h4890 @[email protected]

@freepatriot I think that perhaps you were running _inside_ the gated community protecting itself from people on the other side. 😎

@remixtures Incorrect. What really is happening is that ICE needed to be created after decades upon decades of socialist, "light touch" immigration policy.

You cannot have a welfare state with free immigration, because naturally it creates the incentive for immigrants to go there to get fat and happy on government money, and send it back to their relatives back home.

Ending illegal immigration does not need a surveillance state, it only needs strong borders. Within the borders, freedom reigns.

@TimetoLeave @Incal This is the truth!

@shortstories politicians, because they know that if all problems are solved without them, they will be moved to the bottom of society.

@shortstories But... there is another aspect. in A-C society, there will be no government care programs, free food, etc. So all the immigrants who immigrate due to free government money will never come. First, they will starve, and second, if they do not provide value, they will not be allowed onto the property.

So many of todays ills and crises would be solved by A-C, and there would be no politicians with all the power. That is why A-C is ridiculed by academia and

@shortstories There will be plenty of borders and fences in anarcho-capitalist society where private property is king. Just like you have a fence or wall today, you will want to have the same in the A-C society.

So in fact, border control will become more efficient, detailed and fine grained, and it will be enforced by highly motivated private individuals.

@Incal Sounds implausible. Because if this should start to become the norm, this will attract startups, capitalists and businessmen who will reintroduce seedy fruits and vegetables and the superior product will win.

Add to that that all natural occurences of fruits and vegetables would have to be eradicated.

@Incal Never, ever start a company in western europe. That is financial suicide.

If you do, do it in eastern europe where the corporate income tax is often 7%-14% and the capital gains around the same.

There is simply no point in starting a company in socialist western europe, where the state takes 60%-70% of what you make.

That situation is called slavery.

@troed I cannot understand why some people have such a problem with this.

We all do it on a daily basis, and extending it to a non-biological substrate, is just logical.

Perhaps it is due to the mental illness that is commonly called "religion"?

@troed exactly what we do with human beings. You or I have no way of ever proving that other humans are conscious. We just infer it from their behaviour and responses.

If we produce a super-LLM or what ever the acronym will be that produces the breakthrough, and then imagine that it will be installed in a human body, and if no one will tell the difference, it naturally follows that it is conscious, if its behaviour is convincing enough.

@troed Taking this one step further, imagine the day, post-LLM, perhaps when the next big breakthrough has been made in 4-5 years time, when you have an "AI" that has volition, values, a life instinct.

Coupling that, the ability to initiate conversation and the ability to make value judgments and to independently come up with its own goals, with the LLM "chating" skills, and we basically have no choice but to acknowledge it as conscious.

Why?

Because of how it would act. After all, this is

@troed I have argued for a long time that the words, which are a reflection of our experience in the world, is a transitive relationship, and that we therefore _can_ say that an LLM knows what pizza tastes like, since it has inherited this from our texts it has been trained on.

Thinking about this, in the context of the classic turing test, it is obvious that this is so, if we constrain ourselves to text based communication.

@shortstories in mind, that the rest can be inferred, but not conclusively be proven.

@shortstories This is obvious. Scientists cannot _empirically_ prove the big bang. It can be inferred based on background radiation and other measurements. At the end of the day, it is a theory with a high probability. In fact, high enough, so that people tend to say it is a "fact".

The same goes for the multiple worlds of quantum physics. It can never be proven, and it can never be falsified.

The key to scientific sanity is empirical evidence, and keeping

@sun Jordan Peterson grew old and sick, from being the target of the worlds socialist and militant feminist hate. Lesser beings moved in and corrupted it.