Toddler: I want real water for my bucket. Me: Inside the house, to wash your cardboard car? Toddler: Yes Me: Let's just pretend that your bucket is full of water and wash the car with these sponges, like last time. Toddler: But I want real water!
*Later* Toddler: *Is alone for a minute* Toddler: *Gets the gallon of milk from the fridge* Toddler: *Fills his bucket, which has holes in the bottom*
*Later* Me: *Is cooking* Wife: I don't know what shenanigans happened with the milk here...
I've gotten even better at using Stable Diffusion since last time I asked the Internet for art requests and I'm looking for some interesting ideas to attempt.
Same as last time: content is limited by fosstodon's rules, so only safe for work ideas please.
No guarantees that I'll actually do your idea or that it'll be any good.
Now I wish I had started making my own pizza dough years ago.
You just need ordinary white flour, salt, water, yeast, and (olive) oil. That's it!
The mixing/kneading part is pretty easy, you can make multiple batches and refrigerate or freeze them, and you really don't need special baking equipment to make a decent pizza.
One of the older philosophical problems of AI has been that the field has been defined by problems that stop being "AI problems" as soon as a solution is discovered. So, if those problems weren't AI problems after all, then what exactly is AI?
One solution to this conundrum is to simply say that AI research is just that, a research process. There are no inherently AI problems and AI research is just a process by which we uncover solutions to previously intractable problems.
@Azure The erroneous "most people live in affluent Western societies" conclusion is related to the fact that all of this is a statistical argument rather than some sort of airtight deductive reasoning.
Sure, most people live outside of affluent Western societies, but a surprisingly high proportion do. It depends on how you measure it, but at least 1 billion people live in affluent Western societies, so at least 1-in-8 or 12.5%.
@Azure So, if red dwarf stars cannot give rise to life, then the probability that a random living observer on their species' homeworld will find themselves orbiting around a red dwarf is zero, even though they are by far the most common type of star.
@Azure While I haven't read Max Tegmark's book, I read the paper that led to it.
I don't think he was arguing that universes like ours are inherently more likely, just that they're more likely to be observed.
The basic premise of the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis is that all mathematical structures exist, so yeah, our specific type of universe make up an infinitesimal proportion of the total universes.
However, similar universes are much more likely to have observers.
Java developer by day, Julia developer by night.Amateur philosopherSometimes funny...Working DadControversial things about me:Everyone: transhumanist, into AI (art)Right-wing: polyamorous (married), agnostic atheist, leftist, working class consciousnessLeftist: corporate drone by day, loyal citizen of the US (but a serious reformer), former libertarianI hope you can look past all that though, we people need to stick togetherLives with: Wife, T (son), and A (daughter).