In my wife’s case, it’s mental and not physical. She doesn’t like being choked. She likes the feeling of my hand around her neck. It’s like a domination kind of thing, or something. In similar vein, she likes being called a good girl.
There is no oxygen deprivation going on.
My wife likes when I grab her neck. I am an introverted duck kind of guy, okay? Not your ”Im gonna choke you while I fuck you” kind of guy.
While learning how to do this appropriately, I had squeezed too hard once and killed the mood. 🤷♂️
It’s more of a grab, firm hand… not really choke.
It’s actually more like if you kept taking everyone’s hand, drawing an outline around it on paper, all sharing the same paper… ignore the fact that the paper will get filled in after enough samples. In theory, you’ll eventually have an outline which has every human hand factored in. You may call it whatever you want; it’s basically a super robust model of hands.
Now imagine that you can interact with the drawing. You can “pull out” a hand, any hand of your choosing. In fact, it doesn’t even need to have come from the same hand because it’s all measured using the same intersecting graphite lines. The model is so vast, full of hands, that it can generalize the patterns which make hands. So you can “pull out” a short-fingered fat-palmed hand, even if all sampled hands either had fat-palms or short-fingers.
Our hand model isn’t a compression of all hands.
Its more like if you were mining for gold… you’ve got to rinse out all the dirt from the mined substrate. In the case of our hand model, “dirt” is anything which isn’t mathmatically necessary for a hand. Maybe it’s the mistakes which occurred during tracing, or a boil on someone’s thumb… all of that gets blurred out by the much grander similarities from the totality of the sampled set. It’s those similarities in particular which we want to isolate. Call it the “formula of the hand,” determined via the most rigorous way one could: collecting every single simularity from every single example, isolating those simularities, then using the result as a function.
AI models do this with our language.
Those cucks get the title, vibe cucker.
If he’s a vegetable like the GOP McWhatever guy, we should force precedent that he’s still the acting president until death. No Vance. Just Vegetable In Chief.
Vibe coders at least check the work (behavior, not code) and iterate.
I think cuck coding has a place here. It describes a lower bar, one which I didn’t consider. You don’t read, you don’t iterate… you just fucking trust it.
The equivalence of vibe coding with cucking would be like sampling your wife for her arousal levels to further instruct the bull.
I guess that would also mean… using AI to actually develop is like engineering bull dick.
To be honest with you, I had to google the right word. No idea what ramshackle meant before that comment. I also probably smoke a little too much.
Hold on, I just smoked and I’m probably missing something blatantly obvious. If so, I apologize for polluting your visual and prefrontal experience with my blasphemy or otherwise uncultured vomit of ramshackle word salad topped with cheap vape oil.
Meanwhile the study only goes as far as to say the dementia risk remains reduced even in people with an already high vegetable intake.
If vegetables have x% reduction quality while mushrooms have y%, and we know x<y, then shouldn’t it make sense that the addition of mushroom into a high vegetable diet at most/least stands to produce a benefit of the delta (d, where d=y-x). The person with the vegetable diet could theoretically (after introducing mushrooms) experience a change of d, from x to y.
If that holds, they did experience a a reduction of value d.
Presumably, if we question whether it stacks, we don’t know the target (t, where y <= t <= x+y).
But did you see any reason to question whether it stacks?
Alternatively, have I just shit the bed?
The algorithm is dog ass. YouTube is still full of plenty smart people with something to say, though. It’s a video sharing platform; that doesn’t inherently mean every content creator who uses it is also dog ass.
In one sense you’re not wrong at all.
Playing devils advocate here… because, in another sense, 100,000x slower isn’t really all that slow if you’re distributed amongst a network with 100,000,000 more units. Imagine agile on steroids.
It’s impractical, yet impractical doesn’t mean impossible. It can happen if environmental pressures make it so.
Another important thing to keep in mind is that agents don’t really have patience, which counterintuitively means it’s like they’re infinitely patient. If such a thing did exist, regardless of speed, it sounds like it would be an issue at some point down the road.
Thirdly, if such a thing did exist, wouldn’t this be like treating with antibiotics? If you stop all but the sneakiest, you’ll have created a stronger generation.
Lastly, I swear to fucking god… I keep seeing weirdly relatable shit news from these AI companies almost immediately after I post hypothetical thought experiments on stuff… like all the time. I have a post describing this hypothetical from a week ago on another platform.
This keeps happening and I’m justifying it by thinking, I’m probably way too plugged into this shit news. My brain is unknowingly predicting their next move, because it’s the next logical piece of shit thing for a shit AI company to do? That’s the reasonable explaination — right? Really trying not to believe their training loop is so fast, and I just happen to come up with stories that catch their eye. That would be wild to believe — right?
Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/agi/s/gbXn14KSYI
There you have it. I made that post 4 days ago, meanwhile the post OP linked is 9 hours old.
I was just thinking to myself about a week ago how weird it is, that this keeps happening. I almost commented about it on another thread; I backspaced my text thinking, ”nooo, I sound crazy.” Well here I am a week later finding myself, yet again, experiencing this weird fucking phenomenon.
Not saying you’re wrong, but we gotta keep the blame on the people doing evil shit. Blaming the people who use their services [for not going outside] doesn’t go anywhere. The services are too frictionless to use, while not using them can often times feel like swimming upstream. The result is statistical: people will use it; a lot of people will use it.
The other day I needed to get home and my phone was nearly dead. Uber, out of the blue, required my ID in order to request a ride. Wasn’t happening…
My only other alternative was an 8 hour walk in the middle of a work night, or download Lyft. I wasn’t sure if I’d be able to before my phone died, so I contemplated my choices… it wasn’t hard to see how many people would just upload their ID.
I decided I’d buy a charger at a gas station if need be, find somewhere to use it… luckily I got the Lyft ordered before the phone died.
There’s also ignorance. Kids can be ignorant regarding their privacy; should we let our capitalist society punish them for it? How about the mentally disabled?
I think it’s better that we hold the issue to the people who create it, rather than act like we can just walk away from it. Some people can’t just walk away, which could be you one day.