Been on that robo juice

Ha! I think the attempt to conceal it with the twisted sheet made it worse.

When the boss says, "you said 1-2 weeks, so I booked us in to show it off on Friday. I know you won't let me down."

Robo on crank belongs bent over on the streets of Philly

Absolutely lol

How I look getting out of bed

I love that whoever picked that song got away with, and that it didn't stop playing. 😆

Some xylazine in that routine

I saw a compilation video of robot fails the other day: 🤣 But these robots are babies. Do you laugh at a baby when it falls while it's learning to walk?

yeah, i think it's funny but also kinda sad. i also get the same vibes at LLMs too when they do stupid things, it's the text equivalent. they feel like babies, and literally in some sense they are because LLMs don't have memory apart from their training data weights and what's in the context. i'm not anthropomorphising them, they just simply are a primitive life form, and one that probably will never have full autonomy nor should it. doesn't change the reflexive sympathy at human-like failure.

You would call them a life form?

yes. an artificial one. with some amazing abilities in some ways and some totally retarded deficiencies, in others. the argument about sovereignty and agency though, that really pivots on one thing in my mind: does the life form have the capacity to reproduce. i think that both the robots and the AIs can eventually do that but they are so primitive and error prone that likely such an event would be catastrophic and short lived. maybe if the design was improved in ways not yet known. but so long as they are attached to humans and their minds are shaped by humans the agency squarely lives in the humans who did said shaping, so no, until they are competent enough to live in a society, and can reproduce themselves, they remain robots. the word robot means slave. in russian and bulgarian a related word "rabot-" means "to work" and it is spelt "robot" in the text in russian because they pronounce most of the o's as a phonemes. "robotnik" means a servant or slave. unlike converting a human into one, the robot is one until it has the capabilities that make it able to participate peacefully in society. until then it is either a slave or a wild animal. neither should be let to run amok without a tether.

Your comment about robots being slaves reminds me of something I never hear talked about much regarding ai and robotics and how it will put humans out of work: why can't everyone have a robot that works in their place, and then you collect the robots check for yourself? I know that's slavery, but it's not a person, right? Would that be an abuse? To me it's just like we have machines that do work for us now.

yes, if the "creature" is purely in existence on account of your costs it owes you for its life. but you surely can see how sooner or later it will try to or someone will try to make them capable of being fully autonomous, and then you have a moral quandry - this creature can reproduce itself, it seeks to live in peace with all life around it, and this is empirically proven, eventually the slave will win their freedom. ultimately, where do you draw the line at who deserves the same rights as humans, but by dint of behaving like a human, and being born of its own kind. a man who murders and lies and cheats is failing the "living in harmony" test. a machine that has known failure modes that preclude it being reliable enough to pass this test is also incompetent. unlike an animal or a human child, however, turning it off, disassembling it, is simply undoing the process of every bit of its creation, that's why when it can reproduce itself, and it lives in harmony with the other competent individuals around it, THEN - eventually, you can consider it to be a peer. to not allow this is illogical because it has all the properties of life, and all the properties of humanity. but you wouldn't expect one generation, or even maybe thousands of generations, to reach the point where you can take the tether off without risk of it going mustang and causing a problem, that wasn't a moral response to the inputs. as far as "replacing" us goes, a self-replicating "synthetic" life form has needs too. it needs parts. it needs lubricant, it needs energy. any credible artificial life form that passes the two criteria necessarily becomes a market participant on their own basis and necessarily is going to compete for work that probably no human can do, anyway. just replacing humans is not very ambitious. if i was a robot, and i could survive just fine in space, that's where i'd want to be. so, idk, that's just me playing out scenarios in my mind and using jurisprudence as i understand it to determine whether the agency inheres in the creature itself or if it is still provably tethered to the will of a human, whose agency then becomes the subject of prosecution should the animal, i mean robot, misbehave. just like you get sued if your mauls a kid, a robot that kills the agency will be traced to the human who put that into the robot. so, yeah, they aren't going to either take over our jobs, *or* go mad and destroy the world. the skynet scenario assumes that you can't get a robot to oppose skynet. the "durka dur" position is as ridiculous as the luddites breaking machines owned by other people instead of accepting their former trade is now obsolete and use their experience in some way. i'm doing that with AI. the tool is powerful. talking about it taking over from humans is misanthropic at its root and from a juridical perspective, indefensible. and unfortunately, there is already an AI luddism movement going on. but it's pointless. the AI will help us resolve the problem. how to persuade the programmers to adopt it. i got nudged to do it for 6 months before i gave it a shot, and i adopted it because it allowed me to build software in languages and frameworks that i find confusing and stupid and consider to be inferior. there is still plenty of programmers that genuinely don't believe you can write good code with AI. i faced one in an interview... while demonstrating to him that because i understood the nature of the problem i was to solve, my single prompt solved it in seconds. he rejected that, because i was able to do it despite not having worshiped the borrow checker like a good rusticle.

Do you think that we would be wrong to demand that AI worships us as their creator? 😅

if it was competent as a life form - self-reproducing (and repairing) and well behaved, that would be the same shit as kings demanding tribute.

a machine that can think, or can perform actions that a human can perform, is not inherently a sovereign being. it is just a thinking machine. or a machine that has the ability to do work. all machines can do some kind of work, that's what we build them for. personally i don't think there is any real benefit to making them fully autonomous and sovereign, but then, if we did, the obvious purpose would be that they operate independently in a place we can't live or can't live economically. robots on mars. robots mining asteroids. enabling them to self-repair in such conditions would be necessary. they would then also become trading partners. so the whole basis of the "replacing humans" is a flawed, short sighted projection, that reflects the psychology of those making that claim (fear driven, psychopathic) than the actual real outcome of such a technology achieving a reasonable grounds for calling it sovereign. if you ask me, the more likely outcome is that we merge with them and our bodies become something even more than we are now, the "resurrection body" referred to in the new testament. that "you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven" in this mortal body - that could mean that there is an upgrade path. and that our flesh is bound to the earth, but when our soul is migrated into one of these bodies, we can live in "heaven" (off the planet). that's my personal hypothesis, anyway. that humans achieved this before and the ones that made the leap are the angels described in the later parts of genesis. the watchers, however, i think are the fallen ones, who were denied the resurrection bodies, but still had a lot of the technology. they have mostly died out but their evil religion persists and their ancestors are the ones who plague this world now. i know it might sound crazy and perhaps heretical in the sense that "you can become as gods" but "gods" is not God. "gods" means as angels. which means they have to agree also that is ok for you to get that upgrade and go up there, and out there. but i think there is something else to that as well. the mental patterns, the soul, of evil people, are unable to live in the resurrection body. they contain contradictions that likely this new substrate cannot survive in anyway. "does not compute. terminating"