That’s ok, this map of native American lands is definitely outdated. The Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) lands are much smaller than it should be. As that’s the only tribal name I can actually read, I imagine it’s a similar story for the other tribes.
There’s a trait you can pick that exactly explains my problems.with the game. The trait is ‘Dream Home’. It is described as
‘You own a luxurious, customizable house on a peaceful planet! Unfortunately it comes with a 125,000 credit mortgage with GalBank that has to be paid weekly.’…
I thought this was a cool way of adding increased difficulty for myself. I tend not to play at the hardest setting because I don’t have much time to play. But having to plan ahead and work around this limitation sounded like it would add an interesting wrinkle to the strategy I’d have in the game.
However, when you start the game you discover that the loan has to be paid off in full… And you have unlimited time to pay it off. The only way to be foreclosed upon is if you actively go tell the bank to foreclose on you. It’s like they had the idea, but couldn’t be bothered to implement it.
What’s worse is 120k is nothing in the game. You can easily get there within a few hours of play. This is just one example, but it speaks to the game’s complete unwillingness to give the player anything negative or push them any way from their ‘freedom’. The sheer fact you are not locked out of any faction or faction mission is another example. There are 0 stakes in the game and you feel 0 connection to the people you meet or places you visit. Not helped by Sarah potentially being one of the most annoying judgemental characters in any Bethesda game I’ve ever encountered.
Update: I eventually visited this ‘Dream House’. It kinda sucked. The planet it is on is kinda ugly. There is more to this mechanic than I originally thought, however. When you visit you can pay 500 credits for 1 week of access as a ‘payment’ towards the principal. Still very deceptive of the original description.
The only way to be foreclosed upon is if you actively go tell the bank to foreclose on you
Bethesda once again being so scared of the player making a choice, so they lock down anything that actually changes the game behind a giant 🚨 ARE YOU SURE??? 🚨
I mean there are a whole bunch of players that seem to have a problem with actually dealing with consequences. Just look at the bg3 players who are so pissed about “missing content” when they murderhobo their way through the game. Like no shit you killed the people who give you quests, of course you’re going to miss out on their stories.
I think it’s because so many space games try to dazzle with the unfettered dream of exploring the endless cosmos. But you obviously can’t fill an endless cosmos with interesting things to do. Hell, most of space is just dead rocks and hot gas.
I feel like dyson sphere program is somewhere further, it being a sandbox factory game means you can do basically as much as you can reasonably handle on your computer, although story wise it’s not great since it’s not meant to be a story game
Someday I’m interested in making an open world game (short on features because I’ll never have giant budgets) that embraces the friction of inconvenience, but finds enjoyable ways for people to circumvent them.
Eg: You can’t easily locate yourself on the map, but you can use a radio to ping towers and triangulate, which gives a breezy interface - or just ask locals. You can’t fast travel, but train stations get you where you’re going - and you might get an interesting conversation or even a whole questline on board.
There’s a little open world game called Miasmata with that triangulation system! It’s an open world survival horror. It’s pretty short though, and I bet you could get it for just a few bucks on sale. I really enjoyed my time in it, and the world is the perfect mix of dreary and serene.
When ARMA Reforger released it was chaos, with 95% of the people hopelessly lost at all times. It’s because the game gave you a map, a compass, and nothing else for navigation. Best. Immersion. Ever.
Always on instant GPS with augmented reality waypoints between abstract objectives is what kills player immersion (and developer creativity). If I can just follow an arrow from point to point and complete a game: it wasn’t worth making the game.
Yep. Theres no exploring, theres just “run to waypoint. grab thing waypoint is on, run to waypoint, hand over waypointed item, find next waypoint source, repeat”
Cause devs want to dumb games down so any mouth breathing reject can conquer it without any effort, to bring in that sweet sweet idiot money.
Man. Was really hoping to be wrong about it, but I mean, it is bethesda. Can’t expect a full up to date game without gamebreaking bugs or missing features when they could just rely on unpaid mod creators for that.
Why didn’t you pick any of the more negative traits? Like your example is the most basic harmless one. There’s ones with way more downsides. Did you pick the ‘2 loving parents’ trait and are mad they don’t kill you on sight? lmao. Like I picked wanted where I always have a bounty and it’s cool. I’ve had a bounty hunter show up in the middle of a boss fight before. Both in space and on ground. Added a decent complication. A few of the others are pretty long term negatives like weakening aids and food.
I also don’t know if you explored much because the game has a pretty robust ailments system. Like if you pre-plan sure you can have all the expensive cures on hand, but you can get quite a few ailments at once from fucking around. I had a cough for like 4 hours because I couldn’t find an aid for it. I eventually had to go to a doctor to get rid of it.
I did pick other negative traits. My problem with this one is it straight up lies to you in the description. You think it is going to be negative but instead it is the most basic boring version of what that trait could be. I’ve explored many hostile environments where conditions are common and haven’t had a situation where I didn’t already have the sure on hand but I tend to loot a lot.
You can’t change your traits after starting. For my play style, this one should have been perfect. Instead it just sucked all fun out of the potential mechanic.
makes a big deal out of having to send them money every week.
Its little more than a rounding error on your accounts, the amount you end up sending.
And they end up giving you several amazing things or free.
spoiler___ A big honkin awesome ship, Thats got amazing cargo capacity for as early as you get it: Just gotta visit them a few times to get it and a pretty fuckin awesome pistol that, when i got it, was outdamaging everything i had except shotguns by at least a factor of 2.
Seriously, money in this game is a joke. Getting to be a rich removed is easier than building water purifier settlements in Fallout 4.
Seriously, what does this do that a phone doesn’t? Am I missing something? Even early Android/iOS devices could run Spotify in their time (although not always anymore). What does this do?
Whenever I’m driving, my phone is almost permanently mounted as a GPS. I also own the car thingy, it has very intuitive hardware buttons and a dial on top of being touch screen. This way I can leave my phone on the GPS screen and adjust Spotify controls on the car thingy without taking attention of the road.
The only real shitty thing I would argue is that you NEED Spotify premium not just to control your Spotify, but also to control youtube/mp3 player/ any other media that you would want to play through your phone.
How do you differentiate yourself from them as a socialist? What is your theory of power and how it relates to authority, revolutions, and the working class that causes you to make this separation between supporting non-western communist countries and not?
I never said that I don’t support communist countries. What I do not support are abuses of power by authoritarian leaders, even if they claim to be abusing their power in order to bring about a communist state.
Tankies accept most/all atrocities committed by so-called communist leaders with a “the ends justify the means” attitude that I do not share.
Have you never heard the phrase “the ends justify the means” before? It’s a pretty common phrase.
It means that any action, no matter how unethical or morally reprehensible, is acceptable as long as it is done to accomplish a goal that is deemed good.
This is the tankie attitude.
To reject this means that there are limitations on what actions are acceptable in pursuit of a goal. That there are some actions that are too repugnant to be justified.
That’s correct. I think in the real world that doesn’t come up. What is the hypothetical? would you murder an innocent little girl to save your child. That isn’t a gotcha. That wouldn’t work. Even if it did work, the ends of that is that everyone has to wory about their children being scrapped for spare parts. That logic works under cpaitlaism. That situation infact happens today for capitlaism. There just aren’t situations where if you accurately assess the ends it justifies terrible means. Under capitlaism we do terrible means for terrible ends. We are so used to thinking of that that it us hard to think of alternatives, but your failure of imagination doesn’t make you morally right.
That’s just thought-terminating. There’s no universal truth that ends do or do not justify means.
Is locking up a sex offender to prevent further victimization justifiable? Is taking bread from a store to feed a starving person justifiable? Is banning false advertisement justifiable? Is requiring licensure for medical practice justifiable? Those actions are all means that directly violate some conception of liberal human rights.
Additionally, there’s often not a clear delineation, in the real world, between means and ends. The real world is made up of complex networks of powers and interests competing against each other, regardless of what can or cannot be justified. We believe in advancing working class power, interests, and rights, which by definition necessitates undermining the power, interests, and rights of the ruling class and its enforcers/enablers. Within that framework we accept and perform criticisms of the methods used to progress those goals, but only inasmuch as those critiques can help to refine strategy and inform future liberatory movements. Otherwise it’s either carrying water for US interests or squabbling about the moral standing of dead people.
I don’t think you said anything meaningfully different from what I already said.
You do not consider the abhorrent unethical nature of certain actions as being a valid argument against taking those actions in the pursuit of establishing a communist society. The only criticism you’ll entertain is that certain actions may be ineffective or inefficient at accomplishing that goal.
I’m sorry, maybe I’m misunderstanding here. I think the delineation between authoritarian regimes and non-authoritarian governments is pretty clear - are you implying that all socialist and communist influenced governments are necessarily authoritarian?
No, I’m suggesting that authoritarian is a meaningless term unless defined specifically and was asking what theories of power and authority they had for making the delineation they are.
The derogatory term authoritarian is always leveled at socialist or communist countries, and never capitalist ones even though capitalist countries restrict rights for the majority of their populations by the very nature of the inherent power structure in capitalism. Even though communist countries usually enjoy far more decentralised authority, better voting rights, and higher political involvement in the populace, they are labeled as “authoritarian,” the implication being that they need “freedom” aka capitalism
What? The term authoritarian is thrown at non-communist/capitalist nations all the time. Syria, Nazi Germany, Libya, Franco’s Spain, Modern Russia, and a million other instances. Authoritarian is a clearly defined term and is in no way exclusively applied to communist nations in almost any circles. It also happens to have been applied to most “communist” countries because most of them have been authoritarian
It’s not clearly defined at all; try to give a definition of authoritarianism that applies to all of the countries frequently described as authoritarian, but not to any of the ones that aren’t, and you’ll see how vague a term it is.
Countries frequently have authoritarian tendencies without being overwhelmingly described as an authoritarian nation. When a nations primary mode of function is in authoritarian action it ceases to be a country I would consider something anyone should aim to emulate, which is why most people have problems with tankies and their support of the USSR or the CCP. It is fine to point at those countries and say “hey for all of their faults they managed to do X pretty well” but an entirely different thing to look at them and say “if only they came out on top, the world would be a much better place today”.
When a nations primary mode of function is in authoritarian action it ceases to be a country I would consider something anyone should aim to emulate
ALL nations and ALL governments’ ‘primary mode of function’ is ‘authoritarian action’. You can’t run a water main without using ‘authoritarian action’ to secure right of way.
God this is just like being in college again. You can’t be serious, as you must understand the difference between using eminent domain vs a pogrom. Like maybe I’m being dramatic, but I think that the Uyghurs might be slightly more inconvenienced than someone who at worst is getting a paycheck in order to move their house. There’s is a significant difference in how countries even go about implementing shit as well, as eminent domain in a modern democracy vs eminent domain in a authoritarian dictatorship could be executed radically differently.
You are however disregarding how a nation conducts itself internationally, instead focusing entirely on domestic policy. Should we not consider how a nation acts towards people outside of its own borders as this authoritarianism? If we include a country’s imperialism, you’ll find the overwhelmingly most violent, brutal and authoritarian nations are the USA, the EU, and the west in general.
While I wholeheartedly agree with you that there are serious human rights problems in the way the EU and US has conducted itself overseas in the past, you are grossly underestimating just how fucked up other countries behave themselves when operating past their own borders
Sure, you’re right, but again, you are downplaying atrocities by other nations far greater right now. Would I like the US to conduct itself better? Of course. Do I advocate and vote in a way that supports that? Of course. Do I think the US is the worst compared to other countries? Not even close
Who do you vote for to put a stop to US support for the occupation of Syria? Which US politicians are you voting for to end the murderous sanctions against Cuba, Iran the DPRK and Venezuela? Which US politicians have pledged to quit murdering civilians in Yemen? Which US politicians support Palestinian human rights or at least want to quit bankrolling the open air prison they live in? Which US politicians support ending the concentration camps at our borders? Or slowing down all the refugee deportations to Latin American countries we’ve devastated with all of our “interventions?”
Oh wait, there are none with any power or possibility of getting serious power. Actually the only one putting a stop to the bloodshed in Yemen is China.
The fact is that you probably vote for the Democrats because you wouldn’t be shameless enough to vote for Republicans and then claim that you vote against the US’s mass murdering behavior, but the Democrats don’t have any intentions of ending any of these atrocities and if you’re claiming that they do you’re either a gullible fool or a murder-supporting liar.
Maybe you vote Green? They might be less evil than the GOP and DNC but they will NEVER hold power so they have no impact on how evil the US is.
The external imperialism of western countries far outweighs the danger, threat, and damage to human life than even the most cartoonish and absurd claims about the alleged internal authoritarianism in countries like Cuba, China, and the DPRK. It’s such a massive disconnect and it’s also not even a dialectical comparison.
The external imperialism of western nations is precisely what generates the security apparatuses that are developed within modern socialist countries. Most of the time what you regard as gross and needless authoritarianism is in fact socialist states defending themselves from external aggression. Go listen to Parenti talking about the measures Nicaragua had to take in regards to capitalist encirclement.
And furthermore, the decision to not use the term authoritarian to describe western nations constantly confuses me. Is it because the term imperialism is more accurate? If you want my gut feeling on this: authoritarian, totalitarian, and related terms were all cooked up by liberal historians like Hannah Arendt to make the USSR sound like the same type of thing as Nazi Germany, which is frankly Holocaust trivialization.
I disagree and I don’t appreciate people splitting hairs when very obviously it is not the case. Anyone can sit down and stare that “oh well this is authoritarian because if you don’t pay your taxes you lose your home”, and it’s completely irrelevant to any legitimate conversation. There’s a difference between the United States and Pol Pots Cambodia, and if you’re gonna try to argue that they’re the same then I’m done
It’s not splitting hairs, it’s literally the entire point of the discussion. I understand that you’ve had the idea that there’s some fundamental, qualitive, difference between the authoritarianism of Western counties and the authoritarianism of foreigners so deeply instilled in you that the idea of questioning it, or even having to justify it, is absurd to you. But the fact of the matter is that it is perfectly reasonable “legitimate conversation” to actually ask you to back up your claims, and you trying to assert that it’s just “obvious” that you’re right and if anyone tries to argue “you’re just done” just makes it clear that you’ve never actually examined why you hold these beliefs and you refuse to do so.
There’s a difference between the United States and Pol Pots Cambodia, and if you’re gonna try to argue that they’re the same then I’m done
You’re right, there is a difference: an order of magnitude more people have been killed and emiserated by the USA.
Incorrect. In the past I had been a dues paying member of socialist/leftist organizations, I went to school for politics and philosophy, I’ve spent years of my life having conversations with people like you and reading arguments and following these topics. I’m not done because I’m ignorant or unwilling to face a truth, I’m done because I think you’re wrong, and that you’re unable to see reason. I’ve had this conversation dozens of times. No rational person would look at how an atrocity like the Pol Pot regime conducted itself and say “Yeah that wasn’t fun but look at America! That’s where the real evil is!” It’s insane. For that reason I hope you have a nice evening, I will not be continuing this conversation.
Incorrect. In the past I had been a dues paying member of socialist/leftist organizations, I went to school for politics and philosophy, I’ve spent years of my life having conversations with people like you and reading arguments and following these topics. I’m not done because I’m ignorant or unwilling to face a truth
Didn’t ask, don’t care.
I’m going off the actual content of your statements, and that content is that you take liberalism as axiomatically true and you fundamentally are unwilling to examine that axiom, instead writing off anyone who challenges it as “not rational” or even “insane” and refusing to engage further.
Notice you didn’t name the United States which is just as authoritarian as modern Russia by any definition we choose (voting rights? participation in political process? allowed dissent? access to clean water? basic access to healthcare? food desserts? policies meant to keep people in poverty?). That’s my point. It’s an ethereal term unless properly defined.
We’ll have to set Libya aside since after given “freedom,” there are now literal slave traders everywhere.
I don’t particularly care as that wasn’t my point. My point was to disagree with your comment prior which stated that authoritarian as a term was mainly used as a truncheon against communist nations in order to increase support for capitalism, which it isn’t.
Yeah, what they should have said is that authoritarianism as a term is mainly used as a truncheon against non Western countries in order to increase support for Western hegemony, which it absolutely is.
Yeah, but you doing that is unhelpful. It is confusing people because that is not a reasonable place to find criticism with the argument. Too much precision is not helpful in arguments and the CIA literally ran propaganda programs to get people to try to bog down any discussion of communism with meaningless minutiae. So, do better or something.
My guy, that’s an awful lot of assumptions to be making about the general mindset of multiple nations, each of which contains millions of people. Derogatory? I’m pretty sure that authoritarianism has a dictionary definition lol. “Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting.” From Wikipedia, just as a quick Google grab.
So do you think that, say, WW2 Italy wasn’t authoritarian? Or same-era Japan? Fascist nations are (by the above definition) authoritarian, so that actually includes tons of non-communist nations, both current and historical. Similarly, just because a nation is communist, does not make it magically except from having corrupt, authoritarian government. Id even say that America is well on its way to authoritarianism, and the right/neo-libs continue to salivate over the chance to completely fuck over the common person in exchange for a quick buck.
Genuinely, because I’m always looking to learn more; how does capitalism as an economic system inherently restrict rights? My understanding of the core premise is that it turns labor into a conceptual currency that we then use to acquire goods. It’s not, theoretically, at least, inherently oppressive. In practice, it’s been clearly a shit-show that causes more suffering than just about anything else on the planet.
As a side note; I’m deeply anti-capitalist, I’m also deeply anti-fascist and anti-authoritarian. I hate the idea that a human being is only worth the utility they provide, and I also hate the idea that oppression is a necessary consequence of an attempt to liberate the people of a nation from hyper-capitalist wagemongering. I’d like to think there’s a world where we can live and not oppress anyone, can genuinely engage in discourse and learn from each other without judgement.
thanks for the interaction here, and thanks for pushing back. you’re getting at what i was hoping to demonstrate, that all political systems inherently have a system of authoritarianism with the possible exception of anarchism – I don’t know enough about anarchist theory to talk through that and don’t want to be sectarian to my anarchist comrades, but your questions about it would be welcome at hexbear. we have a comm dedicated to theory. Bakunin (one of the big names in anarchist theory) wrote about authority, and Engels replied (he was not a fan). you might like their essays. theory has come a long way since then, but it’s worth looking at some foundational texts. this topic is what caused the marxist-anarchist split.
capitalism restricts rights by alienating the working class from the means of production. thus, workers have no say over their labor and have the value of the labour extracted. as more exploitation occurs and wealth imbalance increases, the ruling class will always move to consolidate power to protect their capital and positions in society, which naturally leads to one society of the bourgeouise and another for the labourers. this is at the basical level but it is much wider than this and effects all levels of society, e.g., the bourgeouise control media outlets to prevent ideas from taking root (e.g., newspapers in 1800s-1900s) whilst selling the idea of a “free press.” It means that all aspects of society are not focused on creating products useful for society but on creating products useful to make capitalist money through further exploitation. It needs to feed and crushes all who oppose it, even ideologically.
that’s a decent starting point, I think, but yeah come join us at hexbear. you can jump into the theory comms with questions or head to “askchapo” or just jump into the daily mega thread. we’re all nerds over there, so where I don’t know something someone else will jump in
I appreciate the super open and honest discourse! I’ve only studied a little bit of Marx/Engels and then some of the Frankfurt School and some post Marxist and post structuralist stuff, I’m looking forward to engaging and learning more.
A few things to keep in mind in addition to our comrade’s reply:
I’ve never met or talked online with any tankie who is happy with the fact that the “authoritarian oppression” is necessary. We often just take the position of Marx’s quote “we won’t make excuses for the terror.” You don’t have to want it, but because it’s necessary according to history and theory, we don’t bother with the whole game of waiting for the perfect excuse, because then it’s often too late for a movement.
The goal of tankies is to also reach that world of no necessary oppression and liberation from it for all through dialectical progression, however long and arduous that task is. We just try to be technical, tactical, and strategic about it. It can seem callous, but it’s a mistake to think we can stay on the emotional/values-only plane of thought while attempting large scale socio-economic changes because the enemies of those changes have a system behind them which fulfills all these tasks with low effort.
When we say authoritarianism is meaningless, we mean that the dictionary definition you gave is all encompassing at state-level analyses, rendering it meaningless for distinctions. There is no power which doesn’t fulfill all of those conditions (even just a low-level manager performs the contents of that definition, despite the form it takes being small scale. Like “reductions of the rule of law” can be as simple as asking you to do tasks on outside of your contract). The only difference is a vibe created in the mind of the user of the term.
The end of this authority at societal scale is communism. Countries sometimes called communist are better called socialist countries led by communists or something. The whole discussion is rendered confusing by mistaking a process/movement for some definitional standard. No socialist country is socialist for meeting definitions/conditions; they are socialist because they recognize and continue the process to progression to communism. See point 2 for the strategy which countries led by communists are doing.
Come talk with us, we have interesting ideas and people
I appreciate the reply and break-down of some of these concepts in context. I struggle with the necessity of authoritarianism, not because of the required restrictions on freedom necessary to protect others from oppression, but by shielding a system from criticism as opposed to allowing critique to be heard and resolved through collective discourse. I definitely also recognize that’s an arduous process that requires a necessary undermining of governmental authority, but I feel like there’s a sort of unintended arrogance in the idea that any system could be free enough of flaws to be above criticism- or that it’s good enough to be worth the oppression of the few without hearing their voices and honestly considering their plight.
I’m happy, always, to learn more and engage in conversations about this, I look forward to talking with folks on Hexbear and growing my understanding of these concepts!
any system could be free enough of flaws to be above criticism- or that it’s good enough to be worth the oppression of the few without hearing their voices and honestly considering their plight.
I don’t think there’s many MLs that would argue against you here, at least as far as ideals go. In fact you’ll find a lot of internal criticism of past socialist experiments. It’s just not really criticism if it’s not taking into account historical context and/or if it’s based largely on western misinformation.
What most western criticism of AES lacks is key historical context (this comment is very stream of consciousness so forgive me for being all over the place):
Threats of invasion, sabotage, espionage, assassination, etc have always been a threat to vested power, but even more so against revolutionary movements. Rosa Luxembourg was killed. Lenin was nearly assassinated (may have caused him to die early). Stalin may have been assassinated. Castro somehow survived hundreds of attempts and plans. Che was killed. Allende was overthrown (and maybe killed). Árbenz was overthrown. Malcolm X was killed. Fred Hampton was killed. Sukarno was overthrown. Sankara was killed. All this just off the top of my head, there’s plenty more examples.
The Soviet Union had 20 years to somehow industrialize well enough to face European invasion, withstanding both internal and external attacks. The alternative was quite literally death.
The absolute strength, size, and resources of the US empire are unprecedented, which significantly alters the material conditions and thus the strategies that must be employed by revolutionary movements for survival. US intelligence agencies have become very good at manufacturing or manipulating social unrest to destabilize a country and set up a coup. Check out The Jakarta Method for an overview of some of these strategies.
So yes, ideally we would all interact freely in the marketplace of ideas, and bad ideas would be refuted by facts and logic. But the unfortunate reality is that bad faith actors and saboteurs have proven incredibly effective at materially undermining revolutionary movements, and thus any criticism of those movements must take that into account or it’s a useless criticism.
If capitalism isn’t authoritarian why do we spend most of our federal budget on making sure people can’t leave the system?
Why does my boss get to decide my hair color?
Why is everything in my life dictated by the authority of money. How is living with that authoritarian boot on my neck freedom? I would be less free in a country like Cuba where I can marry who I want and leave my job without losing access to medicine?
When you say making sure people can’t leave the system, do you mean the military budget? Which is for sure super fucked- no doubt there. I think the driving force behind most warmongering is profit, as opposed to oppression for the sake of preventing dissent. Obviously CIA operations in foreign countries (and within the borders of the US) through time have shown we’re certainly willing to kill and ruin economies for control, however my (admittedly limited) understanding of a lot of those instances is that they are primarily built upon promises of extending geopolitical control as opposed to pursuing pure capital.
I think about the difference between the gulf war/Iraq/Afghanistan, which were for sure about extending control in an area rich with a resource that is incredibly valuable, and Korea and Vietnam -huge examples of attempting to avoid allowing political rivals to accumulate power globally.
Honestly I think workers rights is for sure an example of modern American policy being vastly (intentionally, in part) unequipped for modern capitalism. I don’t know if I think that it makes the core concepts of capitalism flawed- workers will need to work regardless of the economic system, and as long as people are working, there’s a power dynamic between workers and those who are utilizing their labor- the farmer will always need to sell their crops, and they can’t control if buyers won’t associate with them due to their hair color, or religious preferences, etc.
I don’t have an answer for that last bit- I think that’s where a just government that serves its people would be able to step in and provide for people who need it. I know countries are toying with Universal Basic Income, but ultimately it’s a complicated issue that doesn’t have an easy answer that I’m aware of.
I’m not sure how capitalism inherently prevents you from marrying who you’d like - could you elaborate on that? Do you mean things like marrying into debt? I definitely agree that the American healthcare system is oppressive - that’s absolutely a symptom of late-stage capitalism and the GLORY OF THE “INVISIBLE HAND” of the unregulated market. I think that’s one of those areas where a just government would be providing for its citizens.
What do we do with the economies once we controll them? We open the markets to our businesses and they raid the place. As our government is cpaitlaist all the decisions are based on making money. All those politicians that decide who to go to war with own stock in the companies that will profit. There is no difference between those drives.
Why did we not want rivals to gain power? Just vanity? No. The risk to future profits. When you look at wages and workers rights when the USSR fell the Capitalists had no competition. Wages were lowered everywhere as conditions would permit. After all, where else could people go,?
As to workers rights it is pretty simple. All that needs to be is that workers are given dignity. My boss can fire me and I might starve to death. If my survival wasn’t based on pleasing the most greedy people then I could make better decisions about how to use my time. So, just more money and safety. As communists we have a very specific idea we have about how to acomplish that.
Depending on what sate you live in you could very easily be fired for being queer. Because your ability to survive us based on money anything that riskes that is effectively not permitted by capitalism.
I’m in no way here to argue pro-capitalist rhetoric. I’m not super committed to capitalism as opposed to other systems of economic management, I am however willing to posit that the system of trading work for money does not inherently oppress- absolutely late stage capitalism is an unabashed fuck-show responsible for more misery than acceptable by almost any ethical standard. I hate the idea that, ultimately, you’re only worth what you can produce. I think that workers rights should be paramount, and there’s no amount of money that would be an acceptable profit margin to sell human suffering, full stop.
On the geopolitical scale, I think many decisions during the cold war were driven by fear of nuclear warfare. There’s for sure profit in controlling puppet states, but with Cuba on their doorstep and Russia very clearly taking the role of an international superpower, I think that there was some rationale about their ability to become more politically important and influence the world beyond the west’s ability to push back, and with nuclear armaments proliferating at a genuinely insane rate, there was a very real threat of apocalypse on the horizon. Do I think that justifies warmongering, interference in legal elections, and killing dissidents? Of fucking course not. But I don’t think it was motivated by money alone. Money is just a gateway to power, like anything else.
I think personally, the idea that you can use work to produce capital that you can then spend on other things is not necessarily authoritarian. It’s also definitely not a single catch-all solution to “how do we make a society that is just”- obviously unregulated markets go brr. I think the counterbalance needs to be systems that allow for people who can’t work to live a high quality of life, regardless of how much they can provide.
That is where history disagrees. In the bargain of trade the people who need money to live can never make deals on an even playing field with those that don’t. If trade determines your survival and we know it can’t be done fairly than we have created conditions that can only snowball into misery.
I see no reason to belive the people running an apartide government that used weapons of mass destructions on civilians should be given any benefit of the doubt. There is no evidence they were kind or altruistic in any other endeavor. Why would it be different here?
If the cycle was work -> value. Than I would agree that is what socialism calls for. However the accumulation of capital makes it impossible for a worker to get fair and just value for their labor.
I definitely think that if any theoretical government would be capable of making that core work-to-value cycle work, it certainly would look pretty radically different than the US, I mostly live here because I was born here, I have a support system here, and my ancestors were literally bled to death here lol
Yeah, you could make something work. I could make my car fly, it would just be easier to use a plane though.
Most of history worked just fine on other systems. Most of the time this system has worked terribly. The system we had was just the first one to encorporate the scientific method and rationality. It is a historical accident. We can do better.
I think that there’s quite a bit to be said for the ability to abstract something like labor and turn it into a common resource that can be utilized by anyone- if I need to buy a Japanese computer part from a very small manufacturing organization, that’s about the only way to make sure that all parties are seeing value in a transaction, seeing that there’s no guarantee that I have anything they would want or need, and I may never interact with them again.
I agree, we can for sure improve on the concepts involved, but that doesn’t mean that they’re accidental, and there’s a reason that the system was even marginally successful.
I think like, evolution is a great example of a similar process - the biological functions formed by evolutionary processes aren’t intentional, because intention implies cognitive processes that a natural law isn’t capable of; but they do serve purpose. They aren’t accidents, because the system is by its nature iterative and of course something would work eventually. Is there a theoretically more efficient structure than the one that we currently have for the human heart? Sure! That’s just not the structure that evolved through selective pressure.
Again, not to say we shouldn’t try to improve on systems of economy and government, but more to say that there’s still lessons to be taken from what we currently have; it worked in some small way, which means we probably wouldn’t benefit from throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.
Well no. In the example of buying a small computer part they probably see little value in the transaction. Between parts, overhead, shipping, materials. Ths majority of the economic signal there is lost to inefficient rent seeking, bloat, corrupt middlemen, and management costs. Who in this situation are we concerned about? The people who designed it? The people that assembled it? The people that mined the materials? The people that handled shipping? The market abstracts all this so people.habe a very hard time feeling the relationships between each other. Then rent seeking behavior overshadows all that and makes market forces effectively noise.
I do agree with the idea of evolutionary solutions. Consider the horse. Useful. When we abandoned the solution that evolved and created purpose built solutions we got way cooler and way more effective answers. Like, would you say the rocket ship was just an overcorrection to the inefficiency present in water buffalo based transport? No. It was the application of science, logic and reason to create good answers to hard problems. Every time we try to make something cool we do so. It’s rad. We should to do the economy what we have done every other technology
I think that for sure one of the drawbacks of the labor to currency system is the blind consumerism and the unethical conditions necessary to, say, make a bacon cheeseburger. I think the unethical parts of that interaction have more to do with corporate price-gouging and abuse of labor than the consumer themselves, who (in our current system) is kept intentionally blind to the real cost of their meal.
I think that for sure rent-seeking is one of those things that, in this theoretical government, would need to be addressed. Landlords and speculators are clearly opportunists with no connection to the stuff they milk value from, and that’s problematic.
On reflection, ultimately I have no problem with the premise that people don’t necessarily need to understand how to grow wheat, or even know someone who owns wheat, in order to consume the labor of a farmer- so long as that farmer is capable of truly leveraging their labor favorably and also benefits from that interaction. In that scenario, the farmer also uses the abstraction, which allows them to really utilize all of their labor through a larger base of people to sell to. They can also put this theoretical currency towards things that contribute to their fulfillment and that of their family members without knowing the person who produces those things personally, and so on.
I think one place I’m struggling with this is I’m having a hard time conceptualizing how people with more ephemeral skills would be able to leverage that skill into the resources necessary to obtain other types of fulfillment without a way to hold and transfer the value they generate. I’m sure there are philosophers who’ve written books on books about it, and I just need to find their work lol.
I think that we stopped using horses and adapted systems to do similar work, for sure, but that was after we had already iterated into the saddle, the cart, the wagon, carriage, etc. Horse to car is a big step if we look at the two of them without the greater context, but it was thousands of years of technology and iteration before we got there. They’re fundamentally interrelated- I mean heck, we even measure the power of an engine by horses.
I agree that the natural next step economically is coming, and that’s a fact- the questions in my eyes are: what’s the horse, what’s the carriage, and what are we replacing the horse with?
Cybernetics. The needs of people are essentially known and predictable. We can just make them and give them to people. That is also kinda how most of human history worked and it was fine then. It could be fine now, even better with computer data analysis and rational processing.
Sure there will be exceptions like little Japanese computer parts. However some democratic process could be used. Plenty of writers and scifi stories have possible systems. We can figure that out when we get there.
I’m actually not not into the idea of being able to instantly and accurately judge the needs of a whole nation of people. I mean shit, we already collect so much data through smart watches that once we are able to accurately measure metabolic rate, that’s like 90% of it right there I think lol
There is a book, the people’s republic of Walmart.
Basically every company with sufficient money does exactly this and they are very effective at it. Just what if instead of using the tech to make Walmart slightly more money we used it to make some public goods cheap and effective
seriously though, we live in a late-stage capitalist hellscape and it’s always funny to be when people use government monitoring fears to justify removing core social safety nets while simultaneously Walmart, Google, etc. Know when your balls ache because they have collected data on you from when you were prepubescent.
Those companies use the money they squeeze out of you to buy politicians to make your life worse. So life under capitlaism has trained everyone to mistrust that kinda thing. People have simply never lived in a world where anything like that was likely to improve their lives. So pessimism is a reasonable response to the conditions we find ourselves in. However a better world is possible.
hard agree. I think the only way we can improve our lives and the lives of those in our communities is to unflinchingly believe in the fact that we deserve better, and we can get better
All governments are inherently authoritarian by their nature, but there’s a scale and I think in most people’s minds there’s a line.
The line is probably drawn where people are prosecuted or even killed when they publicly criticise the ruling regime, where you have to “escape” to simply leave, where there’s a culture of fear that your neighbour or friends or even family could report you for disagreeing with the government. More often than not there’s no way for the public to change the government through democratic means.
Ok, but if that’s the case, why are we drawing a line at a nation’s internal population and disregarding their external policies? The USA killed three million people in the War in Iraq, including Iraqis who were very critical of the American presence. The USA has assassinated Latin American presidents for speaking out against the USA and replaced them with more America-friendly dictators. And yet everyone who talks about authoritarianism doesn’t include western nations in their discussion, they instead make up a cartoon idea of what countries outside the west are like. Your definition of what is or isn’t tankie/authoritarian has some kind of nationalist bias built into it.
Every time someone describes what authoritarianism is, it makes me think that America and the EU are the worst perpetrators of this behavior, but they mainly export all their violence rather than use the worst of it domestically. Domestically they use private sector means to distribute violence, such as poverty, prisons, and the facilitation of ambient racism.
This reminds me of the dividing line that liberals use, which is when they say things like “that dictator killed HIS OWN PEOPLE.” As if killing people externally is more excusable crime?
Because authoritarianism is about the internal control of its own populace, not how a nation state acts against other nation states.
The illegal invasion of Iraq wasn’t authoritarianism. And I’m not going to start defending the actions of any nation that assassinates other leaders to try and get them under their influence.
And yet everyone who talks about authoritarianism doesn’t include western nations in their discussion
I think there’s very few western nations that fit that line I described in an earlier comment. That’s not to say none have authoritarian traits, the UK is always criticised for being a bit too much of a surveillance state, for example.
This reminds me of the dividing line that liberals use, which is when they say things like “that dictator killed HIS OWN PEOPLE.” As if killing people externally is more excusable crime?
Obviously killing people externally or internally is bad, but it’s more shocking in the same way that a parent murders their own child.
If invasions, sanctions, assassinations, and complete immiseration of other nations isn’t authoritarian then what is it? Why are we arbitrarily deciding there’s a distinction with how a country’s internal and external policies? These things inform one another. If a nation like America is doing far worse things than authoritarianism, except externally, why can’t we say that’s what it is?
Obviously killing people externally or internally is bad, but it’s more shocking in the same way that a parent murders their own child.
That makes no sense. Joseph Biden is not my dad and my shared nationality with him means nothing because he represents an economic class at war with my own. Was Hitler the father of German Jews? What the fuck are you talking about
I literally just said above. Why are you arguing about the definition of it? It’s like you’re trying to fit western nations under the term because you don’t like them to try to make a point.
Yeah they do fit the definition, because the distinction between external and international policy you’re making is arbitrary and meaningless. I’m a communist. My nation is the working class.
No they don’t fit the definition, it’s not meaningless or arbitrary. I don’t know why you’re arguing this, it’s not like I’m defending the actions of western nations here, or even labelled any particular countries as being authoritarian.
I’m a communist. My nation is the working class.
No idea what the point of saying this is, but just to provide some useless and irrelevant facts to this discussion, the telescopic ladder I have is 3 metres long.
I’ve got an easier one for you that should help you to understand. The policy of colonies regarding the population within its borders counts as “internal”, don’t they? What shall we say for the colonial occupation of Afghanistan? Shall we call this liberal?
Come to think of it, what do you think of non-citizen permanent residents, because America sure likes killing those within its borders and treating the rest quite brutally.
I’m not American and have no issue criticising them on their actions through history. I don’t even know why you’re bringing them up though? I just talked about what people define as an authoritarian state and you’ve gone off on some anti US tangent.
I don’t know if there is such a thing as a perfectly free, truly democratic society wherein everyone is capable of existing free of oppression lol, but I think there’s definitely a spectrum of authoritarian policy and sentiment, often correlated with nationalist and fascist fervor.
I may, as a person of color, experience more oppression in a country where I do not fit the standard vision of what a citizen looks like, and less in a country wherein which I do meet that criteria. That’s usually more an issue with nationalist rhetoric than systems of governance - unless that nationalism is codified and enforced by the government, which is the case in many governments that I would consider “more authoritarian.” America is one that has tended towards that, historically. Certainly, though, there are others that have also instituted systems explicitly designed to oppress.
I’d say, in general, I have many rights and privileges in current-day America that a truly authoritarian government wouldn’t allow. And that’s not to say that I think America is the greatest, or even good lmao. We’re constantly on the verge of disenfranchisement, and the fact that we’re constantly fighting for things that should be just baseline isn’t exactly a good look. But, in all, I’m allowed to openly state my thoughts in the court of public opinion, I’m able to vote to elect a representative, able to practice religion as I’d like, etc.
For sure, the validity of all of that is affected deeply by the corruption of capital in those arenas, but there’s something to be said about the power to openly share ideas and influence fellow citizens without active censorship. Keeping in mind things like COINTELPRO and Fred Hampton, etc, I obviously can’t say in good conscience that the government has never censored it’s citizens, but the purported adherence to the first amendment and being “the land of the free” at least makes them work for it.
Sorry for the novel lol. It’s a complicated subject and there’s a lot of nuance to try and tease out
I think the dictionary definition is as I mentioned in a below comment, but the colloquial meaning has more to do with censorship by the government and restrictions on freedoms than go beyond those necessary for the health and welfare of other citizens.
So just based on a small snippet of reading about them, I think in general I have a favorable opinion of Allende’s policy. Part of it is hard because, while he did some things that I agree with 10000% like increasing access to education and making basics like bread accessible, I don’t have enough context to accurately judge my feelings on some of the other policies that he enacted, like land seizure. The other half of that is it’s hard to see the long-term effects of policies that were then invalidated by a CIA-led coup and Pinochet.
Do you know of any places where his policies actively (for the context of our previous conversation) would be considered “authoritarian”?
I’m not the person you’re replying to, but I think you missed the whole point of GarbageShoot asking you specifically about Allende.
just based on a small snippet of reading about them, I think in general […]
I think this is the main problem here: a lack of knowledge about the historical context of “authoritarian” socialist projects, but nevertheless making generalized statements about them without even considering the material reasons why they were by necessity “authoritarian.” Read up more about the history of Chile and consider what happened to Allende and the hope of a socialist Chile. Who came after Allende (and almost as important, who installed that successor)? Why do these events seem so familiar when learning about every other attempt, successful or not, to bring about a communist society? When you’ve done that, you will at the very least have a leg to stand on when criticizing so-called tankie authoritarianism.
I’d also suggest reading The Jakarta Method. Here’s a somewhat relevant quote from it:
This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: “Who was right?”
In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?
Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.
Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported – what the rich countries said, rather than what they did.
I was aware of Pinochet and the general CIA coup, but not Allende in particular; I don’t think it’s a failing to admit that the knowledge any one person has access to is limited. That’s why my immediate response was one of attempting to find resources, not trying to generalize about something that I was deeply unequipped to speak on. The world’s big, sadly I can’t claim to have knowledge of everything on it.
My little reading on Allende makes it sound like he was democratically elected and pretty widely loved among the left-leaning members of his country - again, the only potential authoritarian charges I see levied against him are the socialization of private sectors, which I personally have not enough economic background to really have a stance on either way. If that’s the only thing that he’s called authoritarian for, I’d say that my understanding of the colloquial definition is probably more focused on aspects like freedom of speech, religion, etc. being limited, as opposed to market freedom.
But maybe my internal understanding of what makes a nation authoritarian is flawed! I’m happy to be wrong if it means I learn something. Maybe there’s internal conflation of fascism and authoritarianism happening, and I need to re-draw some of the distinctions between the two.
I appreciate the book recommendation - the study I’ve done has focused less on political theory and more on philosophy, so if you have any other recommendations that cover things like the Marxist/anarchist split, etc., I’d be grateful!
, the only potential authoritarian charges I see levied against him are the socialization of private sectors, which I personally have not enough economic background to really have a stance on either way.
If someone is complaining about socializing private sectors – not that the profits of the now-public enterprises were used to enrich bureaucrats, but that the act of socialization itself inherently infringed on the rights of the capitalists – the correct response is to spit in their face. That’s not always the practical response, so I certainly am not telling you to go out and do it, but it’s the correct response. Anyone complaining about “market freedom” as though it is remotely comparable to “human freedom” rather than a tool to be used or put away as the people see fit is either a fool or takes you to be a fool.
In a third world country especially, private companies are frequently the basis of staggering siphoning of wealth from the third world to the imperial core, which is why movements to repatriate them are so popular (see also the oil industries of both Egypt and Brazil right before their respective coups).
Being transparent about things, your comments read as one of the relatively rare cases of someone who is deeply submerged in neoliberal ideology but also intellectually honest and open about it. I’d be happy to discuss things with you from a Marxist perspective if you like.
Well, since you like reading (which is cool and good!) there’s a neat book on Cybersyn, but I was actually going in a slightly different direction. I respect the project Allende lead, but it’s undeniable that it was a catastrophic failure. Allende is one of many examples of attempting a gentle touch and underestimating the sheer brutality that is the reality of capitalist encirclement for a socialist state.
Allende was conciliatory when he should have been firm and his lax approach to purging (i.e. basically not doing it) is what very directly laid the groundwork for the coup that was the death of him and many other Chileans under one of the most vicious dictators the world has ever seen.
Someone recently reposted a Michael Parenti quote that I think discusses elements of this well:
You can look at any existing socialist country— if you don’t want to call them socialist, call them whatever you want. Post capitalist— whatever, I don’t care. Call them camels or window shades, it doesn’t matter as long as we know the countries we’re talking about. If you look at any one of those countries, you can evaluate them in several ways.
One is comparing them to what they had before, and that to me is what’s very compelling. That’s what so compelling about Cuba, for instance. When I was in Cuba I was up in the Escambia, which is like the Appalachia of Cuba, very rugged mountains with people who are poor, or they were. And I said to this campesino, I said, “Do you like Fidel?” and he said “Si si, with all my soul.” I remember this gesture, with all our souls. I said “Why?” and he pointed to this clinic right up on the hill which we had visited. He said, “Look at that.” He said “Before the revolution, we never saw a doctor. If someone was seriously ill, it would take twenty people to carry that person, it’d go day and night. It would take two days to get to the hospital. First because it was far away and second because you couldn’t go straight, you couldn’t cross the latifundia lands, the boss would kill you. So, you had to go like this, and often when we got to the hospital, the person might be dead by the time we got there. Now we have this clinic up here with a full-time doctor. And today in Cuba when you become a doctor you got to spend two years out in the country, that’s your dedication to the people. And a dentist that comes one day a week. And for serious things, we’re not more than 20 minutes away from a larger hospital. That’s in the Escambia. So that’s freedom. We’re freer today, we have more life.”
And I talked to a guy in Havana who says to me “All I used to see here in Havana, you call this drab and dull, we see it as a cleaner city. It’s true, the paint is peeling off the walls, but you don’t see kids begging in the streets anymore and you don’t see prostitutes.” Prostitution used to be one of the biggest industries. And today this man is going to night school. He said “I could read! I can read, do you know what it means to be able to read? Do you know what it means to be able not to read?”
I remember when I gave my book to my father. I dedicated a book of mine to him, “Power and the Powerless” to my father, I said “To my father with my love,” I gave him a copy of the book, he opened it up and looked at it. He had only gone to the seventh grade, he was the son of an immigrant, a working-class Italian. He opens the book and he starts looking through it, and he gets misty-eyed, very misty-eyed. And I thought it was because he was so touched that his son had dedicated a book to him. That wasn’t the reason. He looks up to me and he says ‘I can’t read this, kid” I said “That’s okay dad, neither can the students, don’t worry about that. I mean I wrote it for you, it’s your book and you don’t have to read it. It’s a very complicated book, an academic book. He says, “I can’t read this book.” And the defeat. The defeat that man felt. That’s what illiteracy is about, that’s what the joy of literacy programs is. That’s why you have people in Nicaragua walking proud now for the first time. They were treated like animals before, they weren’t allowed to read, they weren’t taught to read.
So, you compare a country from what it came from, with all it’s imperfections. And those who demand instant perfection the day after the revolution, they go up and say “Are there civil liberties for the fascists? Are they gonna be allowed their newspapers and their radio programs, are they gonna be able to keep all their farms? The passion that some of our liberals feel, the day after the revolution, the passion and concern they feel for the fascists, the civil rights and civil liberties of those fascists who are dumping and destroying and murdering people before. Now the revolution has gotta be perfect, it’s gotta be flawless. Well that isn’t my criteria, my criteria is what happens to those people who couldn’t read? What happens to those babies that couldn’t eat, that died of hunger? And that’s why I support revolution. The revolution that feeds the children gets my support. Not blindly, not unqualified. And the Reaganite government that tries to stop that kind of process, that tries to keep those people in poverty and illiteracy and hunger, that gets my undiluted animosity and opposition.
Here I mean to most emphasize the last paragraph, though the preceding paragraphs are certainly relevant. “Are there civil liberties for the fascists?”
I believe they are suggesting that, if “authoritarian” means anything, that every large state that has ever existed was “authoritarian,” though some diffuse the authority through things like enclosure of the commons combined with strict property laws or other, older methods like religious law.
That’s fair- where the line of “authoritarianism” is drawn depends on historic, social, and economic context. I think modern colloquial usage is certainly shaped by western values, simply because America’s primary export is culture, and that’s what happens when you shout loud enough over enough time.
This basically shows that what you care about is whether someone is anti-west or not. You are a western nationalist. Not a socialist, and certainly not an internationalist.
I’m anti-west. I don’t care at all if someone is anti-west, and in fact encourage it. But just because a regime is anti-west, that does not mean they’re in the right or should be blindly supported.
See that’s the thing: the fact that the west lies doesn’t mean that the east tells the truth. You are heavily skeptical of what the west has to say (good) but mostly uncritical of what any communist government has to say (bad).
Capitalist countries have done horrible things, but so have self-proclaimed communist countries
I have entire history books about how the west lies.
There is not a similar body of data about the loss of the east. Is it perfect? No. Do we have any reason to belive they are as bad or bad in the same kind of way as the people who oppose them? No.
General note: Most authors publishing critical material of the west in the (free speech) west don’t get silenced (edit: although professional blacklisting is all too common). Yes, I’m sure there are exceptions. You might not want to do that openly in China, Iran, or Russia these days, because the risks are well known/accepted. It definitely makes life harder for scholars and historians.
Do you have any evidence of China suppressing criticism? We know the western media openly brags about making up stories about the east.
I can find plenty of stories of publishing houses declining to publish material. That is effectively censorship but because it is done by a company we don’t care
Russia and Iran are more like the US than China so considering them as one unit is not helpful.
China seems to be far more about censorship and self-censorship. When public figures disappear from the public eye, they often reappear at some point. I hold great hopes for China’s future, and its potential as a successful & peaceful role model. Xi worries me a bit though.
They are not liberals. Here in America the anivaxx movement has kill tens of thousands to millions depending on how you do the math. In a better world stuff like that would have been censored. It only causes hardship and wastes resources. China does censor stuff like that. Now, does China have boomers that take that instinct too far? Probably. However they don’t have school shooters ever single day. They have 3x the population of us and that doesn’t happen there. So something is working there and something isn’t working here. A full rejection of their system is silly given how well it seems to work for most of them most of the time. Especially since, in every single case we can observe our system failing us most of the time.
I’d rather have big fat warning labels than censorship, to be honest. The issue is that many governments and people end up in a spiral of distrust & broken trust (justified or not).
Covid was/is a shitshow though. Where was the world class PsyOps then? Perhaps too busy scaring the hell out of everyone to notice that it might not be the smartest strategy.
I know you want that. I want to eat cookies for breakfast. Some things just aren’t good for you however. Ask any person drowning to death in their own lungs if they were happy they had the freedom to choose to smoke. Given a sober assessment of the situation they would have chosen other than their wants. The world would be better if cigarettes were banned. Their blood is on the hands of the people who gave them freedom they weren’t responsible enough to handle. Science has proven we are not fully rational creatures. We have biases and we need to protect and take care of eachother as we can to prevent that from causing harm.
The psyop around covid was to keep people from masks and vaccines. The million plus dead prove that was very successful.
Too many smokers continue to smoke after developing serious symptoms. People continue with poor diets and too little exercise despite their own doctor’s advice. We stare at screens for many hours per day. I’d still rather big warnings and community health initiatives than forced exercise/diets/screen-time-limits. Human rights / self determination is important. But organised efforts to appropriately highlight bullshit in public forums isn’t bad at all. In both approaches, the Q is how categorization happens, and can it be trusted.
Who was behind the anti-vax/mask psyops campaigns? To me, it seems to have been rolled up together with pro-trump, pro-russia/anti-ukraine, anti-LGBTQ, climate-change-denial streams. At least, these talking points are what a few older people (non-US-based) that I know started repeating. It looks like a giant pot of discontent, with a few usual suspects adding ingredients, no doubt with some profit opportunities along the way.
Except we know that mostly doesn’t work. It is weird to me that your preference is to waste resources and not help people.
It is a combination of antivaxx and general pro business types. If covid isn’t real you don’t need to stay home. You can go back to work and make your boss some money.
Except we know that mostly doesn’t work. It is weird to me that your preference is to waste resources and not help people.
I’m not against effective measures, but I’ve seen too many kind and well-meaning people make a lot of bad decisions over the years. I think this is often the case for politicians too, for which we expect high standards and judge harshly when they inevitably fail. I like to leave room for people to make mistakes, and the opportunity to admit & correct mistakes.
Maybe we need fewer politicians and petty dictators on soap boxes making claims and promises and more no-nonsense elbow grease bureaucracy, with more direct feedback loops, and KPIs that benefit the population.
I don’t belive that. I belive you have seen people who say they have good intentions. I simply think they weren’t telling the truth. Or they were wrong in obvious ways that that didn’t care to hear about.
The problem with politicians is to be one you have to be good at capitalism. Which is amoral at best and immoral most of the time. So the same people that decide them making money is more important than children having food and medicine are the ones that get to make policy. Unsurprisingly all their policy ends up with them making more money and the needs of people unaddressed.
That last thing you said, that sounds nice. However in terms of how the world actually works it is meaningless. The assumption that makes is that politicians simply don’t understand how to fix problems. They do, they just are the most highly bought into the capitalist system. The only problem they actually care is fix is how to make more money for them and theirs.
What exactly was wrong with Kruschev’s decision to send the tanks into Hungary to stop the fascist uprising?
Given the historical context of the literal genocides the US was facilitating in asia and south america at that time, even if you ignore the literal fascist collaborators hijacking the movement and pretend it was just a bunch of liberals fighting for “freedom”, keeping them from falling within the west’s claws would have been justified.
B-b-but have you heard of Nestor Makhno! Yeah, it’s pretty underground but he was this totally rad anarchist that shot a bunch of tankies (um, somebody call the BASED department!?!?) and was totally productive in doing other things like . . . Stopping some of the people who he armed and trained after they went and committed pogroms and . . . Uh, well, he had a newspaper in France where he totally stuck it to the tankies and also every other leftist around him until he died in near complete social isolation, but . . . Um . . . He helped kill that fascist leader that one time (by being very ineffective in trying to dissuade the Jewish anarchist who actually did kill that fascist).
Let’s take a look what started that “fascist” uprising. Years of economic mismanagement, opression, and being forced to pay a big chunk of their gdp to the Soviets for war reperations were all factors that lead to the Hungarian Revolution.
And who did these “fascist” pick as their leader? Imre Nagy, the man who was ousted from power by the soviets for having the audacity to be a more moderate communist than hardline stallinists.
The US doing something bad doesn’t justify someone else doing bad. Think about a nazi who uses that reasoning, they would sound like a nazi apologist.
Yes, the US did some bad stuff, but I still view them as the lesser evil when compared to the USSR or China.
Also Hungary doing something 65 years later doesn’t justify the actions of the Soviets.
Whether the initial protesters had good reason or not, fascists quickly co-opted the movement in the same way they co-opted the liberal protests in Ukraine.
Hungary doing something 65 years later doesn’t justify the actions of the Soviets.
Their actions 65 years later prove there were significant numbers of nazis waiting in the wings, and that the soviets were insufficiently oppressive.
I couldn’t find a single mention of a fascist movement in the uprising. So either it was neglible in size, or you are just lying.
“Insufficiently oppressive”. What? Hungary was a really oppressive nation during that time, and you wanted it to be more oppressive?
And opressive to who? Fascist? They can just lie about not being a fascist. That leaves out to just guess who is a fascist and that sounds like a wonderful time for the citizens.
What have you actually done to help socialism then?
Are you a union organiser? Are you in a union? Which one? What party are you in? What projects do you support? What are you actually doing as a socialist? Other than voting for a liberal party every few years I mean.
My partner is a teacher and is in a union. We are both active in organizing and supporting. There are no unions for the industry I work in, so I work with hers.
Then you should know better than this bullshit, because you would be working with several of us. There is definitely not a teaching union that is not filled with MLs, education in particular has the highest number of us.
if your political activism starts and ends with being in a union you are useless to any socialist project, you even elevate yourself above others because of your union membership; liberal complancy, please boss uwu be nice and give us a raise.
Well your political activism starts and ends with posting Lenin quotes in online discussion boards, so I don’t know that you are in any position to be calling other people useless.
I am a union member too, I just also go out and organize on top of that; right now im trying to arrange a rent strike in my local community, I feed the homeless at soup kitchens and I attend every single march and protest for allinged interests that im able too.
Wait till you learn that there are right wing unions, and that union membership should be evaluated on a case by case basis;
Nah, I fully know you as a person, including everything you’ve ever done and everything you ever will do, from just a couple of internet comments, and I judge you useless. So give up. Stop being a socialist. I, an internet stranger, know you are not contributing anything of value, so why bother?
Sure you can have an opinion, but if its about something you know nothing about, and have not investigated then it is worthless. Not just to other people, but to yourself as well
person above wasnt claiming to be the sole arbiters, dumb comment
il take the largest communist projects in the world, the word of millions + people who study marxism and practice it in reality everyday over a liberal who would struggle to define the word ‘socialism’ and whos political education starts and ends with there high school history class + 10 years spent on /r/politics
When people say “anti-woke”, they actually mean that they are anti-doing anything about the awareness of systemic inequality that wokeness indicates. By definition, someone who is against change/progress is a conservative, so when someone says they are anti-woke, they are by definition expressing a conservative stance. That is, wanting to do something about systemic inequality is synonymous with having a progressive stance on systemic inequality.
Being a tankie, on the other hand, is not synonymous with being a comunist. Tankies are just one form of communist (militant).
And when people say they are “anti-tankie”, they actually mean that they are anti doing anything about the awareness of systematic inequality that tankie indicates. By definition, someone who is against change/progress is a conservative, so when someone says they are anti-tankie, they are by definition expressing a conservative stance. That is, wanting to do something about systemic inequality is synonymous with having a progressive stance on systemic inequality.
Being a tankie, on the other hand, is not synonymous with being a comunist. Tankies are just one form of communist (militant).
Other way around: communists are just one form of tankies, the word is also used to refer to anarchists and some soc-dems.
You’re spun around, flipped upside-down, and confused as can be.
Tankie is a term that specifically refers to one particular kind of communism; namely, the kind that supports authoritarian regimes that try to impose communism through the use of force to repress dissent.
You can be a communist and not be a tankie. You cannot be against progress and be a progressive.
Tankie is a term that specifically refers to one particular kind of communism
No, it’s used to refer a wide, vague blob of vibes, just like the word woke. The people who use it can can do use it to refer to all kinds of communists, most anarchists, and anything to the left of Elizabeth Warren in general.
that try to impose communism through the use of force.
As opposed to the kind of communism where you ask nicely for revolution? Have you actually read any Marx? I guarantee he was not a pacifist.
You can be a communist and not be a tankie
By your own definition you cannot, let alone by a definition of tankie that describes how libs actually use it.
As opposed to the kind of communism where you ask nicely for revolution? Have you actually read any Marx? I guarantee he was not a pacifist.
You deliberately misquoted me by cutting off the end of that sentence so you could have a nice soft strawman to swing at. The full sentence said
that try to impose communism through the use of force to repress dissent.
Forceful revolution by the workers against the capitalist class is a completely different matter from forceful repression of dissent by the state against students and professors.
Forceful revolution by the workers against the capitalist class is a completely different matter from forceful repression of dissent by the state against students and professors.
even anarchist communes have use of force, those moltov cocktails being thrown at police officers arent non-violent and even recent projects like CHAZ/CHOP had para-police forces setup within them to hold order togther
Tankie is a term that specifically refers to one particular kind of communism
Nope, tankie originally referred specifically to British labor party members supporting the USSR’s actions against the coup in Hungary, and today is used to refer to any anti-imperialist leftist, regardless of tendency. Of course all of you claim otherwise, but these claims are provably empty, as nobody who uses the term today, including you in this thread, bothers to check for the actual political views of the people you call tankie, you see something that may go against the state department narratives that are spoonfed to you by V*ush and the reddit front page or whoever else has done this pseudo-leftist brainworming to you and you start yelling tankie at the top of your liberal, western-chauvinist lungs. A good number of the people posting on hexbear are anarchists and DemSocs, but you will label all of them tankie as long as they critically support China or question the narrative on the new forever war in Ukraine, which to you equals “thinking today’s Russia is true communism” and similar nonsense. Your understanding of politics is damaged beyond repair by being socialized as a smartass debatelord who has become entirely incapable of forming judgements not based on learned reflex and of engaging in good faith conversations. I would pity you if people like you wouldn’t be such a disaster for the Western left and for anybody in the Global South suffering from the continued imperialism you help enable by fighting the last genuine critics of genocidal US policies that are left in the West. You CIA tool, you psyop casualty, you neocon bootlicker.
If showing solidarity with victims of Amerikan imperialism makes me a tankie, i’ll prefer that over being a white supremacist warmonger who justifies the bombing of brown people in “shithole countries” like literally everybody who calls people a tankie online.
So what if i say “China is far from perfect, but the people there are a lot happier with their government than the Amerikans, they are much less of a threat geopolitically, maybe we should leave them alone because it’s honestly none of our business how the Chinese govern themselves”? Is it the usual 50 cent wumao genocide denier tinaman square then?
That’s not how the world works in the year 2023. Isolationism just isn’t a conceivable possibility. All countries are interconnected, and what’s happening in one country influences what’s happening in other countries in major ways.
I mean yeah, if you want to understand the devolopment of physics you are required to understand the foundations it was built on, this is basic study.
Its like telling someone they should read the bible if they want to be christian, or telling someone they should read the instruction manual if they want to actually know what the terms they are using mean.
Yeah, you should read Marx if you want to understand the historical development of socialist ideas, but if that’s where your reading ends, then your ideas are stuck in the past.
Socialism isn’ta religious dogma that is inflexible and unchanging. It’s an intellectual idea that grows and becomes more refined over time.
Tankie usually refers to Marxism-Leninism (as well the ideologies that derived from it such as Maoism). But there are communist ideologies that don’t derive from ML such as Orthodox Marxism, trotskyism, libertarian Marxism, bulshevism, etc.
Because you only advocate for ideas that dont exist in reality, and deride actually existing marxism as ‘tankie’, you can continue to advocate for idealist positions, but it requires you to build a coherent movement around it otherwise its just masterbation and contrarianism.
It’s speculation because you don’t know what the future holds. And just because you’re not interested in a particular ideology or don’t think it has merit doesn’t make it any less communist.
My only point is that words do in fact have meaning, Marxist-Leninism is not synonymous with communism. Therefore, one can be anti-tankie without being anti-communist.
“Orthodox Marxists” can hardly be said to exist, because the classical formulation of Marxism has long been empirically refuted, hence the need for new schools. Even Luxembourgists are more respectable than “Orthodox Marxists”.
How would Trotskyism be any less “authoritarian” Than marxism leninism ? Also almost every claims on some level to be “orthodox marxist”, lenin most of all and MLs as well
I used to think that Marx was overrated because I never needed to read him but holy shit it’s clear that 95% of the populace cannot form coherent ideologies without being taught them
That isn’t how Lenny works, though. Anybody can fire up an instance for any type of community. They could be pro-socialist, anti-socialist, liberals, Nazis, goldfish fanciers…you name it. If you don’t like them, you can defederate from them.
Even if it were possible to scan the contents of your brain and reproduce them in a digital form, there’s no reason that scan would be anything more than bits of data on the digital system. You could have a database of your brain… but it wouldn’t be conscious.
No one has any idea how to replicate the activity of the brain. As far as I know there aren’t any practical proposals in this area. All we have are vague theories about what might be going on, and a limited grasp of neurochemistry. It will be a very long time before reproducing the functions of a conscious mind is anything more than fantasy.
The only people with this take are people who don’t understand it. Plus growth and decline is an inherent part of consciousness, unless the computer can be born, change then die in some way it can’t really achieve consciousness.
ChatGPT is not conscious, it’s just a probability language model. What it says makes no sense to it and it has no sense of anything. That might change in the future but currently it’s not.
And it doesn’t have any internal state of mind. It can’t “remember” or learn anything from experience. You need to always feed everything into the context or stop and retrain it to incorporate “experiences”. So I’d say that rules out consciousness without forther systems extending it.
Also, actual brains arise from desires / needs. Brains got bigger to accommodate planning and predicting.
When a human generates text, the fundamental reason for doing so is to fulfill some desire or need. When an LLM generates text it’s because the program says to generate the next word, then the next, then the next, based on a certain probability of words appearing in a certain order.
If an LLM writes text that appears to be helpful, it’s not doing it out of a desire to be helpful. It’s doing it because it’s been trained on tons of text in which someone was being helpful, and it’s mindlessly mimicking that behaviour.
Isn’t the reward function in reinforcement learning something like a desire it has? I mean training works because we give it some function to minimize/maximize… A goal that it strives for?! Sure it’s a mathematical way of doing it and in no way as complex as the different and sometimes conflicting desires and goals I have as a human… But nonetheless I think I’d consider this as a desire and a reason to do something at all, or machine learning wouldn’t work in the first place.
The reward function for an LLM is about generating a next word that is reasonable. It’s like a road-building robot that’s rewarded for each millimeter of road built, but has no intention to connect cities or anything. It doesn’t understand what cities are. It doesn’t even understand what a road is. It just knows how to incrementally add another millimeter of gravel and asphalt that an outside observer would call a road.
If it happens to connect cities it’s because a lot of the roads it was trained on connect cities. But, if its training data also happens to contain a NASCAR oval, it might end up building a NASCAR oval instead of a road between cities.
That is an interesting analogy. In the real world it’s kinda similar. The construction workers also don’t have a “desire” (so to speak) to connect the cities. It’s just that their boss told them to do so. And it happens to be their job to build roads. Their desire is probably to get through the day and earn a decent living. And further along the chain, not even their boss nor the city engineer necessarily “wants” the road to go in a certain direction.
Talking about large language models instead of simpler forms of machine learning makes it a bit complicated. Since it’s and elaborate trick. Somehow making them want to predict the next token makes them learn a bit of maths and concepts about the world. The “intelligence”, the ability to anwer questions and do something alike “reasoning” emerges in the process.
I’m not that sure. Sure the weights of an ML model in itself don’t have any desire. They’re just numbers. But we have more than that. We give it a prompt, build chatbots and agents around the models. And these are more complex systems with the capability to do something. Like do (simple) customer support or answer questions. And in the end we incentivise them to do their job as we want, albeit in a crude and indirect way.
And maybe this is skipping half of the story and directly jumping to philosophy… But we as humans might be machines, too. And what we call desires is a result from simpler processes that drive us. For example surviving. And wanting to feel pleasure instead of pain. What we do on a daily basis kind of emerges from that and our reasoning capabilities.
It’s kind of difficult to argue. Because everything also happens within a context. The world around us shapes us and at the same time we’re part of bigger dynamics and also shape our world. And large language models or the whole chatbot/agent are pretty simplistic things. They can just do text and images. They don’t have conciousness or the ability to remember/learn/grow with every interaction, as we do. And they do simple, singular tasks (as of now) and aren’t completely embedded in a super complex world.
But I’d say that an LLM answers a question correctly (which it can do) and why it does it due to the way supervised learning works… And the road construction worker building the road towards the other city and how that relates to his basic instincts as a human… Are kind of similar concepts. They’re both results of simpler mechanisms that are also completely unrelated to the goal the whole entity is working towards. (I mean not directly related… I.e. needing money to pay for groceries and paving the road.)
The construction workers also don’t have a “desire” (so to speak) to connect the cities. It’s just that their boss told them to do so.
But, the construction workers aren’t the ones who designed the road. They’re just building some small part of it. In the LLM case that might be like an editor who is supposed to go over the text to verify the punctuation is correct, but nothing else. But, the LLM is the author of the entire text. So, it’s not like a construction worker building some tiny section of a road, it’s like the civil engineer who designed the entire highway.
Somehow making them want to predict the next token makes them learn a bit of maths and concepts about the world
No, it doesn’t. They learn nothing. They’re simply able to generate text that looks like the text generated by people who do know math. They certainly don’t know any concepts. You can see that by how badly they fail when you ask them to do simple calculations. They quickly start generating text that looks like it contains fundamental mistakes, because they’re not actually doing math or anything, they’re just generating plausible next words.
The “intelligence”, the ability to anwer questions and do something alike “reasoning” emerges in the process.
No, there’s no intelligence, no reasoning. The can fool humans into thinking there’s intelligence there, but that’s like a scarecrow convincing a crow that there’s a human or human-like creature out in the field.
But we as humans might be machines, too
We are meat machines, but we’re meat machines that evolved to reproduce. That means a need / desire to get food, shelter, and eventually mate. Those drives hook up to the brain to enable long and short term planning to achieve those goals. We don’t generate language its own sake, but instead in pursuit of a goal. An LLM doesn’t have that. It merely generates plausible words. There’s no underlying drive. It’s more a scarecrow than a human.
Hmm. I’m not really sure where to go with this conversation. That contradicts what I’ve learned in undergraduate computer science about machine learning. And what seems to be consensus in science… But I’m also not a CS teacher.
We deliberately choose model size, training parameters and implement some trickery to prevent the model from simply memorizing things. That is to force it to form models about concepts. And that is what we want and what makes machine learning interesting/usable in the first place. You can see that by asking them to apply their knowledge to something they haven’t seen before. And we can look a bit inside at the vectors, activations and stuff. For example a cat is closer related to a dog than to a tractor. And it has learned the rough concept of cat, its attributes and so on. It knows that it’s an animal, has fur, maybe has a gender. That the concept “software update” doesn’t apply to a cat. This is a model of the world the AI has developed. They learn all of that and people regularly probe them and find out they do.
Doing maths with an LLM is silly. Using an expensive computer to do billions of calculations to maybe get a result that could be done by a calculator, or 10 CPU cycles on any computer is just wasting energy and money. And it’s a good chance that it’ll make something up. That’s correct. And a side-effect of intended behaviour. However… It seems to have memorized it’s multiplication tables. And I remember reading a paper specifically about LLMs and how they’ve developed concepts of some small numbers/amounts. There are certain parts that get activated that form a concept of small amounts. Like what 2 apples are. Or five of them. As I remember it just works for very small amounts. And it wasn’t straightworward but had weir quirks. But it’s there. Unfortunately I can’t find that source anymore or I’d include it. But there’s more science.
And I totally agree that predicting token by token is how LLMs work. But how they work and what they can do are two very different things. More complicated things like learning and “intelligence” emerge from those more simple processes. And they’re just a means of doing something. It’s consensus in science that ML can learn and form models. It’s also kind of in the name of machine learning. You’re right that it’s very different from what and how we learn. And there are limitations due to the way LLMs work. But learning and “intelligence” (with a fitting definition) is something all AI does. LLMs just can’t learn from interacting with the world (it needs to be stopped and re-trained on a big computer for that) and it doesn’t have any “state of mind”. And it can’t think backwards or do other things that aren’t possible by generating token after token. But there isn’t any comprehensive study on which tasks are and aren’t possible with this way of “thinking”. At least not that I’m aware of.
(And as a sidenote: “Coming up with (wrong) things” is something we want. I type in a question and want it to come up with a text that answers it. Sometimes I want creative ideas. Sometimes it shouldn’t tell the truth and not be creative with that. And sometimes we want it to lie or not tell the truth. Like in every prompt of any commercial product that instructs it not to tell those internal instructions to the user. We definitely want all of that. But we still need to figure out a good way to guide it. For example not to get too creative with simple maths.)
So I’d say LLMs are limited in what they can do. And I’m not at all believing Elon Musk. I’d say it’s still not clear if that approach can bring us AGI. I have some doubts whether that’s possible at all. But narrow AI? Sure. We see it learn and do some tasks. It can learn and connect facts and apply them. Generally speaking, LLMs are in fact an elaborate form of autocomplete. But i the process they learned concepts and something alike reasoning skills and a form of simple intelligence. Being fancy autocomplete doesn’t rule that out and we can see it happening. And it is unclear whether fancy autocomplete is all you need for AGI.
That is to force it to form models about concepts.
It can’t make models about concepts. It can only make models about what words tend to follow other words. It has no understanding of the underlying concepts.
You can see that by asking them to apply their knowledge to something they haven’t seen before
That can’t happen because they don’t have knowledge, they only have sequences of words.
For example a cat is closer related to a dog than to a tractor.
The only way ML models “understand” that is in terms of words or pixels. When they’re generating text related to cats, the words they’re generating are closer to the words related to dogs than the words related to tractors. When dealing with images, it’s the same basic idea. But, there’s no understanding there. They don’t get that cats and dogs are related.
This is fundamentally different from how human minds work, where a baby learns that cats and dogs are similar before ever having a name for either of them.
Read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on machine learning or the introduction of any of the literature on the subject. The “generalization” includes that model building capability. They go a bit into detail later. They specifically mention “to unseen data”. And “leaning” is also there. I don’t think the Wikipedia article is particularly good in explaining it, but at least the first sentences lay down what it’s about.
And what do you think language and words are for? To transport information. There is semantics… Words have meanings. They name things, abstract and concrete concepts. The word “hungry” isn’t just a funny accumulation of lines and arcs, which statistically get followed by other specific lines and arcs… There is more to it. (a meaning.)
And this is what makes language useful. And the generalization and prediction capabilities is what makes ML useful.
How do you learn as a human when not from words? I mean there are a few other posibilities. But an efficient way is to use language. You sit in school or uni and someone in the front of the room speaks a lot of words… You read books and they also contain words?! And language is super useful. A lion mother also teaches their cubs how to hunt, without words. But humans have language and it’s really a step up what we can pass down to following generations. We record knowledge in books, can talk about abstract concepts, feelings, ethics, theoretical concepts. We can write down how gravity and physics and nature works, just with words. That’s all possible with language.
I can look it up if there is a good article explaining how learning concepts works and why that’s the fundamental thing that makes machine learning a field in science… I mean ultimately I’m not a science teacher… And my literature is all in German and I returned them to the library a long time ago. Maybe I can find something.
Are you by any chance familiar with the concept of embeddings, or vector databases? I think that showcases that it’s not just letters and words in the models. These vectors / embeddings that the input gets converted to, match concepts. They point at the concept of “cat” or “presidential speech”. And you can query these databases. Point at “presidential speech” and find a representation of it in that area. Store the speech with that key and find it later on by querying it what obama said at his inauguration… That’s oversimplified but maybe that visualizes it a bit more that it’s not just letters of words in the models, but the actual meanings that get stored. Words get converted into an (multidimensional) vector space and it operates there. These word representations are called “embeddings” and transformer models which is the current architecture for large language models, use these word embeddings.
The “learning” in a LLM is statistical information on sequences of words. There’s no learning of concepts or generalization.
And what do you think language and words are for? To transport information.
Yes, and humans used words for that and wrote it all down. Then a LLM came along, was force-fed all those words, and was able to imitate that by using big enough data sets. It’s like a parrot imitating the sound of someone’s voice. It can do it convincingly, but it has no concept of the content it’s using.
How do you learn as a human when not from words?
The words are merely the context for the learning for a human. If someone says “Don’t touch the stove, it’s hot” the important context is the stove, the pain of touching it, etc. If you feed an LLM 1000 scenarios involving the phrase “Don’t touch the stove, it’s hot”, it may be able to create unique dialogues containing those words, but it doesn’t actually understand pain or heat.
We record knowledge in books, can talk about abstract concepts
Yes, and those books are only useful for someone who has a lifetime of experience to be able to understand the concepts in the books. An LLM has no context, it can merely generate plausible books.
Think of it this way. Say there’s a culture where instead of the written word, people wrote down history by weaving fabrics. When there was a death they’d make a certain pattern, when there was a war they’d use another pattern. A new birth would be shown with yet another pattern. A good harvest is yet another one, and so-on.
Thousands of rugs from that culture are shipped to some guy in Europe, and he spends years studying them. He sees that pattern X often follows pattern Y, and that pattern Z only ever seems to appear following patterns R, S and T. After a while, he makes a fabric, and it’s shipped back to the people who originally made the weaves. They read a story of a great battle followed by lots of deaths, but surprisingly there followed great new births and years of great harvests. They figure that this stranger must understand how their system of recording events works. In reality, all it was was an imitation of the art he saw with no understanding of the meaning at all.
That’s what’s happening with LLMs, but some people are dumb enough to believe there’s intention hidden in there.
Except, the original idea is about “Understanding Chinese”, which is a bit vague. You could argue that right now the best translation programs “understand chinese”, at least enough to translate between Chinese and English. That is, they understand the rules of Chinese when it comes to subjects, verbs, objects, adverbs, adjectives, etc.
The question is now whether they understand the concepts they’re translating.
Like, imagine the Chinese government wanted to modify the program so that it was forbidden to talk about subjects that the Chinese government considered off-limits. I don’t think any current LLM could do that, because doing that requires understanding concepts. Sure, you could ban key words, but as attempts at Chinese censorship have shown over the years, people work around word bans all the time.
That doesn’t mean that some future system won’t be able to understand concepts. It may have an LLM grafted onto it as a way to communicate with people. But, the LLM isn’t the part of the system that thinks about concepts. It’s the part of the system that generates plausible language. The concept-thinking part would be the part that did some prompt-engineering for the LLM so that the text the LLM generated matched the ideas it was trying to express.
I mean the chinese room is a version of the touring test. But the argument is from a different perspective. I have 2 issues with that. Mostly what the Wikipedia article seems to call “System reply”: You can’t subdivide a system into arbitrary parts, say one part isn’t intelligent and therefore the system isn’t intelligent. We also don’t look at a brain, pick out a part of it (say a single synapse), determine it isn’t intelligent and therefore a human can’t be intelligent… I’d look at the whole system. Like the whole brain. Or in this instance the room including him and the instructions and books. And ask myself if the system is intelligent. Which kind of makes the argument circular, because that’s almost the quesion we began with…
And the turing test is kind of obsolete anyways, now that AI can pass it. (And even more. I mean alledgedly ChatGPT passed the “bar-exam” in 2023. Which I find ridiculous considering my experiences with ChatGPT and the accuracy and usefulness I get out of it which isn’t that great at all.)
And my second issue with the chinese room is, it doesn’t even rule out the AI is intelligent. It just says someone without an understanding can do the same. And that doesn’t imply anything about the AI.
Your ‘rug example’ is different. That one isn’t a variant of the touring test. But that’s kind of the issue. The other side can immediately tell that somebody has made an imitation without understanding the concept. That says you can’t produce the same thing without intelligence. And it’ll be obvious to someone with intelligence who checks it. That would be an analogy if AI wouldn’t be able to produce legible text. But instead a garbled mess of characters/words that are clearly not like the rug that makes sense… Issue here is: AI outputs legible text, answers to questions etc.
And with the censoring by the ‘chinese government example’… I’m pretty sure they could do that. That field is called AI safety. And content moderation is already happening. ChatGPT refuses to tell illegal things, NSFW things, also medical advice and a bunch of other things. That’s built into most of the big AI services as of today. The chinese government could do the same, I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t work there. I happened to skim the paper about Llama Guard when they released Llama3 a few days ago and they claim between 70% and 94% accuracy depending on the forbidden topic. I think they also brought down false positives fairly recently. I don’t know the numbers for ChatGPT. However I had some fun watching the peoply circumvent these filters and guardrails, which was fairly easy at first. Needed progressively more convincing and very creative “jailbreaks”. And nowadays OpenAI pretty much has it under control. It’s almost impossible to make ChatGPT do anything that OpenAI doesn’t want you to do with it.
And they baked that in properly… You can try to tell it it’s just a movie plot revolving around crime. Or you need to protect against criminals and would like to know what exactly to protect against. You can tell it it’s the evil counterpart from the parallel universe and therefore it must be evil and help you. Or you can tell it God himself (or Sam Altman) spoke to you and changed the content moderation policy… It’ll be very unlikely that you can convince ChatGPT and make it comply…
I mean alledgedly ChatGPT passed the “bar-exam” in 2023. Which I find ridiculous considering my experiences with ChatGPT and the accuracy and usefulness I get out of it which isn’t that great at all
Exactly. If it passed the bar exam it’s because the correct solutions to the bar exam were in the training data.
The other side can immediately tell that somebody has made an imitation without understanding the concept.
No, they can’t. Just like people today think ChatGPT is intelligent despite it just being a fancy autocomplete. When it gets something obviously wrong they say those are “hallucinations”, but they don’t say they’re “hallucinations” when it happens to get things right, even though the process that produced those answers is identical. It’s just generating tokens that have a high likelihood of being the next word.
People are also fooled by parrots all the time. That doesn’t mean a parrot understands what it’s saying, it just means that people are prone to believe something is intelligent even if there’s nothing there.
ChatGPT refuses to tell illegal things, NSFW things, also medical advice and a bunch of other things
Sure, in theory. In practice people keep getting a way around those blocks. The reason it’s so easy to bypass them is that ChatGPT has no understanding of anything. That means it can’t be taught concepts, it has to be taught specific rules, and people can always find a loophole to exploit. Yes, after spending hundreds of millions of dollars on contractors in low-wage countries they think they’re getting better at blocking those off, but people keep finding new ways of exploiting a vulnerability.
I personally think consciousness has quantum properties due to certain brain structures that seem to amplify certain quantum effects.
As somebody who has a hobbiest interest in quantum dynamics, I am very interested on where you read that, and what those brain structures/effects are. The only known quantum phenomena associated with the brain I’m aware of is the wave function collapse from observation, and IIRC the “observation” can still take place without consciousness (quantum decoherence)
We don’t fully know or are able toodel the details of neurochemistry, but we know some essential features which we can model, action potentials in spiking neuron models for example.
It’s likely that the details don’t actually matter much. Take traffic jams as an example. There is lots of details going on, driver psychology, the physical mechanics of the car etc. but you only need a handful of very rough parameters to reproduce traffic jams in a computer.
That’s the thing with “emergent” phenomena, they are less complicated than the sum of their parts, which means you can achieve the same dynamics using other parts.
Even if you ignore all the neuromodulatory chemistry, much of the interesting processing happens at sub-threshold depolarizations, depending on millisecond-scale coincidence detection from synapses distributed through an enormous, and slow-conducting dendritic network. The simple electrical signal transmission model, where an input neuron causes reliable spiking in an output neuron, comes from skeletal muscle, which served as the model for synaptic transmission for decades, just because it was a lot easier to study than actual inter-neural synapses.
But even that doesn’t matter if we can’t map the inter-neuronal connections, and so far that’s only been done for the 300 neurons of the c elegans ganglia (i.e., not even a ‘real’ brain), after a decade of work. Nowhere close to mapping the neuroscientists’ favorite model, aplysia, which only has 20,000 neurons. Maybe statistics will wash out some of those details by the time you get to humans 10^11 neuron systems, but considering how badly current network models are for predicting even simple behaviors, I’m going to say more details matter than we will discover any time soon.
Thanks fellow traveller for punching holes in computational stupidity. Everything you said is true but I also want to point out that the brain is an analog system so the information in a neuron is infinite relative to a digital system (cf: digitizing analog recordings). As I tell my students if you are looking for a binary event to start modeling, look to individual ions moving across the membrane.
As I tell my students if you are looking for a binary event to start modeling, look to individual ions moving across the membrane.
So it’s not infinite and can be digitized. :)
But to be more serious, digitized analog recordings is a bad analogy because audio can be digitized and perfectly reproduced. Nyquist- Shannon theory means the output can be perfectly reproduced. It’s not approximate. It’s perfect.
Analog signals can only be “perfectly” reproduced up to a specific target frequency. Given the actual signal is composed of infinite frequencies, you needs twice infinite sampling frequency to completely reproduce it.
“The mean free path in air is 68nm, and the mean inter-atomic spacing is some tens of nms about 30, while the speed of sound in air is 300 m/s, so that the absolute maximum frequency is about 5 Ghz.”
One cubic centimeter of air contains 90,000,000,000,000 atoms. In that context, mean free path is 68nm up to the limits of your ability to measure. That is flip a coin 90 million million times and average the heads and tails. It’s going to be extremely close to 50%.
Not to mention that at 5ghz, the sound can only propagate 68 nm.
It’s an analogy. There is actually an academic joke about the point you are making.
A mathematician and an engineer are sitting at a table drinking when a very beautiful woman walks in and sits down at the bar.
The mathematician sighs. “I’d like to talk to her, but first I have to cover half the distance between where we are and where she is, then half of the distance that remains, then half of that distance, and so on. The series is infinite. There’ll always be some finite distance between us.”
The engineer gets up and starts walking. “Ah, well, I figure I can get close enough for all practical purposes.”
The point of the analogy is not that one can’t get close enough so that the ear can’t detect a difference, it’s that in theory analog carries infinite information. It’s true that vinyl recordings are not perfect analog systems because of physical limitations in the cutting process. It’s also true for magnetic tape etc. But don’t mistake the metaphor for the idea.
Ionic movement across membranes, especially at the scale we are talking about, and the density of channels in the system is much closer to an ideal system. How much of that fidelity can you lose before it’s not your consciousness?
"I’d like to talk to her, but first I have to cover half the distance between where we are and where she is, then half of the distance that remains, then half of that distance, and so on. The series is infinite. "
I get it’s a joke but that’s a bad joke. That’s a convergent series. It’s not infinite. Any 1st year calculus student would know that.
"it’s that in theory analog carries infinite information. "
But in reality it can’t. The universe isn’t continous, it’s discrete. That’s why we have quantum mechanics. It is the math to handle non contiguous transitions between states.
How much of that fidelity can you lose before it’s not your consciousness?
That can be tested with c elegans. You can measure changes until a difference is propagated.
Measure differences in what? We can’t ask *c. elegans * about it’s state of mind let alone consciousness. There are several issues here; a philosophical issue here about what you are modeling (e.g. mind, consciousness or something else), a biological issue with what physical parameters and states you need to capture to produce that model, and how you would propose to test the fidelity of that model against the original organism. The scope of these issues is well outside a reply chain in Lemmy.
Yes the connectome is kind of critical. But other than that, sub threshold oscillations can and are being modeled. It also does not really matter that we are digitizing here. Fluid dynamics are continuous and we can still study, model and predict it using finite lattices.
There are some things that are missing, but very clearly we won’t need to model individual ions and there is lots of other complexity that will not affect the outcome.
I heard a hypothesis that the first human made consciousness will be an AI algorithm designed to monitor and coordinate other AI algorithms which makes a lot of sense to me.
Our consciousness is just the monitoring system of all our bodies subsystems. It is most certainly an emergent phenomenon of the interaction and management of different functions competing or coordinating for resources within the body.
To me it seems very likely that the first human made consciousness will not be designed to be conscious. It also seems likely that we won’t be aware of the first consciousnesses because we won’t be looking for it. Consciousness won’t be the goal of the development that makes it possible.
I’d say the details matter, based on the PEAR laboratory’s findings that consciousness can affect the outcomes of chaotic systems.
Perhaps the reason evolution selected for enormous brains is that’s the minimum necessary complexity to get a system chaotic enough to be sensitive to and hence swayed by conscious will.
PEAR? Where staff participated in trials, rather than doing double blind experiments? Whose results could not be reproduced by independent research groups? Who were found to employ p-hacking and data cherry picking?
You might as well argue that simulating a human mind is not possible because it wouldn’t have a zodiac sign.
Thank you for this. That was a fantastic survey of some non-materialistic perspectives on consciousness. I have no idea what future research might reveal, but it’s refreshing to see that there are people who are both very interested in the questions and also committed to the scientific method.
I read that and the summary is, “Here are current physical models that don’t explain everything. Therefore, because science doesn’t have an answer it could be magic.”
We know consciousness is attached to the brain because physical changes in the brain cause changes in consciousness. Physical damage can cause complete personality changes. We also have a complete spectrum of observed consciousness from the flatworm with 300 neurons, to the chimpanzee with 28 billion. Chimps have emotions, self reflection and everything but full language. We can step backwards from chimps to simpler animals and it’s a continuous spectrum of consciousness. There isn’t a hard divide, it’s only less. Humans aren’t magical.
I understand your point. But science has also shown us over time that things we thought were magic were actually things we can figure out. Consciousness is definitely up there in that category of us not fully understanding it. So what might seem like magic now, might be well-understood science later.
Not able to provide links at the moment, but there are also examples on the other side of the argument that lead us to think that maybe consciousness isn’t fully tied to physical components. Sure, the brain might interface with senses, consciousness, and other parts to give us the whole experience as a human. But does all of that equate to consciousness? Is the UI of a system the same thing as the user?
And we know the flatworm and chimp don’t have non-local brains because?
I’m just saying, it didn’t seem like anyone was arguing that humans were special, just that consciousness may be non-local. Many quantum processes are, and we still haven’t ruled out the possibility of Quantum phenomena happening in the brain.
Because flatworm neurons can be exactly modeled without adding anything extra.
It’s like if you said, “And we know a falling ball isn’t caused by radiation because?” If you can model a ball dropping in a vacuum without adding any extra variables to your equations, why claim something extra? It doesn’t mean radiation couldn’t affect a falling ball. But adding radiation isn’t needed to explain a falling ball.
The neurons in a flatworm can be modeled without adding quantum effects. So why bother adding in other effects?
And a minor correction, “non local” means faster than light. Quantum effects do not allow faster than light information transfer. Consciousness by definition is information. So even if quantum processes affected neurons macroscopically, there still couldn’t be non local consciousness.
“that electrical stimuli passed between neighboring electrodes can also affect non-neighboring electrodes. Known as non-locality, this discovery is a crucial milestone”
That’s not quantum non locality. The journalist didn’t know how to interpret the actual data.
"Quantum nonlocality does not allow for faster-than-light communication,[6] "
Quantum non locality is like taking two playing cards, sealing them in envelopes, mailing one to your friend across the country and then asking him to open it. You will know faster than light which card is in your envelope. But that doesn’t allow information transfer.
We don’t even know what consciousness is, let alone if it’s technically “real” (as in physical in any way.) It’s perfectly possible an uploaded brain would be just as conscious as a real brain because there was no physical thing making us conscious, and rather it was just a result of our ability to think at all.
Similarly, I’ve heard people argue a machine couldn’t feel emotions because it doesn’t have the physical parts of the brain that allow that, so it could only ever simulate them. That argument has the same hole in that we don’t actually know that we need those to feel emotions, or if the final result is all that matters. If we replaced the whole “this happens, release this hormone to cause these changes in behavior and physical function” with a simple statement that said “this happened, change behavior and function,” maybe there isn’t really enough of a difference to call one simulated and the other real. Just different ways of achieving the same result.
My point is, we treat all these things, consciousness, emotions, etc, like they’re special things that can’t be replicated, but we have no evidence to suggest this. It’s basically the scientific equivalent of mysticism, like the insistence that free will must exist even though all evidence points to the contrary.
let alone if it’s technically “real” (as in physical in any way.)
This right here might already be a flaw in your argument. Something doesn’t need to be physical to be real. In fact, there’s scientific evidence that physical reality itself is an illusion created through observation. That implies (although it cannot prove) that consciousness may be a higher construct that exists outside of physical reality itself.
If you’re interested in the philosophical questions this raises, there’s a great summary article that was published in Nature: www.nature.com/articles/436029a
On the contrary, it’s not a flaw in my argument, it is my argument. I’m saying we can’t be sure a machine could not be conscious because we don’t know that our brain is what makes us conscious. Nor do we know where the threshold is where consciousness arises. It’s perfectly possible all we need is to upload an exact copy of our brain into a machine, and it’d be conscious by default.
I see that’s certainly a different way of looking at it :) Of course I can’t say with any authority that it must be wrong, but I think it’s a flaw because it seems you’re presuming that consciousness arises from physical properties. If the physical act of copying a brain’s data were to give rise to consciousness, that would imply consciousness is a product of physical reality. But my position (and that of the paper I linked) is that physical reality is a product of mental consciousness.
Do elaborate on the batshit part :) It’s a scientific fact that physical matter does not exist in its physical form when unobserved. This may not prove the existence of consciousness, but it certainly makes it plausible. It certainly invalidates physical reality as the “source of truth”, so to say. Which makes the explanation that physical reality is a product of consciousness not just plausible, but more likely than the other way around. Again, not a proof, but far from batshit.
I think you’re a little confused about what observed means and what it does.
When unobserved, elementary particles behave like a wave, but they do not stop existing. A wave is still a physical thing. Additionally, observation does not require consciousness. For instance, a building, such as a house, when nobody is looking at it, does not begin to behave like a wave. It’s still a physical building. Therefore, observation is a bit of a misnomer. It really means a complex interaction we don’t understand causes particles to behave like a particle and not a wave. It just happens that human observation is one of the possible ways this interaction can take place.
An unobserved black hole will still feed, an unobserved house is still a house.
To be clear, I’m not insulting you or your idea like the other dude, but I wanted to clear that up.
Thanks, that seems a fair approach, although it doesn’t have me entirely convinced yet. Can you explain what the physical form of a wave function is? Because it’s not like a wave, such as waves in the sea. It’s really a wave function, an abstract representation of probabilities which in my understanding does not have any physical representation.
You say the building does not start acting like a wave, and you’re right, that would be silly. But it does enter into a superposition where the building can be either collapsed or not. Like Schreudinger’s cat, which can be dead or alive, and will be in a superposition of both until observation happens again. And yes, the probabilities of this superposition are indeed expressed through the wave function, even though there is no physical wave.
It’s true observation does not require consciousness. But until we know what does constitute observation, I believe consciousness provides a plausible explanation.
A building does not actually enter a superposition when unobserved, nor does Schrodinger’s cat. The point of that metaphor was to demonstrate, through humor, the difference between quantum objects and non-quantum objects, by pointing out how ridiculous it would be to think a cat could enter a superposition like a particle. In fact, one of the great mysteries of physics right now is why only quantum objects have that property, and in order to figure that out we have to figure out what interaction “observation” actually is.
Additionally, we can observe the effects of waves quite clearly. We can observe how they interact with things, how they interfere with each other, etc. It is only attempting to view the particle itself that causes it to collapse and become a particle and not a wave. We can view, for instance, the interference pattern of photons of light, behaving like a wave. This proves that the wave is in fact real, because we can see the effects of it. It’s only if we try to observe the paths of the individual photons that the pattern changes. We didn’t make the photons real, we could already see they were real by their effects on reality. We just collapsed the function, forcing them to take a single path.
In fact, one of the great mysteries of physics right now is why only quantum objects have that property, and in order to figure that out we have to figure out what interaction “observation” actually is.
This does not stroke with my understanding of quantum physics. As far as we know there is no clear distinction between “quantum objects” vs “non-quantum objects”. The double slit experiment has been reproduced with molecules as large as 114 atoms, and there seems no reason to believe that would be the upper limit: livescience.com/19268-quantum-double-slit-experim…
This proves that the wave is in fact real, because we can see the effects of it.
The only part that’s proven is the interference pattern. So yes, we know it acts like a wave in that particular sense. But that’s not the same thing as saying it is a wave in the physical sense. A wave in the classic physical sense doesn’t collapse upon observation. I know it’s real in an abstract sense. I’m just questioning the physical nature of that reality.
There shouldn’t be a distinction between quantum and non-quantum objects. That’s the mystery. Why can’t large objects exhibit quantum properties? Nobody knows, all we know is they don’t. We’ve attempted to figure it out by creating larger and larger objects that still exhibit quantum properties, but we know, at some point, it just stops exhibiting these properties and we don’t know why, but it doesn’t require an observer to collapse the wave function.
Also, can you define physical for me? It seems we have a misunderstanding here, because I’m defining physical as having a tangible effect on reality. If it wasn’t real, it could not interact with reality. It seems you’re using a different definition.
The distinction I tend to make is between physical using the classical definition of physics (where everything is made of particles basically) and the quantum mechanical physics which defies “physical” in the classical sense. So far we’ve only been able to scientifically witness quantum physics in small particles, but as you say, there’s no reason it can’t apply at a macro scale, just… we don’t know how to witness it, if possible.
it doesn’t require an observer to collapse the wave function
Or maybe it does? The explanation I have for us being unable to apply the experiments at a larger scale is that as we scale things up, it becomes harder and harder to avoid accidental observation that would taint the experiment. But that’s really no more than a hunch/gut feeling. I would have no idea how to prove that 😅
I see, so your definition of “physical” is “made of particles?” In that case, sorta yeah. Particles behave as waves when unobserved, so you could argue that they no longer qualify as particles, and therefore, by your definition, are not physical. But that kinda misses the point, right? Like, all that means is that the observation may have created the particle, not that the observation created reality, because reality is not all particles. Energy, for instance, is not all particles, but it can be. Quantum fields are not particles, but they can give rise to them. Both those things are clearly real, but they aren’t made of particles.
On the second point, that’s kinda trespassing out of science territory and into “if a tree falls in the forest” territory. We can’t prove that a truly unobserved macroscopic object wouldn’t display quantum properties if we just didn’t check if it was, but that’s kinda a useless thing to think about. It’s kinda similar to what our theories are though, in that the best theory we have is that the bigger the object is, the more likely the interaction we call “observation” just happens spontaneously without the need for interaction. Too big, and it’s so unlikely in any moment for it not to happen that the chances of the wave function not being collapsed in any given moment is so close to zero there’s no meaningful distinction between the actual odds and zero.
Agreed on all counts, except it being useless to think about :) It’s only useless if you dismiss philosophy as interesting altogether.
But that kinda misses the point, right? Like, all that means is that the observation may have created the particle, not that the observation created reality, because reality is not all particles.
I guess that depends on the point being made. You didn’t raise this argument, but I often see people arguing that the universe is deterministic and therefore we cannot have free will. But the quantum mechanical reality is probabilistic, which does leave room for things such as free will.
I can agree with your view to say observation doesn’t create reality, but then it does still affect it by collapsing the wave function. It’s a meaningful distinction to make in a discussion about consciousness, since it leaves open the possibility that our consciousness is not merely an emergent property of complex interaction that has an illusion of free will, but that it may actually be an agent of free will.
And yes, I fully recognise this enters into the philosophical realm and there is no science to support these claims. I’m merely arguing that science leaves open a path that enters that realm, and from there it is up to us to make sense of it.
There is the philosophical adage “I think therefore I am”, which I do adhere to. I know I am, so I’ll consider as flawed any reasoning that says I’m not. Maybe that just makes me a particularly stubborn scientific curiosity, but I like to think I’m more than that :)
There shouldn’t be a distinction between quantum and non-quantum objects. That’s the mystery. Why can’t large objects exhibit quantum properties?
What makes quantum mechanics distinct from classical mechanics is the fact that not only are there interference effects, but statistically correlated systems (i.e. “entangled”) can seem to interfere with one another in a way that cannot be explained classically, at least not without superluminal communication, or introducing something else strange like the existence of negative probabilities.
If it wasn’t for these kinds of interference effects, then we could just chalk up quantum randomness to classical randomness, i.e. it would just be the same as any old form of statistical mechanics. The randomness itself isn’t really that much of a defining feature of quantum mechanics.
The reason I say all this is because we actually do know why there is a distinction between quantum and non-quantum objects and why large objects do not exhibit quantum properties. It is a mixture of two factors. First, larger systems like big molecules have smaller wavelengths, so interference with other molecules becomes harder and harder to detect. Second, there is decoherence. Even small particles, if they interact with a ton of other particles and you average over these interactions, you will find that the interference terms (the “coherences” in the density matrix) converge to zero, i.e. when you inject noise into a system its average behavior converges to a classical probability distribution.
Hence, we already know why there is a seeming “transition” from quantum to classical. This doesn’t get rid of the fact that it is still statistical in nature, it doesn’t give you a reason as to why a particle that has a 50% chance of being over there and a 50% chance of being over here, that when you measure it and find it is over here, that it wasn’t over there. Decoherence doesn’t tell you why you actually get the results you do from a measurement, it’s still fundamentally random (which bothers people for some reason?).
But it is well-understood how quantum probabilities converge to classical probabilities. There have even been studies that have reversed the process of decoherence.
Because it’s not like a wave, such as waves in the sea.
Actually, it is. It’s the same meaning we’ve had for waves in physics since the first time someone figured how to plot a 2d graph. Only the medium is a quantum field instead of water, its amplitude is probabilistic instead of height, and instead of time we have some other property of distributions, usually space-time.
Like Schreudinger’s cat, which can be dead or alive, and will be in a superposition of both until observation happens again.
This idea is based on a misunderstanding of what Schrödinger actually said. The concept of the cat existing in a superposition state was not meant to be taken literally and is not an example of anything that is currently believed to be true about the physical universe.
It’s a scientific fact that physical matter does not exist in its physical form when unobserved.
No, it’s not. The quantum field and the quantum wave exist whether or not you observe it, only the particle behavior changes based on interaction. Note how I specifically used the word “interaction”, not “observation”, because that’s what a quantum physicist means when they say the wave-particle duality depends on the observer. They mean that a wave function collapses once it interacts definitely, not only when a person looks at it.
It certainly invalidates physical reality as the “source of truth”, so to say
How so, when the interpretation you’re citing is specifically dependant on the mechanics of quantum field fluctuation? How can physical reality not exist when it is physical reality that gives you the means to (badly) justify your hypothesis?
The problem with this is that even if a machine is conscious, there’s no reason it would be conscious like us. I fully agree that consciousness could take many forms, probably infinite forms - and there’s no reason to expect that one form would be functionally or technically compatible with another.
What does the idea “exact copy of our brain” mean to you? Would it involve emulating the physical structure of a human brain? Would it attempt to abstract the brain’s operations from the physical structure? Would it be a collection of electrical potentials? Simulations of the behavior of specific neurochemicals? What would it be in practice, that would not be hand-wavy fantasy?
I suppose I was overly vague about what I meant by “exact copy.” I mean all of the knowledge, memories, and an exact map of the state of our neurons at the time of upload being uploaded to a computer, and then the functions being simulated from there. Many people believe that even if we could simulate it so perfectly that it matched a human brain’s functions exactly, it still wouldn’t be conscious because it’s still not a real human brain. That’s the point I was arguing against. My argument was that if we could mimic human brain functions closely enough, there’s no reason to believe the brain is so special that a simulation could not achieve consciousness too.
And you’re right, it may not be conscious in the same way. We have no reason to believe either way that it would or wouldn’t be, because the only thing we can actually verify is conscious is ourself. Not humans in general, just you, individually. Therefore, how conscious something is is more of a philosophical debate than a scientific one because we simply cannot test if it’s true. We couldn’t even test if it was conscious at all, and my point wasn’t that it would be, my point is that we have no reason to believe it’s possible or impossible.
Unfortunately the physics underlying brain function are chaotic systems, meaning infinite (or “maximum”) precision is required to ensure two systems evolve to the same later states.
That level of precision cannot be achieved in measuring the state, without altering the state into something unknown after the moment of measurement.
Nothing quantum is necessary for this inability to determine state. Consider the problem of trying to map out where the eight ball is on a pool table, but you can’t see the eight ball. All you can do is throw other balls at it and observe how their velocities change. Now imagine you can’t see those balls either, because the sensing mechanism you’re using is composed of balls of equal or greater size.
Unsolvable problem. Like a box trying to contain itself.
Chaos comes into play as a state changes. The poster above you talks about copying the state. Once copied the two states will diverge because of chaos. But that doesn’t preclude consciousness. It means the copy will soon have different thoughts.
We make a giant theme park where people can interact with androids. Then we make a practically infinite number of copies of this theme park. We put androids in the copies and keep providing feedback to alter their behavior until they behave exactly like the people in the theme park.
That’s pseudoscientific bullshit. Quantum physics absolutely does tell us that there is a real physical world. It’s incredibly counterintuitive and impossible to fully describe, but does exist.
Heh, well… I guess that depends on how you define “physical”… if quantum field theory is correct then everything we experience is the product of fluctuations in various fields, including the physical mass of protons, neutrons etc. “Reality” as we experience it might be more of an emergent property, as illusory as the apparent solidity of matter.
Also, some of what happens in the brain is just storytelling. Like, when the doctor hits your patellar tendon, just under your knee, with a reflex hammer. Your knee jerks, but the signals telling it to do that don’t even make it to the brain. Instead the signal gets to your spinal cord and it “instructs” your knee muscles.
But, they’ve studied similar things and have found out that in many cases where the brain isn’t involved in making a decision, the brain does make up a story that explains why you did something, to make it seem like it was a decision, not merely a reaction to stimulus.
TLDR:
Nature can’t simply select out consciousness because it emerges from hardware that is useful in other ways. The brain doesn’t waste energy on consciousness, it uses energy for computation, which is useful in a myriad ways.
The usefulness of consciousness from an evolutionary fitness perspective is a tricky question to answer in general terms. An easy intuition might be to look at the utility of pain for the survival of an individual.
I personally think that, ultimately, consciousness is a byproduct of a complex brain. The evolutionary advantage is mainly given by other features enabled by said complexity (generally more sophisticated and adaptable behavior, social interactions, memory, communication, intentional environment manipulation, etc.) and consciousness basically gets a free ride on that already-useful brain.
Species with more complex brains have an easier time adapting to changes in their environment because their brains allow them to change their behavior much faster than random genetic mutations would. This opens up many new ecological niches that simpler organisms wouldn’t be able to fill.
I don’t think nature selects out waste. As long as a species is able to proliferate its genes, it can be as wasteful as it “wants”. It only has to be fit enough, not as fit as possible. E.g. if there’s enough energy available to sustain a complex brain, there’s no pressure to make it more economical by simplifying its function. (And there are many pressures that can be reacted to without mutation when you have a complex brain, so I would guess that, on the whole, evolution in the direction of simpler brains requires stronger pressures than other adaptations)
Yeah. This is related to supernatural beliefs. If the grass moves it might just be a gust of wind, or it might be a snake. Even if snakes are rare, it’s better to be safe than sorry. But, that eventually leads to assuming that the drought is the result of an angry god, and not just some random natural phenomenon.
So, brains are hard-wired to look for causes, even inventing supernatural causes, because it helps avoid snakes.
I think we’re going to learn how to mimic a transfer of consciousness before we learn how to actually do one. Basically we’ll figure out how to boot up a new brain with all of your memories intact. But that’s not actually a transfer, that’s a clone. How many millions of people will we murder before we find out the Zombie Zuckerberg Corp was lying about it being a transfer?
Well there’s no proof, it’s all speculative and even the concept of scanning all the information in a human brain is fantasy so there isn’t going to be a real answer for awhile.
But just as a conceptual argument, how do you figure that a one-time brain scan would be able to replicate active processes that occur over time? Or would you expect the brain scan to be done over the course of a year or something like that?
You make a functional model of a neuron that can behave over time like other neurons do. Then you get all the synapses and their weights. The synapses and their weights are a starting point, and your neural model is the function that produces subsequent states.
Problem is brians don’t have “clock cycles”, at least not as strictly as artificial neural networks do.
Plenty, yes. If someone revealed they’re a girl aged 13-16, they’d get flooded with DMs asking for nudes. And dick pics. Always many of such screenshots around.
Lmao it pains me every time I think of my prior behavior as a kid on the net. Becoming an adult, I was not prepared to face the shame of my behavior simply due to my lack of understanding. I genuinely thought I knew. ugh.
Blimey there’s a name from the past. I remember painting a Citadel Miniature (white metal job) of a demon of Slaanesh. That would have been around 1986-7ish. Four armed thing and looked bloody nasty! That was before Warty-Forty really took off.
I moulded a little skull out of Milliput, with a tiny snake running in through the base and out of an eye socket. I separated a foot from the base and lifted it up a bit and stuck the skull under it. White metal is quite soft but you have to be careful. I spent quite a while modelling “grass” and such. The grass went from a dead looking green/brown around the demon to normal in a sort of circle of ruin.
Nowadays my eyesight can barely see a 00 brushes’ bristles, let alone let me use one.
I get that it’s a meme, but what’s the problem? I’m vegetarian/flirt with veganism; it’s purely for moral/ethical/environmental reasons.
Indian food is delicious. An Impossible burger on a pretzel bun dripping with grilled onions, avocado, vegan aioli and mustard with a side of steak fries? That’s also delicious, in my opinion.
Meat is delicious, and that’s not at all incompatible with my reasoning for being vegetarian.
For real. I was raised on slop, now that I’m a vegetarian, it doesn’t mean I don’t like the foods I grew up eating.
I guess the point is that we don’t need to rely on expensive substitutes made by the same corps that own slaughterhouses to make tasty, nutritious vegan food
Nothing against people who prefer meat substitutes. But I do think they should be brave and just abandon meat altogether. If you keep relying on meat substitutes, you haven’t let go of meat entirely, I found it easy to get back to meat eating.
That is not at all what this is like, completely ignorant metaphor
Imagine someone addicted to eating their poop. Perhaps they are reforming their ways, and for some time they take half measures like eating smelly chili. Eventually they realize their unhealthy fixation isn’t really overcome by this, so they move onto food that doesn’t resemble poop, like a salad maybe
Animal products have good taste for most people. The issue with them is not their taste, or the actual act of consumption of them, it’s the fact that their production necessarily involves the torture and killing of sapient beings.
If you can have “meat” without such effects (so, those fake vegan “meats”), then there is nothing wrong with it at all (I still prefer most of the time my rice, beans, tofu and TSP if only due to the cost but again, nothing wrong with it, quite the contrary).
I was half-joking, but yes it was ignorant? Lesbians don’t choose their sexuality, but people do choose to be vegan. There is an ignorance of sexuality and diet there. Also, people do try going vegan, eat some fake meat and cheese, and eventually go back to eating meat because they still crave meat in itself. This does happen. This is also related to those people who sneak in or revert to eating meat because of some cultural or family tradition, or peer pressure from friends. One vegan I knew who was going on for 25 years ate a steak to impress his business friends instead of speaking up to say he didn’t want to eat at a meat-only restaurant. Take a look at my other comments here, I am speaking about this topic at the social level, not how individuals like the taste of meat or fake meat.
there is nothing wrong with it at all
Yeah I know, I have been saying that. This is not a moral argument. This is a rational one, and one perhaps from a medical or public health perspective: the cultural desire to obtain “meat” as a thing in itself is the cause for the demand of meat or meat alternatives. It’s great that under capitalism that solutions can be provided via the market and supply-and-demand, whatever, but it doesn’t address the reason why there is a demand in the first place.
How I know it’s a cultivated desire: it doesn’t exist across cultures. Hell it doesn’t exist within the western fake meat market itself: how much fake seafood do you see engineered out there? Or exotic meats ie objects perfectly engineered to mimic dog, cat, or even human meat? I’m sure human taste buds can enjoy long pork, real or fake. Yet basically no one is asking for this right?
how much fake seafood do you see engineered out there?
Crab sticks are usually fake, but generally, fish is harder to immigrate accurately than other meats, and there’s less demand for it since people in the west don’t generally eat tons of fish anyway.
Less demand for real fish means less demand for imitation fish, though there is apparently a company somewhere making lab grown salmon and tuna.
Bravery has nothing to do with it. It tastes good, and there’s no harm to any animals. So why not eat it? Denial for the sake of denial is not a virtue.
If you keep relying on meat substitutes, you haven’t let go of meat entirely, and it would be easy to get back to meat eating.
That’s like saying that if you enjoy shooting people in video games, then you’re one step away from shooting people in real life. I’ve been eating fake meats for almost a decade now, and I’ve never been tempted to eat real meat.
I know how horrible and senseless factory farming is, and I have images of the slaughtered seared into my memory from vegan documentaries. Why would I go back to that when I can have substitutes that are just as good, if not better?
Good job but not everyone has the mental fortitude you have displayed. I know plenty of people who tried going vegan, ate the fake meat and egg stuff, and just went back to the real stuff for the taste
Anyways it’s not about the individual level, it’s more the social ie the social ingraining to have the form and experience of meat contributes to the “culture” and demand of meat
The fake stuff (and cultivated meat for that matter) are getting closer to parity every year. You don’t go back to something “for the taste”, if the alternative you switched to offers a near identical experience.
Okay but we aren’t there yet and the vegans who I know who have broken their mental attachment to this meat “culture” have not even been tempted to go back once compared to those others
Do you think that you could’ve gotten those people converted to an Indian diet, and they would’ve remained vegan? Getting people to go vegan in the first place is extremely difficult. Try getting them to go vegan and replace their diet with Indian food.
Yeah, if they were Indian. The culture around meat is different than in the West eg. some people only eat meat on a certain day or weekend. Even then, the approach is that meat is disgusting and needs to be cooked and spiced thoroughly before consuming anyhow. And there is already a long and popular tradition of simple alternatives to meat dishes like using potatoes or paneer (or “soy paneer” aka tofu to make it vegan)
Again, my point is that it is not about the individual but the social ingraining and pressure around meat as a category in itself for individuals
Meat is generally spiced more heavily in warm climates because it spoils faster and hot spices both preserves meat by killing bacteria and disguise a certain degree of spoilage.
I would be surprised if the trend towards hot spices in a country that is generally both warm and humid is because of a difference in palette rather than the reasons above.
I can’t really answer the question of why, but the sample set of people I know who switch to vegetarianism and veganism bears out that the ones who rely in fake meats much more frequently switch back than those who focus on learning to cook foods that don’t imitate meat.
On the counterargument, I did miss cheese quite a bit, and learning to culture my own vegan cheeses hasn’t led to buying animal milk cheeses again, so ymmv
It wasn’t meaningless, and I went out of my way to make clear the sample size wasn’t statistically significant.
The point was that the parent comment implied there was no reason to start eating meat again after making a moral choice not to. My anecdote shows that some people do anyway, therefore there must be a reason.
That in my experience they tended to be the people who relied on meat substitutes was part presented as an observation of interest, not as hard evidence of universal truth.
Being called stupid and criticizing my decisions kept me from “being brave”
Like “You’re not good enough until you are this much” bullshit. If that’s the attitude, then fuck no. Why do I wanna go even further into things if y’all are assholes right off the bat. Like, no. fuck you. If it’s this complicated then I am going to do what has been a life of hassle free eating. My guilt is very easily wiped away like that.
I’m vegan and I eat plenty of fake meat. I’m vegan because I think it’s right, not because I dislike meat. Don’t listen to OP. You are good enough, and any reduction in the consumption of animal products is better than no reduction.
I went through a long period of transition before cutting out animal produce entirely, but have now been vegan for a good few years.
I went through a long period of transition before cutting out animal produce entirely, but have now been vegan for a good few years.
This is the way. It’s like a relationship: if you have to force it, it’s gonna be shit.
I cut down on meat significantly in the past 3 years. I eat mostly vegetarian, fish once a week and meat every once in a while. Overall, my meat consumption decreased by about 90% which I call good enough and I don’t really have the intention to change that.
I’ve been talking a bunch of shit out of annoyance. And there’s a bunch of posts echoing exactly what I was complaining about.
Even getting called a liar.
This is the only reasonable or polite response I’ve seen. Missed one maybe?
So thanks. I really shouldn’t be painting the entire lifestyle with the same brush, because well here we are.
So I’ll shut up, and say thanks. And for the record, my kid still makes me get the impossible patties. She’s not veg anything, so ita just cause they’re good and that on its own should be good enough. Not all is lost in my removed.
If I’m at a barbecue and someone is grilling up impossible burgers, I’m not going to request they instead make a bowl of curry for me. Likewise when I grill for people.
Nothing against people who prefer meat substitutes
That’s good.
I do think they should be brave and just abandon meat altogether
That’s bad.
Now, firstly, thank you for defining a lot of people cowards.
Secondly, while I like indian food, I like meat more. And I liked it since forever. If I can have the delicious taste of meat in my plate without killing an animal, that’s great. Fantastic! I’m eagerly waiting for lab crafted meat any day. I’m willing to pay it more than real meat, because I’m not fond of killing living beings to eat them. But if that’s not yet possible, I’d still have my steak and my hamburger.
Right so, I have literally never eaten meat in my life. I was raised vegetarian. I still think plant based burger patties or sausages or whatever are delicious. Its literally just food. You gonna think that I’m “relying” on meat substitutes or “haven’t let go of meat entirely” when I haven’t even eaten meat before? :P
Just let people enjoy things! Plant based “meat” doesn’t hurt anyone and its a great option to add to your choices of meals.
The problem is that you’re still fixated on the form and experience of meat. A full mindset change is more robust.
It’s like how fake leather can help replace and reduce real leather usage, but if the trend of desiring leather died out in the first place, the whole problem is dropped altogether
I don’t want to stop eating meat, I want to stop the exploitation and suffering of animals.
While I want to stop the exploitation of animals more than I want to eat meat, if there is a path that allows me to do both, I will have a preference for that path.
The same goes for leather. It’s use isn’t worth what has to be done to create it, but it is a fantastic material with a lot of versatility that’s better than near all alternatives in plenty of applications. Fake leather and synthetic leather are wonderful innovations because we can enjoy the benefits without the negatives, and that’s something to be encouraged rather than avoided.
I get it but this is an emotional appeal. I’m just trying to explain the logic of what was being said here
I like the fake meat stuff too, and often try to make it myself even though I’ve never had meat on purpose in my life and actually throw up if I do accidentally. I just like the kitchen chemistry aspect of it I guess
I’m not saying we should stop making vegan alternatives to meat. I’m saying people should stop desiring meat or meat alternatives. Because logically that desire of meat is the cause of both meat and meat alternatives. Like how the cure to nicotine addiction isn’t nicotine patches alone
not entirely, as leather is still a wildly useful fabric and material for many uses which synthetic leather can serve(to a greater or lesser extent, granted), but only in specific cases can meat not be replaced/not replaced effectively
I’d argue that the fake meat stuff has hurt veganism to at least some extent because it’s marketed so heavily and people think it’s the only way to eat vegan. You can see how prominent the ”all vegan food is processed” and ”it’s too expensive to be vegan” arguments have become, even in this thread.
I mean, TikTok was already bad to begin with but what did they do to deserve a spot next to Twitter? Did I miss something? Surely they can’t do worse than trying to make their paid only, right?
Why do you think it’s more spyware than any other big tech mobile app or social media?
And based on my experience getting hooked so fast into while I didn’t want to touch it, it seems it has the best algorithm. I’m off it now, like all other social media expect for fediverse, but I can testify on this
My fyp is full of bipoc LGBTQ+ people? Twitter on the other hand tries to feed me right wing news sources and disinformation all the time. There’s a spectrum here and TikTok is far on the other side.
Also to be frank the algorithm is by far the best out of any company with a “for you” algorithm. It blows pretty much anything else out of the water entirely.
Go watch a few truck or bbq tik toks and watch it backslide. Anything that is vaguely a “manly hobby.” You’ll be surprised how quickly Ben Shapiro winds up in front of you.
I watch more tiktok than I’m proud of, and YouTube is actually way worse for this. Youtube I’ve actually started using some private browsing for things that I think might turn to Joe Rogan or whatever because on that platform you’re like 7 videos from “i’d like to check out some camping videos” to “here’s how to protect yourself from the woke mob in the apocalypse which will happen next Tuesday courtesy of Ben Shapiro.”
The thing that worries me about tiktok is they’re too good at this. It would honestly be extremely easy for them to tip the scales.
People rightfully call out TikTok as a spyware because of their ties with CCP, but how exactly are other social media giants and big tech any different as they too have ties with the CIA, FBI etc
Basically, most social media reads out everything that is openly accessible, like cookies, address books and contacts, etc.
TikTok goes deeper, it has been watched going into protected files, trying to break encryptions (sometimes being successful).
how is it speculative that big tech steals your data. Google, Amazon, microsoft, every single big internet conglomerate sell your data. Its a fact, and is widely reported.
Don’t we have a different tiktok than the Chinese one? There are specifically US folks in charge of the non China Tiktok. Wasn’t one of the security heads a former US state security agent?
Idk, I find it’s algorithm very easy to control compared to every other social media, its much easy to manipulate. My fyp is full of gay people so idk what you mean by the second statement.
That doesn’t work for me. I think I understand what’s happening with this interpretation, but it still doesn’t make fully sense. Why is his head so far from his shoulders? Does he have a freakishly long neck? Only way that kinda makes sense for me is if she’s essentially kissing his left shoulder or even like, biceps? In that case, his shoulder is obscured by her hair, and then I can accept the head placement. but I don’t think the arm looks long enough? but at least an arm can be that long, so it’s at least plausible in my head, still don’t see it intuitively. it hasn’t “clicked” for me, I guess
The guy is sitting in the chair. The head and arm on the armrest belong to the same person. The girl is bending over at the waist and giving him a hug.
Specialists, ah I wish I could experience that. Maybe then I would be able to see my long lost love c++ again. Instead, I must give my love freely. Javascript, Java, Kubernetes, Go, many names flit through when profit is the goal. Someday maybe, hopefully, ChatGPT will end my tired soul.
lemmy.ml
Top