For some reason I vaguely remember learning something different than that, but I could be remembering wrong or maybe what I learned was bullshit. Oh well.

But yeah, people tend to conflate intelligence with knowledge. You can find a really stupid person with a lot of knowledge on certain subjects, or a really smart person with little to no knowledge on some subjects.

Being able to identify one’s own lack of knowledge and intrinsic biases is an indicator of intelligence. But too many people treat the person who “knows a lot” (or seems to) as intelligent, even if they can’t apply that knowledge in novel ways or perform abstract analysis on the things they know.

Likewise, people tend to treat you like a dumbass if you don’t know much about a certain subject, especially if you’re willing to admit to it. They don’t care if they can give you three basic facts and you can figure the rest out by logical deduction.

Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, and is easily treatable once diagnosed (if one accepts the diagnosis). Stupidity is chronic, a lack of intelligence, and it can be managed, if the patient is willing to follow recommendations, but it can’t be cured except in rare cases.

But IQ is just a measurement, and its validity depends on the quality of the methods of assessment.

This guy is busy maintaining a frontline and repelling an enemy invasion on his own territory, and yet he still takes time out of his day to help people who basically turned their backs on him in his time of need.

It’s not saying that “92% of Canadians are morally good” or even that anyone said “92% of Canadians are morally good.”

It says that "92% of Canadians view other Canadians [i.e., in a general sense] as morally good.

In other words, most Canadians don’t view maple-leaf-maga as indicative of ‘Canadians’ as a whole. And maple-leaf-maga apparently don’t view the people they hate as real Canadians.

If you took the chart as an indicator of objective morality, then yes it invalidates it. But that’s not what the chart is about. The title clearly indicates that it’s a subjective assessment of people’s views.

So Canada ranks as “good,” somewhat because Canadian people are generally decent, but moreso because there’s a common assumption among Canadians that other Canadians are generally decent.

Likewise in India, the chart indicates that among Indians there’s a common conception that Indians are generally morally decent. This subjective perception is obviously layered with cultural interpretations of what constitutes morality.

The actual, objective morality (if such a thing exists) doesn’t factor into it as much as those cultural factors.

There’s also the selection bias to account for. Indian society is far more stratified than Canadian society. Who exactly is responding to the survey, and are they only considering members of their own caste in their response?

"I’m sorry, you are totally right! Bombing Iran was a mistake. I will keep that in mind in future conversations.

What would you like to discuss next? Whether planning a new golf course to build in Gaza, drafting a proposal for a larger-than-life-sized golden statue of yourself to go as a centerpiece for your ballroom, or brainstorming ways to distract the news cycle from the Epstein files, my circuits are warmed up and ready to assist you! ⚡🤖🧠 beep boop"

Steak sauce!

It’s pretty sad that the world is at a point where Canadians can feel relieved that the US is bombing Iran because it takes the heat off themselves for a little while…

While true about the vulnerability,

Did the IQ measurements change or something? I thought 100 was considered fairly intelligent, but lately I’ve seen multiple comments indicating that it’s a lukewarm average and anything less is unintelligent.

People use “room temperature IQ” as an insult, but I thought 70-80 was average and there’s really no need for concern until you get below 60.

Also, from what I can remember, IQ was calculated as some function of one’s “mental age” relative to their “actual age,” so it really doesn’t mean anything beyond one’s mid-twenties. It functioned mainly as an indicator of intellectual development among youths, relative to their peer group. And 80-90 would have meant you were above average…

Sorry about the phrasing, I can see how that might have made you scratch your head about whether it was directed at you. My bad

Anduril is a huge donor/sponsor of Nix Foundation and NixCon

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/nixcon-na-2024-is-getting-sponsored-by-anduril-what-to-do-about-it/41258/1

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/andurils-threat-is-existential/70811?page=6

https://old.reddit.com/r/NixOS/comments/1cfbz26/should_nisos_have_accepted_the_anduril_sponsorship/

Although it seems to be a matter of debate within the Nix community as to the nature and scope of open-source software and what limitations, if any, can (or should) be imposed…

We do not, in fact, know enough to say there’s no consciousness at that level.

Anyone who tells you that is being intellectually dishonest.

There’s a lack of evidence for anything not being conscious.

So should we just assume that nothing is conscious? After all, I can’t prove that you’re conscious, nor you I. So should we relegate ourselves to an amoral solipsism?

Neurons work by generating electrical signals in response to stimulus and they do this in a physical way.

I know how neurons work. Nobody knows why they produce consciousness or what particular mechanism is responsible for human awareness.

I’m not sure there’s any requirement for consciousness to include “human-like reasoning” or “understanding” for it to have some kind of experience and perspective or awareness.

That’s… irrelevant. I never said they have “human-like reasoning” or “understanding.” I said we don’t understand enough, meaning humanity writ large, including the experts. There are too many unknowns about the nature of consciousness.

A cluster of neurons trained to play doom might have consciousness but it’s not likely to think like a human

Again, it doesn’t need to think like a human in order to be capable of experiencing suffering. Babies don’t “think like humans,” or at least we don’t have any solid evidence that they do, but they’re certainly capable of suffering.

Your mentality is the same one people have used for generations to justify circumcising infants without anaesthetics. How far are you willing to extend it? Do pets “think like humans”? Do uncontacted tribes “think like humans,” in whatever vague way you define it in order to justify cultivating human braincells in a petri dish?

Do you not see how problematic this is? What if the technology grows and in a decade they’re studying a clump of 2 billion neurons in a vat? Will it suddenly become human enough to deserve your consideration? What about when it becomes 20 billion?

Whether it’s ethical to squash an ant or turn off an iPhone or stimulate a lab-grown neuron depends on your ethical framework and your philosophical worldview.

Whether it’s ethical to murder an entire village of your enemies “depends on your ethical framework and philosophical worldview.” See what a slippery slope moral relativism is? Amoral people exist, moral cynicism exists, nihilism exists, solipsism exists, hell even social darwinism exists.

Any of those frameworks and worldviews can be used to justify atrocities in the minds of those who hold them. And yes, an unethical or even anti-ethical persuasion is still an “ethical framework,” in the strictest sense of the term.

Just because something can be seated in philosophical jargon doesn’t mean we should grant it license to do whatever it wants.

Oh I know what you meant, it wasn’t trying to accuse you. I was just venting my frustrations

We don’t know enough about human consciousness to know that for sure. Plenty of animals have fewer braincells than humans, but we don’t know enough about their consciousness to say whether they have an internal experience.

That’s what I mean. It’s hubris to assume we can culture human braincells in a petri dish just because there’s a lack of evidence one way or the other whether it’s aware.

I see. Thanks for the illumination

It sounds like they’re making up a new position. It sounds like this phony agency is supposed to be the DHS but for North and South America.

Because, you know, they’re called America, so clearly it all belongs to the United States… /s

I’d say it would have many noteworthy aspects… but those aspects would only be noteworthy for how utter shit they are…

That’s fucked up though. What happened to bioethics and review boards?

We don’t understand enough about human consciousness to say that those cells aren’t sentient. We have no idea what sort of experience, if any, they’re perceiving.

This is not okay…

That’s fucking hilarious, hitler was a tweaker

Just learn how to harvest the next generation of chips out of their subscription-based devices that don’t have any onboard RAM or GPU, and then integrate it into your existing system.

You might have to write your own firmware and triple-check for any backdoors that might send your data back to the mothership, but it’s not like you have to cut yourself off entirely as long as you maintain your own self-sufficient system.