don't mind it but some people do. if you say on fediverse "the holocaust happened" you will get pushback lol
@subnetter @anemone the "concession" I'd make though is yeah the nuremberg trials were clearly a kangaroo court and a lot of the presented evidence was bullshit. however I think in the years after a lot more verifiable data has added up.
@sun @anemone @subnetter the problem is that you can't make up a law after the fact and then have a trial in reverse. the USA (one of the attendants) is constitutionally banned from the practice ("ex post facto".)
in purely cynical terms it was a mergers and acquisitions meeting where the greater powers acquihired all the useful people (operation paperclip, whatever the ussr called theirs) while the middle managers got the show trial.
nazis sucked but that whole thing was just a looting with a marketable name.
in purely cynical terms it was a mergers and acquisitions meeting where the greater powers acquihired all the useful people (operation paperclip, whatever the ussr called theirs) while the middle managers got the show trial.
nazis sucked but that whole thing was just a looting with a marketable name.
@icedquinn @anemone @subnetter I understand why it was done tbh but at the same time I think today you can look back and admit that the trial isn't useful for a clear look.
my personal opinion is that world war 2 was multiple totalitarian systems competing for dominance
my personal opinion is that world war 2 was multiple totalitarian systems competing for dominance
Replies
12
@sun @anemone @subnetter the USSR one was arguably more competent in some ways. they got what they needed out of the nazi scientists and kicked them back out. didn't import the ideology in to management.
(the USSR already had its own bad ideas and didn't need germans to help them with that part.)
(the USSR already had its own bad ideas and didn't need germans to help them with that part.)
@icedquinn@blob.cat @sun@shitposter.world @subnetter@shitposter.world a lot of the nazis ideas were based on American ones so it was a lot easier for them to integrate here
@anemone @icedquinn @subnetter I actually know a little bit about this. The USSR flirted with eugenics too but entirely in the positive "Create superhumans" goal rather than "exterminate ubermenschen" goal. Ironically however they were purged by Stalin because of his support of Lysenkoism, fukken lol.
@sun @anemone @subnetter hitler lost a lot of support over that too, internally. his war on secret societies came in part from the secret societies thought breeding super germans was cool but also some of them were feminist so when it became "lets rape poles" they were like alright no
@icedquinn @anemone @subnetter a lot of eugenics is just bullshit and any moderately self correcting system eventually has to admit something is bullshit
@sun @icedquinn @anemone @subnetter eugenics is practiced by every women in the world when they select for healthy/attractive/strong males, it only becomes evil when men do it for some reason
@rees @icedquinn @anemone @subnetter a lot of the practice is bullshit but yes also obviously every institutional political decision or personal preference decision that affects childbirth indirectly is eugenics
@rees @anemone @subnetter @sun it becomes evil when you start doing shit like deliberately killing people for genes.
what you're talking about is just "not fucking somebody."
what you're talking about is just "not fucking somebody."
@icedquinn @anemone @subnetter @rees sure but nature also shows if you optimize for an environment and then the environment changes a little you get a big die-off
@sun @icedquinn @anemone @subnetter @rees
more than that, there's a rough upper bound to rate of evolution for a given organism, past which point you hit error catastrophe, and becoming less resilient to environmental changes is a step on the way there (eventually your "viable environments" set is limited to none
as we have some limited insight into the functionality of genes themselves, we might be able to slightly increase this rate safely, but unknowns make the boundary between safe and unsafe unclear, and anyhow it's not going to be much, limited much further by your tool being whole-genome selection or rejection, as spot editing is not reliable enough to be practised at scale
you can cheat this a little in the short term by exploiting latent genetic potential (existing variety in your gene pool), but that's a limited resource. we ran through it quickly with dogs, producing breeds with prominent ailments, and humans have far less due to genetic bottlenecking
and then, part of "limited insight" above, by exploiting this latent potential and reducing your gene pool, you may actually be cutting yourself off from "good genetics", as genetic code has hidden combanitorics (think conditionals, loops, branch statements rather than 'gene for x, gene for y'), meaning two genomes that seem mundane or even maladaptive might combine to yield an adaptive one
more than that, there's a rough upper bound to rate of evolution for a given organism, past which point you hit error catastrophe, and becoming less resilient to environmental changes is a step on the way there (eventually your "viable environments" set is limited to none
as we have some limited insight into the functionality of genes themselves, we might be able to slightly increase this rate safely, but unknowns make the boundary between safe and unsafe unclear, and anyhow it's not going to be much, limited much further by your tool being whole-genome selection or rejection, as spot editing is not reliable enough to be practised at scale
you can cheat this a little in the short term by exploiting latent genetic potential (existing variety in your gene pool), but that's a limited resource. we ran through it quickly with dogs, producing breeds with prominent ailments, and humans have far less due to genetic bottlenecking
and then, part of "limited insight" above, by exploiting this latent potential and reducing your gene pool, you may actually be cutting yourself off from "good genetics", as genetic code has hidden combanitorics (think conditionals, loops, branch statements rather than 'gene for x, gene for y'), meaning two genomes that seem mundane or even maladaptive might combine to yield an adaptive one
@ageha @icedquinn @anemone @subnetter @rees is there evidence that humans are near their genetic upper bound?
@sun @anemone @subnetter prioritizing people with clean genetics to breed more instead of dying in coal mines while the nepobabies fuck like rabbits does work.