iNow

Nothing you’ve posted contradicts, negates, nor refutes what I posted, though it does strike me as interesting how recurrently aggressive and antisocial you consistently act even in threads seeking the thoughts, opinions, and inputs of others on those very behaviors.

This is imprecise to the point of inaccuracy and flat out falseness. Psychopathy is accepted in the DSM5 and also by the American Psychological Association as a specifier or type of clinical antisocial personality disorder. And it’s this pleasure component that results in sadisms ties to sexuality. Since you asked about non sexual aspects of the phenomenon, I suggested the framework of psychopathy. Do you enjoy going around in circles with people like this? I sure don’t, and on that note... have fun with your thread.

Where did I say otherwise? I suspect it soothes them, a bit like scratching an itch or having a drink when thirsty. I tend to agree with your central premise that sexuality is in no way prerequisite, but I disagree with your conclusion that the DSM and entire field believes otherwise.

There’s more than just a hint here of argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy to be avoided. Just because you’re not personally aware of work in this space doesn’t mean it’s not being conducted. I also encourage you (if you haven’t already) to consider the ways the framework of psychopathy fairly neatly fills the various gaps you assert and cite. One might even suggest you need to “go research it.” Fancy that. https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/application-summaries/research-summaries/sexual-sadism-and-trauma-in-psychopathy/

We’re largely on the same page here and philosophically we align on a desire for more hands off approaches. The main point I think is crucial to understand, though, is that the historical data on which AI training is based is both biased AND representative. This poses a real problem, one which mandates human intervention and programming choices up front Sure... We don’t want the historical data from which the AI learns to represent us. It represents what we used to be, but not who we are today nor who we’re becoming. We’ve learned and evolved and finally begun to overcome those various prejudices, but those prejudices are still a massive and representative part of the historical datasets being used to train the AI. If we simply tell the AI to go learn from past data... we turn it on then walk away all laissez-faire so as not to impose our own biases and limitations on it... then this where even bigger problems ensue. It’s the very fact that it’s using an unfiltered dataset that leads the AI to repeat and amplify any past mistakes. The only way to do this correctly IMO is to proactively filter said dataset... to implement certain guardrails and rules... and ensure a different future path is taken. We need to install various dams and levies on the data since a truly representative past sample isn’t representative of our future preferred selves.

How so? Please elaborate. The suggestion here is that I'm the uneducated person on this subject. Is that a correct reading of your comment? Because they lack nervous systems which chemically trend toward the lowest possible energy state and consequently there is no movement toward ion balances across the system in aggregate. They also lack the various reinforcement mechanisms driven by neurotransmitters like dopamine and serotonin and oxytocin which all tend to drive said addictions. Interestingly, addiction tends also to be a learned behavior where a desensitization to the activity of those transmitters leads to other spikes in stress hormones and changes to autonomic functions, but that's somewhat peripheral from your mention of learned behaviors above, so consider it just an interesting tidbit. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you've simply misunderstood me and failed to properly comprehend my points, not that you're intentionally misrepresenting me or arguing against strawmen. If you'd like me to clarify something, please be specific what that is and I'm happy to do so. Or... you know... answer the question I'm now asking you for the 3rd or 4th time... what specifically are you suggesting I go research in context of neurons and the drivers of human behavior?

No. They really don’t. Stop anthropomorphizing them. They just “are,” and “are” in accordance with underlying physics and chemistry... like kickballs being struck by feet and influenced by winds or pebbles being shifted by the currents of a flowing steam. Uh huh. Ok. Whatever, Deepak. I’m more than happy to get back to you. I’m rather clearly more than happy to engage you on this wonderful topic, though you still haven’t bothered clarifying what precisely you recommend I research. Will you do that now? Please? If not, will you kindly at least attempt to try to learn how to use the quote function forums like this one have offered its users for over 23 years?

Before I engage with any new questions, kindly please first clarify what SPECIFICALLY about neurons you’re recommending I research. Or “explore.”

Then please further elucidate and educate me, oh wise pontificating one. I wholeheartedly agree with you, it’s been a few decades now since I spent any meaningful time deeply researching neuron behavior, and it is without hesitation or sarcasm that I welcome coaching, mentorship, and guidance on where next to best focus my efforts coming from your clearly superior mind. So, kind erudite sir... What, pray tell, do you specifically recommend I pursue and research next to fill the cavernous gaping gaps you are here now suggesting exist in my knowledge of neurons, their behavior, and what behaviorally emerges from them?

No. That’s not correct. On a number of levels this fails. Neurons don’t seek anything. They are cells following basic chemistry and ion cascades. In aggregate as a system they underly many of the things you’re trying to describe, but what you’re doing is more poetry than science. Fun at dinner parties, but not helpful in research or understanding. The mistake here is saying the neurons do this. You’re correct that we intuitively practice possible future outcomes, mentally rehearse interactions with unseen others, and we can game out various scenarios in advance and even nearly in real time for simple stuff, but that happens at a much higher level than neurons. It is based on trial and error, though. Place an infant into those same situations and you’ll quickly realize how few of those behaviors are innate. This seems correct. Some mutations led to the ability to detect chemical changes. Other mutations led to the ability to detect light and shadow. Those who could detect shadows got eaten less often than those that did not, the trait was selected, and future mutations kept changing it and those changes also got selected. This is pretty standard stuff.

I’m unclear what you’re trying to say in this sentence. Will you please say it again another way so I can respond accordingly? I don’t trust anything as gospel, but wiki is itself extremely likely to be correct in most cases and it’s reliability had nothing whatsoever to do with my previously offered criticism.

Not only this, but also the more transmissible strains hadn’t yet taken hold then when Pfizer and Moderna ran their tests, but had when J&J did and (more importantly) have been more dominant for longer in all of the places where the AZ version is primarily being administered.

I did, yes and I found it lacking. Apparently though (according to the exchanges above) I was too harsh on you and you probably felt like you’d been bitten, so please try harder next time so I don’t have to be so harsh. Other than telling me that I can go “wiki” the claims you made (which I also did, btw), do you have any further info or links I can read which directly support your claim about more than 85% of MW workers making above $11/hr? (because the wiki you told me to go google sure didn’t)

So now you’re commenting on my weight? FFS

As this is your first post, it’s hard to think you’ll become a serious member here. Either way, coitus using doggie styled position is not equivalent to anal sex, so your claim about dogs is at best unsupported.

Just another place for people with a passion for science to gather and hangout. It’s pretty quiet, though.

Sorry. I’m not following. What are you asking?

🤷‍♂️

Of course. Asking questions is not at all unreasonable. Asking loaded questions, or asking in prejudicial ways that preference information that reinforces preconceptions and merely confirms a potentially biased position (instead of letting the evidence inform our position in the first place), however? Not so much.

I suspect Figure B would be better. You’ll need the flat sides of the metal plate to resist the pushing force. The screws will almost surely tear the fibers of the oak and rip out the side if you use figure A. Basically, with figure B the metal resists the lever action of the wood on both the top AND the bottom. Caveat: This is just my intuition based on experience. I could very well be wrong about the mechanics involved. Good luck

Fair points, but a single lone example is better described as an anecdote, not as evidence nor something indicative of trends requiring rule changes.

Here’s an idea. Try writing in a manner that makes sense to others. Basically, add units to your numbers, not your words. You’re making up terms and expecting to be understood. This will result in consistent failure. You have been given this feedback over and over and over again some more. You’ve been neg repped over and over and over again. You’ve not taken any of this feedback on board.

Helping other posters be less defensive is not my concern.

Indeed. This is where ML really thrives. We just expose it to more and more examples and archetypes and it does the rest. Unfortunately, this is also where it struggles in context of things like automating recruiting and scanning of applicant resumes or giving input on sentencing decisions in the courts, for example (algorithms that help judges decide how to rule). The AI tends to pick up and amplify past biases humans have shown and will do things like ignore females or more heavily sentence blacks, etc. In these cases, it becomes required that we DO proactively codify more neutral approaches into the AI simply to overcome how codified bias has been historically in our culture. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170413141055.htm

Worlds smallest violin playing for all the waitresses, eh?