There are two possible forks. The physical fork involves factual disagreement on how much humanity has built vs destroyed, the relative ease of destruction over construction, and an argument that given entropy and other effects, even a slight bias toward production would produce little positive, leading to the conclusion that humans mostly produce vastly more than they consume, even though production is, as mentioned, more difficult.
The value or "moral" fork would be trying to convince you that building, producing, and growing was actually helpful rather than harmful.
I don't imagine we actually disagree on the physical fork, making that argument pretty pointless: clearly humans and human civilization are learning, growing, and still have a strong potential to thrive as long as ASI, apathy, or a big rock don't take us out first. Instead, I took your statement as an indication that you don't actually positively value humans, more humans, humans growing, and humans building things. That's a preferences and values disagreement, and there's no way to rationally or logically argue someone into changing their core values. No ought from is, and all that.
I'm not suggesting, by the way, that people's values don't change, or can't be changed by discussion, only that there is no way to do so with logical argument; reason can get you to your goal, but it can't tell you what ultimate goal to want.
Anyway, I was expressing that I like humans and want humans (or people who themselves used to be humans, in the limit) to continue and do more, rather than arguing that you ought to feel the same.
Python was viewed as an alternative to Perl mainly because they were used for the same kinds of scripts. The biggest difference at the time, how-many-ways-to-do-it notwithstanding, was that when a novice saw a Python script of 20-50 lines, they (felt like they) understood it without having to reach for a language reference. Readability at a glance for people who hadn't yet specifically learned the language was huge. "Executable pseudocode" was the operative phrase.
Just use llama.cpp. Ollama tried to force their custom API (not the openai standard), they obscure the downloaded models making them a pain to use with other implementations, blatantly used llama.cpp as a thin wrapper without communicating it properly and now has to differentiate somehow to start making money.
If you've ever used a terminal, use llama.cpp. You can also directly run models from llama.cpp afaik.
Yes, I wanted to try it already but setting up an environment with an MI50 was a bit tricky so I wanted to try something I knew first. Now that I have ollama running I will give llama.cpp a shot.
Ooh, I have experience with it. If you're on linux, just use Vulkan. If you face any other issues, just google my username + "MI50 32GB vbios reddit". It depends on which vBIOS you have, but that post on reddit has most of the info you may need. Good luck!
Before GLP-1s, there was rarely any such thing as "satiation" for me. Getting full was something that happened without the feeling of having had enough. The main effect of wegovy, for me, was having a feeling of not needing to eat rather than just feeling too full to eat. It was quite an experience, and one I am not sure I had had in more than 30 years.
I've heard people say this before, but when reading those arguments it mostly turns out to be people who think there's something more complicated going on with digestion, excretion, or metabolism such that eaten calories are more efficiently used for some, and burned off or passed through without full processing to some degree for people who self-reportedly "can't gain weight".
Right, the body can choose to either convert surplus calories to fat or waste heat. The latter could explain how some individuals are much more resistant to weight gain than others. This is also supported by overfeeding studies, in which controlling for relevant factors, some people gain much more fat on a deliberate calorie surplus than others.
It should also just be obvious to people. The body, of course, has a choice in how it spends it's energy.
There have been studies on ababolics, synthetic testosterone, that demonstrate this. Taking steroids and doing absolutely nothing leads to more fat loss and more muscle gain than not taking steroids and working out. Which... yeah duh.
But people will still deny this, because of the implications. We all have different baselines, and nobody likes to hear that they got lucky in some ways. Everyone wants to believe the world and human condition is perfectly fair, so they feel that they deserve what they have.
I think the described problem is real, but I'm astonished at the "went into politics" solution. I would expect that the lab work was a much more concrete, achievable, and lasting good than anything that will come of engaging with zero-sum or negative-sum games.
I also wonder about the "now it's time to lift everyone else into abundance" earlier in the article. I don't disagree that this is valuable, but it doesn't solve the existential "why", it just puts it off for a few decades until the poorest humans are as rich as wealthy Americans are now. "What a problem to have!" one might say, but literally that is the problem that the article is about, right? Going back to power-level everyone else doesn't actually solve the problem of what to do when someone reaches the level cap.
Ultimately there is nothing that is obviously and provably more important than the individual reading or writing this, as there kinda was in previous eras. Some candidates include religion, panhuman expansion or thriving (Musk), building a successor entity or entities (Altman), and the State or politics (the OP). I don't know of any argument better than personal preference, at the moment.
I think this is, in part, what the article is arguing. Community, and multi-generational culture and tradition, were a technology which helped populations thrive in what we now consider abject poverty. As the world gets wealthier, due to more recent technologies like widespread markets, staying in the same place and interacting with only the same 100-500 people for one's whole life is no longer something that almost everyone has to do, which explodes the basis for those earlier techs.
With TFR rapidly falling, current and future children are much less likely to even have any family other than parents, which cuts out another pillar supporting community and tradition, too.
I don't have a pat answer or know where this is going, but--assuming humanity survives--unless we want to turn into Asimov's Spacers, we'll have to find something to care about.
I find it difficult to express how strongly I disagree with this sentiment.
reply