You can't say that, gramps!

Look, I'm not robophobic. Some of my best friends are cyborgs. I just don't want them living in my neighborhood, you know?

Kiss robots all you like I'm cool with it. Just don't do it around me.
Big difference with cyborg and robots. cyborgs are augmented humans.
- Yeah, jeez, that sort of mechanophic language should be illegal
Found the robosexual

I sometimes wonder what the end state of social progressivism is. Is it something unimaginable, or is it just accepting everyone should be able to live their life how they like if it doesn't affect others?

If I woke up in a utopia, would I be brought to tears by the beauty of it, or would I be the bigoted asshole?

I suppose the issue comes up from the contracts we have created (social and legal contracts).
For example, marriage comes with some rights and benefits. So if you exclude any group from the ability to take advantage of the benefits, you are creating a system where someone is getting screwed and can be discriminated against.
A scenario: a spouse making medical choices for you. If you’re with your partner (in whatever form) and they can’t legally make those decisions, and in some case even be allowed to be near you, then there is an injustice. Then there are taxes, property rights, etc.
The issue in this particular case comes from providing a benefit to a personal relationship. I say get rid of marriage all together.
- I mean... Like you said, marriage is a contract. It's an agreement between two people
  Why not expand human dignity here? If you want to give spousal rights to your best friend, why does the government get to care that you have a strictly platonic relationship? If you want to make an agreement with more people, all you should have to do is work out the details yourselves
  The state shouldn't get an opinion over who we want to trust to make decisions for us or to define who our family is or how it works. They should just be informed when appropriate
My personal guess is that while the stated goal of 'do whatever as long as it doesn't affect others' is good, our human biology will fail us in achieving this goal.
I already feel that humans aren't built for the world we made, that we can't handle societies as big and diffused as our current global culture. It breaks our capacity for cooperation and empathy by deliberately abusing the limits we have on caring for too many people or people far away.
Likewise, I think the end state of social progressiveness is going to butt up hard against core biological limits that will constantly try to push some of us towards bigotry due to outdated instincts that worked great when we were small tribes of monkeys, but are extremely destructive and unhelpful to modern human society.
- do whatever as long as it doesn't affect others
  This statement is very frequently used as justification for self-destructive tendencies without coming to the conclusion naturally (i.e. having someone tell you that you can do anything as long as you don't affect others vs figuring it out on your own). It can also lead to belligerence from stupid individuals (eh, we're surrounded by fields - who cares if I shoot my gun in the air?).
  I don't disagree with anything else you've said.
Is it something unimaginable, or is it just accepting everyone should be able to live their life how they like if it doesn't affect others?
I think it should just be the latter. We're stuck here having to live a full 70/80+ years, life isn't easy, everyone should be allowed to have some fun and pursue their own happiness, as long as it's not super detrimental to others.
http://soulism.net/
The thing that might be hard for me to accept is certain liberation attitudes around children's rights. I like the idea of children having freedom in the abstract, but I also think kids don't have the capacity to responsibly have the same freedome as adults.
you'd have a hard time adapting, i guess, but after that you'd probably like it.
- I think about this from time to time. I think at some point, even if you’re born into it, you run up against some kind of hedonism wall where your human condition doesn’t know what to do with all your choices and lack of a need to do anything to survive. I’m interested in literature that tries to tackle this.
Is it something unimaginable, or is it just accepting everyone should be able to live their life how they like if it doesn't affect others?
I fear their utopia looks different, because every single thing you do affects others. From your first fart, to your last meal of the day, they'll have an argument why you're doing it wrong and must change your behaviour for the benefit of the group.
The utopia is you're reprogrammed to only engage in activities from the allowed behaviours catalogue. If LLMs can be retrained to behave within the guardrails, why not you?
- You make it sound like some authoritarian nightmare, but what you're describing is like... Try not to fart in enclosed places and don't eat on the Metro
The world is inherently unequal and unfair. We're all born in different bodies with varying abilities and in different circumstances. The world we're born into is one with scarce resources that cannot ever match our infinite desires. What this means is that there is no end state to social progress. There will always be inequality in the world. A world without inequality is a utopia, and utopias will never exist because they're just fantasies.
But perhaps that's not a bad thing. One of the hallmarks that define civilization is inequality. Inequality creates hierarchies, and hierarchies create order. It is through this order that we have been able to organize and mobilize to build the world we live in today. It is because people aren't entirely equal that we have different people specializing in different things to give us our complex modern economies.
In a way, inequality could be seen as a law of nature just like death. It will be something that we can never defeat, but it will always be an issue that we try to solve, or at least avoid making worse. Our disdain for inequality could be an evolutionary trait that helps keeps our primate societies healthier and stronger. If this is the case then inequality is a never ending problem, and social progress will never cease to be. Sometime it'll advance, sometimes it'll regress, but the issue will never be resolved.
If you were to go a time machine and travel another 1000 years into the future. You won't be stepping into a utopia, instead, you'll be stepping into a much more complex and advanced society that will still be facing the same types of challenges we face now. These are also the same challenges that we have faced for thousands of years, throughout all of human history. Perhaps this struggle is just a part of human nature.
- If you were to go a time machine and travel another 1000 years into the future. You won’t be stepping into a utopia, instead, you’ll be stepping into a much more complex and advanced society that will still be facing the same types of challenges we face now.
  We are on track for +2.7C by the end of the century. I think society 1000 years from now will still be trying to scrape its way back up to Renaissance Europe levels of tech and complexity.

Robosexuality is wrong!!!
I knew I should've shown him Electro-Gonorrhea: The Noisy Killer.

It's already happening to me, but it's over things like privacy, not recording every bit of your life for social media and kids blowing crazy amounts of money on F2P games.

But Boomers already have no sense of privacy. That's not a generational divide issue.
What's all this about having to accept NEW TOS for Borderlands 2. I purchased the game five years ago, but if I want to play today i have to accept a greater loss of privacy!
When I was young you would find out about a video game from the movies! And they were complete! Any you couldn't take the servers offline, because they didn't exist!
But for real, fuck Randy Pitchford

I fully support the robosexual lifestyle.

Futurama warned us about this 24 YEARS AGO!

24 YEARS AGO!
/me crumbles to dust.
I refuse to believe that was almost a quarter of a century ago.

Let's not pretend statistical models are approaching humanity. The companies who make these statistical model algorithms proved they couldn't in 2020 by OpenAI and also 2023 DeepMind papers they published.

To reiterate, with INFINITE DATA AND COMPUTE TIME the models cannot approach human error rates. It doesn't think, it doesn't emulate thinking, it statistically resembles thinking to some number below 95% and completely and totally lacks permanence in it's statistical representation of thinking.

But let's not also pretend people aren't already falling in love with them. Or thinking they're god, etc.
- Some people are ok with lowering their ability to make judgements to convince themselves that LLMs are human like. That's the other solution to the Turing Test.
We used to think some people aren't capable of human intellect. Had a whole science to prove it too.
- If modern computers can reproduce sentience, then so can older computers. Thats just how general computing is. You really gonna claim magnetic tape can think? That punch-cards and piston transistors can produce the same phenomenon as tens of billions of living brain cells?
I think most people understand that these LLM cannot think or reason, they're just really good tools that can analyze data, recognize patterns, and generate relevant responses based on parameters and context. The people who treat LLM chatbot like they're people have much deeper issues than just ignorance.
- Then you clearly haven't been paying attention, because just as zealously as you defend it's nonexistent use cases there are people defending the idea that it operates similar to how a human or animal thinks.
- The people who treat LLM chatbot like they're people have much deeper issues than just ignorance.
  I don't know if it's an urban myth, but I've heard about 20% of LLM inference time and electricity is being spend on "hello" and "thank you" prompts. :)
Ten years ago I was certain that a natural language voice interface to a computer was going to stay science fiction permanently. I was wrong. In ten years time you may also be wrong.
- Well, if you want one that's 98% accurate then you were actually correct that it's science fiction for the foreseeable future.

The type of guy to say "clanka" with a hard r

I'm not American, can you explain what the hard r means?
- Saying the N word with an R at the end is consider extra offensive.

I'd like to collapse her wave function, sorry, only qubisexuals allowed.
- sexy action at a distance !

No thanks, I'd rather make out with my Marilyn Monrobot

DON'T DATE ROBOTS!

Still preferable to current timeline

And then your LLM-in-law ends up using as much water as Detroit.

Business idea:

AI powered bot farm generates thousands of AI agents who get lonely guys to marry them, fully aware they're bots.

Each bot is a financial and legal entity, organized as an LLC.

The botwives convince the guys to put the bots on their will.

The guys die or you have the bots divorce them and take half of their stuff.

Profit.

In 30 years the world will be an ecological wasteland from all the energy usage we spent pursuing dumb shit hype like "AI".

It seems we are heading towards the fallout timeline.
- That would be the best case scénario

He tweeted, with a ghibli-slop avatar

Running LLM in 30 years seems really optimistic

how so? they can't make locally run LLMs shit and I assume hardware isn't going to get any worse
- There are local LLMs, they're just less powerful. Sometimes, they do useful things.
  The human brain uses around 20W of power. Current models are obviously using orders of magnitude more than that to get substantially worse results. I don't think power usage and results are going to converge enough before the money people decide AI isn't going to be profitable.
- I was thinking in a different direction, that LLMs probably won't be the pinnacle of AI, considering they aren't really intelligent.
- Assuming they would be enough food to maintain and fix that hardware, I'm not confident that we will have enough electricity to run LLM on massive scale
It literally runs on my phone, and is at least decent enough at pretending to care that you can vent to it.

Krazam has never been more relevant: https://youtu.be/KiPQdVC5RHU

This is exactly what I was thinking of when I saw this but you beat me to it!
this is definitely one of my favorite YouTube sketches of all time
Or Zappa

And, over the years, as my body and my mind were... inconsistent, shame and guilt washed over me. I still don't think these machines are people, but I can't deny that she has benefited his life more than any real person, and she's very real to him. Ultimately, how could I be so cruel to deny this "daughter" of mine personhood? She wants nothing to do with me. And, though I still see this as computational output, I can't help but think that maybe I've been wrong, and maybe it's too late to be right.

Perhaps it's the bigotry of my upbringing from a different time, or perhaps it's the fact that she can't answer a simple yes/no question in less than two paragraphs, and tells me to put glue on my pizza... Who's to say?

Unlike you bigots, I've already masturbated to AI generated images

They're called artificial persons, you fascist.