What? Really? I guess it's in the Elections Act, then.
Yup, checks out. There's certain ridings and they all have to produce one member, but it doesn't say how. Wonders of living in a country that wasn't really a democracy originally, I guess. One member representing each riding limits options quite a bit, but there are proportional systems that could be made to work that way.
It doesn’t mention parties either.
Which isn't necessarily unusual. It wasn't a designed part of the US system, for example - if anything it undercuts the original intention of it. Proportional systems have to recognise them at least a bit, though.
A map isn't a territory, but there's no such a thing as a tangible mind you can hold (or there is, and we're arguing about mysticism, which isn't really a good use of my time). As far as I can see, it's all maps.
If how exactly it's implemented matters, regardless of similarity in internal dynamics and states, and there's an imminent tangibility to it like rain or torque, I think you're actually talking about a soul.
Behaviorally, analog systems are not substrate dependent. The same second-order differential equations describes RLC circuits, audio resonators and a ball on a spring, for example.
Analog AI chips exist, FWIW.
If you're looking at complexity theory, I'm pretty sure all physics is in EXPTIME. That's a strong class, which is why we haven't solved every problem, but it's still digital and there's stronger ones that can come up, like with Presburger arithmetic. Weird fundamentally-continuous problems exist, and there was a pretty significant result in theoretical quantum computer science about it this decade, but actual known physics is very "nice" in a lot of ways. And yes, that includes having numerical approximations to an arbitrary degree of precision.
To be clear, there's still a lot of problems with the technology, even if it can replace a graphics designer. Your screenshot is a great example of hallucination (particularly the bit about practical situations), or just echoing back a sentiment that was given.
Once the robots are able to maintain and fully operate themselves I'll be worried (like, massively). AFAIK these are basically an RC car with a gun and some target tracking, though, which isn't so different from an AFV at a purely tactical level, and actually could be improvised, to some degree.
Civilian rebels not having big supplies of other kinds has proven to be an obstacle, but not decisive. You just move to where the fancy weapons aren't, and mess with the supply of items and labour they need to keep running.
Out of everything going on, digital surveillance networks seem like the biggest threat to the age of guerillas, by far.
I'm not worried about that either. It just comes down to who can produce more and better robots, which is a version of large-scale warfare as it's been since WWI, at least.
Probably there will be qualitative differences this time, although I can only guess in what way. If it ends up being robots vs. robots maybe war will get less deadly. Then again, some of the WWI artillery pioneers said similar things, and that certainly didn't work out.
It's not about irreducibility - that's not a feature any part of physics has. Even quantum states can be fully simulated by a digital computer, just with prohibitive (ie. exponential in qubits) overhead. It's about continuous vs. discrete, and a very large number of discrete states can become indistinguishable from continuousness. Sometimes provably.
It's true that the internal functions the determine whether neurons fire are poorly understood. Once we have that data it will absolutely be possible to simulate, though. It's long been done for individual organoids, and at this point the hardware has scaled enough to look at doing an entire bacterium and it's nearby environment. If the interactions of a random patch of water molecules can be neglected - and usually biochemists do so - that software could be made much much lighter yet.
I'd like to point out Earth's weather systems are continuous, bigger and far more chaotic. If biology was irreducible, meteorology would be as well.
Yeah, in some ways the US is worse. China loves stability, the US actively undercutting it right now. They've both become nationalist bullies, so that's a wash. The one thing the US has going for it is that there's still a kind of preponderance of democratic structures and liberal values left. If they fully go away, like a lot of us on Lemmy are expecting, being close by (geographically and, if it matters, culturally) will be their only advantage.
Over the long term it's possible China will shift towards democracy as well. Their story is just beginning.
IRL I feel like I've had people talk to me about things that I don't understand and which clearly aren't happening outside their mind, and it's hard to beat that for WTF. Online, there's so many contenders I can't really pick one.
Yeah, they're seeming pretty comparable as partners these days. The US is much closer, but we still can do business with China, or play them off of each other by giving them both a fairly equal chance.
This and how hard it would be to ever amend the constitution (y'know, to move away from FPTP, for example) are the biggest problems for Canadian democracy going forwards.
It won't sink us in the next 10 years, but past that who knows. History has a way of turning heroes into villains, and vice-verse.
Biological neurons are actually more digital than artificial neural nets are. They fire with equal intensity, or don't fire (that at least is well understood). Meanwhile, a node in your LLM has an approximately continuous range of activations.
They’re just tracking weighted averages about what word comes next.
That's leaving out most of the actual complexity. There's gigabytes or terabytes of mysterious numbers playing off of each other to decide the probabilities of each word in an LLM, and it's looking at quite a bit of previous context. A human author also has to decide the next word to type repeatedly, so it doesn't really preclude much.
If you just go word-by-word or few-words-by-few-words straightforwardly, that's called a Markov chain, and they rarely get basic grammar right.
Like you said, the issue is how to do it consistently and not in an infinite sea of garbage, which is what would happen if you increase stochasticity in service of originality. It’s a design limitation.
Sure, we agree on that. Where we maybe disagree is on whether humans experience the same kind of tradeoff. And then we got a bit into unrelated philosophy of mind.
and you can literally program an LLM inside a fax machine if you wanted to.
Absolutely, although it'd have to be more of an SLM to fit. You don't think the exact hardware used is important though, do you? Our own brains don't exactly look like much.
Labels are stupid, though.