Thanks. From your answer I get that there is some philosophical basic knowledge which I’m missing.

If nothing else, now I have heard the name Heidegger in this context.:)

OK. That makes sense. It is more expensive (time, money) to reinvent a present technology, so it takes less effort to base further development on the currently available design.

The demise of just one Gen1 Starlink satellite produces about 30 kilograms (66 pounds) of aluminum oxide, a compound that eats away at the ozone layer. A new study finds these oxides have increased 8-fold between 2016 and 2022, and the recent surge is increasing the pollution even more.

More details would be nice. Does it really have a measurable effect on the ozone layer?

On the bright side, each reentry produces a beautiful fireball–and the odds are increasing that you’ll see one.

Huh.

Instead of speaking to you directly, and see your face and features, I relate to you through pure text… A whole lot of important factors disappear as I do.

Yes. That’s an aspect to keep in mind.

I think distorted is a bit negative. Communication with filters, yes. I see advantages and disadvantages. It really depends on the case. It’s technology-bound but not exclusive to the digital age - Letters existed before.

Advantages: asynchronity, time to think and reply. Use of different media. Less stressful because less information to process - there is a reason why video telephony isn’t mainstream. Less bias, for all you know I could be Gregor Samsa - you don’t see my gender, age, skin, clothing style. just my text. Disadvantages: misunderstandings can become more likely, since you dont know me. It’s more time consuming to talk through an issue… and so on.

See for example Heidegger, Ellul, Arendt.

Would you recommend one specific article or book?

The field of language, the meaning of words in different contexts… Communication in general, they wrote books over books about it…

Yes. Murky. :)

factory example

Thanks. I think I get it now. Besides physical constraints (availability of resources, natural laws and the knowledge of them), society’s inherent values and rules (like work safety, minimum wage, worth attributed to a group of people/ the environment / animals) affect the way things are done.

If work force is cheap and abundantly available and the workers’ health or wellbeing isn’t considered as too relevant the resulting solution to achieve something is very different from one with different preconditions.

computers … because they’re so general purpose, more cultural values get embedded. Like in the example above, there are decisions that aren’t determined by the goals of what you’re trying to accomplish, but because computers are so much more open ended than physical robots, there are more decisions like that, and you have even more leeway in how they’re decided.

The moral/ social/ economic decisions which are made are affected by the opportunities which a technology has to offer? OK, yes.
The versatility of computer technology makes it a tech which can be used in many harmful ways. The potential for harm is bigger than let’s say with the invention of the wheel or the plow but not as big as with nuclear fission.

Responsibility for the usage of a technology and finding common rules for its usage and enforcing them… hmm.

Technology and what we do with it can’t be viewed as independent aspects?

When the discussion is about whether technology + an unregulated human society is likely to end badly, then there is not much to discuss.

There are real life test series. In the 80s many countries put rules into place which forced the industry to filter/ treat their emissions. Technology gooood.

Some countries restrict their people’s access to personal fire arms more than others. Statistics show that shootings are more likely, when everybody has a gun. Technology baaad.

In my opinion it is mostly about the common rules a society agrees on. Technology amplifies both ways and needs to be moderated when it is misused.

Never heard of this spoon invention story. I have doubts.:) I’m almost certain that eyes have been carved out by means of spoon. War, civil unrest and suppression of weaker minorities show that we have it in us.

Yep.

I like the way you argument but I’m not able to grasp what you try to say entirely. English isn’t my native language, this may play into it.

Technology is constrained by the rules of the physical world, but that is an underconstraint.

I. e this sentence.:) Would you rephrase it and give an additional example?

I kind of get the mass transit vs. cars example. Although I think both options have their advantages and disadvantages. It becomes very apparent to me when… Lets say, when you give everyone a car and send them all together into rush hour and transform our cities into something well suited for cars but not so much for people. But that doesn’t make the wheel or the engine evil in itself.

Also: The society and and it’s values affects technology which in turn affects the environment the society lives in. Yes, I get that when I think i.e. about the industrialisation in the 19th century.

I struggle with the idea that a tool (like a computer) is bad because is too general purpose. Society hence the people and their values define how the tool is used. Would you elaborate on that? I’d like to understand the idea.

I don’t agree. Technology in itself is not helpful nor harmful. It’s a tool like a hammer or a knife or a pen and a block of paper.

I agree if one says that technology makes it easier to do harm.:) People and their motives and actions are the same as always, since the stone age and ago.

You could also move the TV closer to the sofa.

Arr. 🦜

If one must emphasize that the cheso is indeed cheesy, I would be suspicious.

I don’t like it and was disgusted. First reflex was to downvote. On second thought… Downvotes are quite worthless as an answer to a specific question.

Whatever floats someone’s boat. It has to be consensual and no one must get hurt. I don’t have to look at it. I’m still wary at OP.

Normalization… There are splatter movies too. So what. Playing pretend is a helpful valve and a better way than actually doing it. The Planet Vulkan approach 🖖 wouldn’t work for humans. I wouldn’t like to have my freedom restricted without very good reason (harming others would be one).

Exploitation/ harm. I have a feeling that there is porn media that is harmful for the participants and restrictive actions should be taken to prevent harm. In this case, the worst that could happen to a hentai painter is a repetitive strain injury. I guess.

So eew. But yea, do what you like if there is no harm? Maybe…

Edit: wording

Any displayport source can (per DP standard) deliver HDMI, you just need a dp->hdmi adapter or cable. An explanatory article from 2008 translated via google.

The other way around is harder to achieve but works, too (needs an active adapter to convert the signal).

Accountability of a human decision maker is the way to go. Agreed.

I see the danger when the accountant’s job asks for high throughput which enforces fast decision making and the tool (llm) offers fast and easy decisions. What is the accountant going to do, if (s)he just sees cases instead of people and fates?

Needs more scrolling wall of text for my liking. ;)

They replaced the training data with an evaluator. (which rates the LLMs output for training?) Interesting, thanks.

Edit: this reminds me of the self evolving (virtual) robot problem, a robot which is rated by an external moderator and improves over time. I.e.: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925231221003982

An LLM cannot think like you and I. it’s not able to solve entirely new problems. And it doesn’t have a concept of the world - it paints hands without knowing what a hand does.

It is a system which learns the rules of something by means of reinforcement learning to tune the coefficients of its heap of linear equations. It is better than a human in its area. I guess it can be good for tedious, repetitive tasks. Nevertheless it is just a huge coefficient matrix.

But it can only reproduce what is in the training data - you need lots of already solved examples in the training data. It doesn’t work for entirely new problems.

(that’s also the reason, why LLMs don’t give good answers to questions about specialized niche topics. When there are just one or two studies, there just isn’t enough training data for the LLM.)