I think the next step for them is to go gay since they hate women so much. Remy at least comes across as hurt and misunderstood and less so as a “creep”. Lucy, on the other hand… just go down the brown route bro. Allah loves a little sodomy, especially of the adolescent teenager boy variety that you would likely enjoy.
I don’t even see how Trump could even be tried by the ICC. Only idiots believe that could happen lol.
Them showing up and arresting Trump, or probably most world leaders for that matter, is basically “let’s pretend we’re cops and have an arrest to make”.
There’s many studies that show mean IQ is identical in men and women.
https://www.riotiq.com/articles/advanced-topics-and-research/do-males-and-females-have-the-same-distribution-of-iq-scores-
The only difference is the variability.
I don’t particularly care about this topic since it’s been beaten half to death by Jordan Peterson et al for the past, what, 8 years? Guess some people didn’t get the memo.
Women and men are basically as intelligent. There is less variability in female intelligence (probably other traits as well) than male. So there are fewer very stupid and fewer very smart women than men, which about checks out.
Proof?
The most intelligent people I know are women. That’s not to say women are smarter than men, pretty sure the sexes are about equal. It’s just that it’s hard to tell when you never leave your house
Only reason I posted here is I thought the question of which sounds scarier was interesting.
You mean compared to people who just bitch about women all day?
Have you ever actually met a woman?
This whole thread can’t even be refuted, any more than I can refute Pastafarianism.
The question is just fucking stupid lol. Women can be perfectly rational obviously.
I think both are scary. I wouldn’t want to meet a random person (man) or a bear in the forest by myself.
I think a bear sounds scarier to me personally, maybe it’s a gut instinct thing like how some people are irrationally afraid of spiders.
Random person out in the forest would probably be more dangerous than a bear though, if you didn’t stumble into a she-bear’s lair and disturbed her cubs.
I wasnt thinking about that when I picked those names. Just picked the characters I liked the most
What’s SSRI?
I like it. It’s interesting, once you get past the “what the fuck do I do I want to stop dying”.
Only issue is that after you explore everything, it’s kinda like... everywhere it’s just. WHITE. WHITE EVERYWHERE.
But until you get to that point, yeah, the game is fun. If you play on at least Voyageur, not whatever the lowest difficulty is.
For real though, it’s the King James Version, because it’s more poetic and sounds better.
Depends on the game. I find it extremely annoying in Mount and Blade.
The long dark is a survival game so food and whatnot is actually the challenge (along with water, fuel, warm clothes, etc), and there it’s kinda fun.
It’s whichever one my hand touches first, and it’s usually the next one on the list I haven’t burned yet.
What does Artemis even have to do with LGBTQ stuff?
Not sure if I agree that everything about human language can be mapped to mathematical sets though :P
I agree with faux law. I studied Artificial Intelligence at university and I had the feeling you had to actually know something about the domain you’re applying AI to in order to properly use AI. It’s a tool like any other; it doesn’t serve as a replacement for human intelligence.
If we’re not talking just about LLMs but about AI more broadly (although LLMs require domain knowledge on the part of the programmer as well), you need to take into account your problem’s mathematical background when designing the AI. It’s hard to give an example because this is so damn broad. Like, there’s a bunch of things at play here.
For example, I strongly suspect it is not possible to use an AI to predict the stock market. This is because there is no actual “function” that determines the stock market; the stock market is too complicated, too high-level to be modelled mathematically. It’s not a matter of computing power; you could use every supercomputer on Earth at the same time, pool their resources together and you still couldn’t do it, it’s more like the difference between an abacus and a computer, an abacus can be used to compute some very limited functions, but it can’t do what a computer can do, it doesn’t have any memory, for example.
So, first you need to determine whether your problem even has a mathematical backing behind it. If it does, what does it look like? You basically need to base your model on reality as much as possible. And that’s easier said than done lol.
Not sure if the current discussion is still about the original topic, but, no, “artificial” intelligence is not intelligent. For one, if it was, it would not be called artificial intelligence, it would just be called intelligence.
Plus, artificial intelligence is really just if-then-else, but written in a different manner; in the end it comes down to the exact same thing. Traditional computer programs are equivalent to artificial intelligence in terms of what they can achieve, you can write any AI as if-then-else, and it would behave identically.
If-then-else is obviously not intelligence. It’s just parroting. I can give a complete retard a complicated list of instructions to follow, and assuming he makes no mistakes (let’s say for the sake of argument that he does not), he would “appear” to be intelligent in some contexts but he has no idea what the fuck he’s doing and if you take away the fixed program, he remains the same retard as before.
This is exactly what computers and artificial intelligence do. True intelligence requires more than if-then-else and in fact requires something that is undescribable and unquantifiable (as yet, at least).
An analogy would be like the difference between the set of natural numbers and the set of real numbers. Each real number contains vastly more information than any natural number; compare, e.g. a human thought to a dead, bare step in an algorithm, and you have the same thing. We can’t even agree on the definition of words, and that’s because each idea we have is infinitely complicated/detailed and impossible to actually put down to paper.
It doesn’t matter how many sets atheism or theism have. We could be in a universe where there is no God, and this entire discussion would be completely pointless.
The existence of God or of multiple Gods does not depend on belief.
It isn’t more likely for there to be multiple Gods just because there’s more.
You can check this against any example and it’s obviously not true. God or Gods would exist regardless of any artificial probability.
“People who smoke because it feels good, yeah those are the ones who get addicted because you generally need to smoke more to keep feeling good, and at some point, your dopamine system adjusts and starts not giving you dopamine any time you lack nicotine.
But those people are just stupid. Why would someone smoke to feel good? that really doesnt pay off."
I used to smoke because it feels good, now I smoke either because I enjoy the taste (when I smoke cigarillos), or because it’s something I do.
It most certainly doesn’t cause that type of dependence. My dad for instance has been smoking for years and he doesn’t get depressed or feel bad when he doesn’t smoke, he just gets sleepy.
I could go for several days without smoking. It takes years to get really, really dependent on nicotine.
It’s not about being weak. Some people enjoy smoking whereas some don’t.
I enjoy smoking. I smoke around a pack a day.
I barely drink, and when I do, it’s rare that I drink more than one beer.
My cousin used to smoke but he never smoked as much as I do. And he eventually quit because he didn’t like it.
On the flip side he drinks a lot more than I do.
It’s my WoW user name. I picked a random name that sounded Medievalish/Fantasy.
I’ve also used the names Ganelon, Oberon, Grayswandir and Benedict. They’re all taken from the Chronicles of Amber.
