If he sided with Macklemore and kraft forbade the tour, his entire management team would have been more than capable of using this enormous amount of publicity to refund tickets, sell new ones for a free Palestine tour for more money, more dates.

He really dropped the ball by simping for a billionaire.

“oh shit! I think that was Davey Roberts! We used to hang out on the playground back at PS 119 back when we were kids. I wonder what the hell that was about…”

Cut to Facebook search for Davey roberts

cut to messenger live conversation

“Davey!! Long time no see buddy! How you been?!”

…

“your it” (misspelled, no punctuation)

Sandlers character gets a notification indicating he’s been invited to a Facebook group

sees group name

“PS 119 Tag Never Ended”

This winter…

cut to playground stock footage

Adam sandler is…

fast cuts of adults sprinting down alleys

“Still It”

Rated PG-13

Coming to theaters December 23rd

Yes, you are.

This is more of that unpopular attitude I was talking about.

People aren’t in here disagreeing with your opinion as much as they’re in here disagreeing with you, as a person, based on what you’re giving us.

Maybe go outside and get some exercise.

https://sh.itjust.works/comment/27450553

This isn’t an unpopular opinion you’re displaying in this thread. It’s a generally unpopular attitude.

You won’t define what you say a sport is, yet you have challenged others to do so. You basically just seem like you’re fat shaming with a juvenile meme looking for an in-group of folks why will join you.

Literally has nothing to do with what I said.

How does that work?

Bipolar disorder. Not making excuses, but

He’s a psycho, so his musical output is restrained by his insanity

No. That’s not how manic episodes work.

The best way I can explain this to a layman will only work if you watch american football.

What is a “catch”?

We can call a catch a catch, but unless we go further and state things like “must have control of the ball”, “must have one foot inbounds” etc etc etc, we have an incomplete rule that will allow for things we did not intend. So we narrow the existing rule, because ostensibly it is what we meant, but we need to be more specific to communicate the full idea than we originally believed.

In basketball… What is a travel? Seems straightforward…

Plans.

Sunday night can be shit when you’re looking at 40 hours of work, 5 planned lunches, 5 planned dinners, 49vhours if doom scrolling and videogames.

But if you say “Tuesday I’m gonna go for a walk at the local park. I’m gonna see if my friend can join.” You now have something that breaks that monotony to look forward too.

Start small.

It’s about 3 dollars a person.

Hello Mr Musk

It is me

Anti-trans marketing agency.

Just send the millions and I’ll prompt grok for more slop.

I have like 30+ folks blocked. My tolerance for bullshit is too low so I have switched to tagging people with reasons why I might go over the edge and block them.

He’s 2 or 3 more interactions like this away from the block list. Any overt hate speech or dehumanizing shit still gets an instablock. But that ain’t this guy afaik. He’s just a douche with ridiculously unpopular opinions.

checks users comment history

Keep telling yourself that.

I agree it’s likely optics but it says volumes about the political tides shifting.

6 months ago most Republicans would have happily sat down for dinner with Nick Fuentes on camera for a chat about Holocaust History.

In short, Plato’s Allegory of the Cave imagines people who have spent their entire lives chained inside a cave, able to see only shadows projected on a wall. Because the shadows are all they have ever known, they mistake them for reality itself.

One prisoner escapes and discovers the outside world, realizing that what everyone in the cave took to be reality was only a limited representation of it.

The core idea is that our perspective can constrain what we think is real or knowable. We may be interpreting appearances without access to the fuller reality that produces them.

You can either take the information you get – that people generally don’t like you – to change your behavior or not. That’s all you bud.

Just don’t go screaming to the void about why nobody likes you at any point. People have literally spelled it out for you.

Cheers.

I’ve added ‘& Mr beast shill’ to your growing list of tags reminding me why I ought to not take anything you say seriously.

You’re one of my least favorite people on Lemmy. Thought you should know. Cheers!

A preemptive /s

What a bad thread.

Delete your account. Never come back.

So thas exactly why I brought up Plato. And I think the song and lyrics do an excellent job summarizing,

Your title asks whether we can infer intelligence. Verbatim. The answer to that is, again, yes. We do it constantly.

You cannot directly observe my intelligence or thoughts. You observe my behavior, language, problem-solving, etc., and infer intelligence from those outputs. The same applies to a machine.

The Chinese Room raises a different question: whether apparently intelligent behavior is sufficient to establish understanding or semantic content. That is not the same as asking whether intelligence can be inferred.

Saying “it’s just following rules” doesn’t setkle that question either. Humans are also physical systems whose cognition is implemented through mechanisms. The existence of rules or mechanisms does not itself show that intelligence is absent.

So becaus your question is specifically “can we infer intelligence?”, yes.

Now, If the question is “does intelligent-looking behavior prove semantic understanding or consciousness?”, that’s a different and much harder question. But most importantly, it’s not the question you asked.

How is this thought experiment different from Platos allegory of the cave?

I.e. “if someone grew up in a cubicle…”

So the answer is, perhaps surprisingly to some, yes.

I can directly observe my own thought processes because I am inside the system generating them. You cannot; you can only infer my intelligence from my behavior. Likewise, an intelligence instantiated inside a machine may have first-person access to its own cognition, while an outside observer can only infer intelligence from its outputs and mechanisms.