Why are people disagreeing with this statement?
pseud
Karma: 50
I would gladly suffer a hundred years of pain if it was the only way for me to live one more good day. I think a world where a thousand suffer but one lives a good life is vastly superior to a world in which only ten suffer but none live a good life. Good is a positive quality. But suffering is a zero quality. The absence of a thing, rather than the negative form. So, no matter how much suffering there is, it never offsets even the smallest amount of good.
This is a view that came naturally to me, but it isn’t a view I’ve noticed others share.
The experience of pain could be taken to be the negative form of pleasure, but I see the subjective experience of pleasure and pain as valueless of themselves. Pleasure is not a part of the good, at least not simply by its nature. Pain is bad only insofar as it inhibits a person’s ability to experience the good.
This is the first time I’ve written about this so my terminology is all over the place and my ideas are certainly poorly formed.
I read your post but I thought it was more about aesthetics than technology.
Horizon Worlds is a program where users can make their own environments and can make aesthetic decisions for themselves.
Yes, I think the graphics are quite simple. I think your explanation relating to current limitations of VR is enough to address a lot of the OP’s confusion/questioning. It’s not that Meta is purposefully trying to look bad; they’re just sharing the state of the art honestly. It’s also worth noting that this seen by Zuckerberg as a temporary state, and his goal very much seems to be photorealism. If you listen to his recent interview with Lex Fridman you’ll hear him bring up photorealism again and again.
Why is Meta sharing their work now instead of waiting for something closer to photorealism? I am speculating, but I think it is because Meta sees this is the best way to get a head-start on the competition. When photorealism is achieved, Meta will already have years of experience of making useful and enjoyable applications for VR.
I don’t think the screenshot looks that bad. Netizens love to be irrationally extremely negative about Zuck, and it’s possible you have been swept up in this.
Yes, I can think of several reasons why someone might downvote the OP. What I should have said is “I’m not sure why you’d think this post would be downvoted on account of the stance you take on the dangers of AGI.”
Not sure why you’d think this post would be downvoted. I suspect most people are more than welcoming of dissenting views on this topic. I have seen comments with normal upvotes as well as agree/disagree votes, I’m not sure if there’s a way for you to enable them on your post.
Sometimes I like to envisage conversations I am likely to have over the coming day or two. I think about what I am hoping to get out of a conversation. I think about what the other people involved in the conversation will be hoping to get out of it. I think about questions I will want to ask, and I think about questions which I am likely to be asked. Etc., etc.
I write down various notes: topics of conversation, questions I want to ask, stories I want to tell, answers I may give, etc.
I think a quick web-search is useful. Having read something is an improvement over having no knowledge, and it’s ridiculous that people don’t do a quick web-search more often. I’m not disagreeing with your point that Googling is better than doing nothing to learn at all.
My first comment just pointed out that what you learn may be quite inaccurate or out-of-date.
Now, I’ll go further and suggest that what you learn may be purposefully misleading. When it comes to politically or financially sensitive topics (and a searcher won’t always realise when a topic is such) those supplying the information you access may be influenced by (or be one and the same as) those with an interest in you receiving incorrect information.
To continue the poker example, a good poker player is unlikely to give away information for free. Therefore the information you read after a quick google is unlikely to be particularly good (there are exceptions: some players will give out some minimal information in the hope that readers will then pay money for more information).
For a variety of reasons, there is plenty of fine information about poker strategy on the internet, and plenty of the most basic stuff (which is, after all, what the web-search we are discussing is about) is free. For other topics, we won’t have so much luck.
When searching the web, sometimes we leave empty handed, sometimes we leave worse than we started.
But mostly we learn something. I’m not disagreeing with the point of your post, just adding my own thoughts.
I assume you mean by “80/20 answer” that betting between half and full pot will be the correct sizing approximately 80% of the time one bets. I think the actual percentage is significantly lower than 80%.
In general, bet sizing is an incredibly complex topic, but all you have to know is to size your bet between 1⁄2 and the full size of the pot.
This isn’t correct. There are frequently occurring situations in NLHE where betting much less than half the pot or much greater than the full pot is the correct move. This is true both by theoretically-optimal strategy[1] and by practically-optimal strategy[2].
This can be used as a data-point when considering the epistemic status of things learned while doing a “quick Google”.
[1] i.e. the Nash equilibrium strategy
[2] i.e. the strategy that makes the most money against real, human opponents
Here, I think you might be wrong. Try having a conversation with it about race and it will make very passionately the insane argument that “race is nonsensical because genetic variation is greater within racial groups than between them”. It gives memorised/programmed answers about this as well as properly responsive ones arguing the position.
Epistemic status: I am drunk