Skip Navigation
Neverminding the evidence to the contrary.
  • My argument? OP's argument was that people not having "carnivore teeth" means people shouldn't eat meat.

    I see you agree that that is a nonsense argument.

  • Neverminding the evidence to the contrary.
  • I never had an argument. Just pointing out the flaws in yours.

  • Neverminding the evidence to the contrary.
  • Re-do the calculation when taking into account that the livestock wander freely ten months a year,

    Do you think farmers just let their livestock roam freely over the countryside for 10 months? With no interaction from the farmer? Then the farmer just goes and collects them when they feel like it?

  • Neverminding the evidence to the contrary.
  • says the bottom canines

    The bottom what? Bottom canines? So you're arguing they're not what they are literally called?

  • Neverminding the evidence to the contrary.
  • According to it all mammals have canines, even and especially herbivores

    Such as this herbivore? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg2mJ4veuAY

  • Neverminding the evidence to the contrary.
  • Just because an animal does it doesn't mean it's okay for humans to do it

    Then comparing human teeth to animal teeth is irrelevant no? Because what the animals do is irrelevant.

  • Neverminding the evidence to the contrary.
  • Again, humans don't kill with their teeth like land carnivores do.

  • Neverminding the evidence to the contrary.
  • That's not a near perfect circle. That's a smaller circle inside of a larger circle.

  • Timmy the Pencil
  • "Yes! They're conscious! They're sentient! OH HOLY AGI, THOU ART COMING! Let's burn an effigy!" [insert ridiculous chanting]

    Sadly I don't give a flying fuck...

    "Let's focus on practical philosophical matters..."
    Such as your sarcasm towards people who disagree with you and your "not giving a fuck" about different points of view?

    Maybe you shouldn't be bloviating on the proper philosophical method to converse about such topics if this is going to be your reaction to people who disagree with your arguments.

  • Timmy the Pencil
  • This is blatantly obvious for anyone with at least basic reading comprehension. Unlike you, apparently

    So if I'm understanding you correctly:
    "Philosophical mental masturbation" = bad
    "Personal attacks because someone disagreed with you" = perfectly fine

  • Timmy the Pencil
  • one was sent a few seconds after another, in the same conversation.

    You just said they were different conversations to avoid the context window.

  • Timmy the Pencil
  • black holes appear as a logical conclusion of the current gravity models...

    So we agree someone does not need to have direct experience of something in order to be knowledgeable of it.

    However, as I've showed, LLMs are not able to reason properly

    As I've shown, neither can many humans. So lack of reasoning is not sufficient to demonstrate lack of consciousness.

    nor access to the real world

    Define "the real world". Dogs hear higher pitches than humans can. Humans can not see the infrared spectrum. Do we experience the "real world"? You also have not demonstrated why experience is necessary for consciousness, you've just assumed it to be true.

    "can you really claim knowledge over something?" is a real problem in philosophy of science

    Then probably not the best idea to try to use it as part of your argument, if people can't even prove it exists in the first place.

  • Timmy the Pencil
  • A different test existing for physical entities does not mean your given test is suddenly valid.

    If a test is valid it should be valid regardless of the availability of other tests.

  • Timmy the Pencil
  • LLMs suck at basic logic, period.

    So do children. By your argument children aren't conscious.

    but if I told you "trees are living beings. Some living beings can bite. So some trees can bite.", you would definitively feel like something is "off".

    If I told you "there is a magic man that can visit every house in the world in one night" you would definitely feel like something is "off".
    I am sure at some point a younger sibling was convinced "be careful, the trees around here might bite you."

    Your arguments fail to pass the "dumb child" test: anything you claim an AI does not understand, or cannot reason, I can imagine a small child doing worse. Are you arguing that small, or particularly dumb children aren't conscious?

    This factor doesn't exist when dealing with LLMs though.

    Begging the question. None of your arguments have shown this can't be a factor with LLMs.

    The argument itself is not flawed, just phrased poorly.

    If something is phrased poorly is that not a flaw?

  • Timmy the Pencil
  • Okay then: does that mean you or I have no knowledge of such things? I don't have the expertise, I didn't create tools, and I haven't done measurements. I have simply been told by experts who have done such things.

    Can a blind person not have knowledge that a lime is green and a lemon is yellow because they can't experience it first hand?

  • Timmy the Pencil
  • Yup, the AI models are currently pretty dumb. We knew that when it told people to put glue on pizza.

    If you think this is proof against consciousness, does that mean if a human gets that same question wrong they aren't conscious?

    For the record I am not arguing that AI systems can be conscious. Just pointing out a deeply flawed argument.

  • Timmy the Pencil
  • their claims are about things that they cannot physically experience

    Scientists cannot physically experience a black hole, or the surface of the sun, or the weak nuclear force in atoms. Does that mean they don't have knowledge about such things?

  • Neverminding the evidence to the contrary.
  • Of course: if we just let a significant portion of the human population starve to death THAT will result in us living ethically!

  • Neverminding the evidence to the contrary.
  • Doesn't sound like it's the "meat eater" over reacting and getting upset here...

  • It's really not a big deal.
  • Pretty sure Loki was the mother of Odin's horse.

  • Lemmy Support @lemmy.ml CileTheSane @lemmy.ca
    Ublock origin blocking images only from a specific instance

    This is a weird one.

    I am subscribed to [email protected] When browsing on my phone I can see the thumbnails just fine. When browsing on my desktop ublock origin blocks the thumbnails and avatars, but only from the startrek.website instance, and only when I'm accessing it through Lemmy.ca

    If I go directly to startrek.website I can view everything fine, and other instances I am not encountering this issue with. Any idea what might be the cause? I am using Firefox.

    4
    CileTheSane CileTheSane @lemmy.ca
    Posts 2
    Comments 1.6K