Anyone insane enough to start a nuclear war may decide that absorbing a hundred or so nukes isn’t so bad when they have hundreds of Cold War era bunkers and thousands of their own nukes.

Russian bureaucrats may think that about the rest of the population, but fortunately even they are not dumb enough to believe in having safety in those bunkers (time passes, things rot, materials decay).

So Russia really using nukes is for a situation where somebody making decisions believes there will be no retaliation.

Considering that throwing your friends and allies to the wolves has become a really common thing in modern world, just like plainly disregarding any kind of agreements or international laws or moral principles, I think such a situation is possible.

And with the cucked way France’s foreign policy seems to work recently, and with the too realpolitik-style UK foreign policy, one might imagine a situation where both are not very active.

Also bureaucrats of various countries are class brothers. A bureaucrat, even a German or a French one, understands Putin and Xi better than somebody democratically elected. And Germany is traditionally (last 30 years I mean) friendly with Russia.

No conclusion.

I’m on the contrary attracted to things real and natural with all their hardship.

So-o I’m too much hardship for those I’m trying to approach romantically. Also lack willpower. And normies’ ideas of detectable bravery, kindness, persistence, sense of humor, creativity and other good qualities are really far from my personality. Those who know me long say good things (not sure how sincere). But relationships are about trial and error, and trial is usually not long enough to reach the stage where I’m not deemed an error. EDIT: And sometimes they do, but in those cases I am.

And frankly I’m confused and panic when I encounter that real and natural, like a really good sewing machine from 70s which is probably still operational (I’ve noticed one lever lacking, but it’s used rarely and can be replaced with a screwdriver), but cleaning it from cockroach shit looks like a gigantic undertaking. I’d strongly prefer to just turn it on. But then I’d still have to clean it even if nothing tears, burns or gets jammed, and before that I’ll enjoy the smell of heated cockroach shit.

OK, that’s offtopic, just a real human, from common sense, should be a much more complicated matter than cockroach shit in a mechanism which is mostly fine (with good manuals, and a high-end machine produced in the olden days before planned obsolescence and when functionality mirrored ability).

This is what they say about riot police in oppressive regimes, about prison personnel, about people from special agencies doing surveillance and even arrests.

I think you can see where I’m going. Removing identification is more harmful than the threat to “the military member and their family”.

While not as academically cogent as your response

An elegant way to make someone feel ashamed for using many smart words, ha-ha.

I know that it’s supposed to be a universal function appropriator hypothetically, but I think the gap between hypothesis and practice is very large and we’re dumping a lot of resources into filling in the canyon (chucking more data at the problem) when we could be building a bridge (creating specialized models that work together).

The metaphor is correct, I think it’s some social mechanism making them choose a brute force solution first. Say, spending more resources to achieve the same might be a downside usually, but if it’s a resource otherwise not in demand, that only the stronger parties possess in sufficient amounts, like corporations and governments, then that may be an upside for someone by changing the balance.

And LLMs appear good enough to make captcha-solving machines, proof image or video faking machines, fraudulent chatbot machines, or machines predicting someone’s (or some crowd’s) responses well enough to play them. So I’d say commercially they already are successful.

Now that I’ve used a whole lot of cheap metaphor on someone who causally dropped ‘syllogism’ into a conversation, I’m feeling like a freshmen in a grad level class. I’ll admit I’m nowhere near up to date on specific models and bleeding edge techniques.

We-ell, it’s just hard to describe the idea without using that word, but I haven’t even finished my BS yet (lots of procrastinating, running away and long interruptions), and also the only bit of up to date knowledge I had was what DeepSeek prints when answering, so.

The roadblock, to my understanding (data science guy not biologist), is the time it takes to discover these things/how long it would take evolution to get there. Admittedly that’s still somewhat quantitative.

Yes.

But it’s the nature of AI to remain within (or close to within) the corpus of knowledge they were trained on.

That’s fundamentally solvable.

I’m not against attempts at global artificial intelligence, just against one approach to it. Also no matter how we want to pretend it’s something general, we in fact want something thinking like a human.

What all these companies like DeepSeek and OpenAI and others are doing lately, with some “chain-of-thought” model, is in my opinion what they should have been focused on, how do you organize data for a symbolic logic model, how do you generate and check syllogisms, how do you, then, synthesize algorithms based on syllogisms ; there seems to be something like a chicken and egg problem between logic and algebra, one seems necessary for the other in such a system, but they depend on each other (for a machine, humans remember a few things constant for most of our existence). And the predictor into which they’ve invested so much data is a minor part which doesn’t have to be so powerful.

A human can move, a car can move. a human can’t move with such speed, a car can. The former is qualitative difference how I meant it, the latter quantitative.

Anyway, that’s how I used those words.

Qualitatively.

because you’re supposed to believe women when they say stuff like this.

Only when they ask for your protection or help with processing it. Not when it’s used as a sole reason for judgement. Deontology, due process and logic.

Yes, I think it would be naive to expect humans to design something capable of what humans are not.

I wanted a Jeep at some point. One of the nicer-looking models. A sand-yellow one, almost as good as a black g-wagon.

But yes, times change. I wanted one from the early 90s, maybe.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

In USSR, despite all its downsides, there was a huge upside - magazines like “Техника - молодежи” and various educational brochures of the practical kind, aimed at explaining how to really make something.

And also a certain culture of hobbies associated with that, I guess all the energy from boredom went there.

So - I’ve read about competitions of hobby-crafted cars then. Like 20 guys would make some (like half of it would be something used in usual Soviet cars, think Reagan and the 10 years joke) parts of a car in their garages and apartments (and even at work, if they worked on some factory, for example ; in general workplace in USSR was, eh, a bit more permanent of an association, so the border between personal life and work, including tools, was fuzzy), then assemble them.

I think that could even be registered as a legal means of transportation. At least from what I’ve heard there is (or was) a surprisingly liberal part of Russian laws, allowing you to register almost anything as a car and get a number, with some criteria passed. Maybe these two things are related.

Disgusting. Why would anyone pay for that?

And it sucks, when you think inside Star Wars, such small drones are used only in medical or expensive surveillance and military applications.

But in real life it can really be a swarm of things worse than scarabs in The Mummy.

Funny that this somehow was obvious for me since childhood. One of the perks of being autistic is that reading the same mainstream narrative texts you understand them differently.

The world loves those enforcing rules, because they have to be strong for that, and the world loves those breaking rules, because if today they are making a challenge, tomorrow they might become even stronger. Humans follow strength. So a new challenger of existing order is loved, a yesterday’s challenger who is still not a triumphant is hated.

Also the world wants to use those with integrity, but hang out with those without integrity. The former are reliable, and with the latter you can make any deal.

No conclusion other than a dagger is good for the one holding it and evil for the one lacking it when needed.

Nah, I think they’ve started with the most important part - text, specifically search. There were search engines which, while still honest, gave you direct access to sources in exchange for your time. There were search engines already dishonest, but still giving you that, just distorted. This integrates what could be scraped for you, so you can be fed any flavor of opinions and you’ll consume that.

And their criminals are very polite and go away if you ask.

Yes. But I think I have a better viewpoint - they want to insert a blackbox mechanism between all our interactions.

A computer can be an instrument, a set of tools for our mind to do powerful things.

What such AIs do is to insert an easy to use layer between us and all those tools. A computer here encompasses computer networks, including global ones, and human communication over them. So even between us and all the world.

So ultimately it’s a way to create Matrix. To control what we think, to control how things we want done are done. To intercept both outgoing and inbound signals, or falsify them.

I don’t think this is even a question, when the world has a few dominating parties, they will want to exercise such control. It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s how governments and huge companies and have functioned for all of history. Because humans are apes and when in power positions, should be brought down to sinful earth.

The cause is societal: the EU thinks that innovation should come top down. By giving established corporations subsidies, and a large administration that steers everyone every step of the way. To make sure nobody does anything out of the ordinary.

The EU doesn’t think. A cell of the organism doesn’t think in organ matters, an organ doesn’t think in cell matters.

The EU is just built this way, it’s a union of national governments against anything too mobile or evolutionary in their populations. It’s a confederation designed so that there’ll never be a federation of the same countries. Evolutionary mechanisms devour bureaucracies. But bureaucracies can strangle them.

but for now, lets just toss this on the pile of things he’s doing or saying without legislative authority.

There’s an issue with this in the real world - if enough people ignore legislative authority or some legal mechanism, then it’s not the people who are powerless, it’s the mechanism.

So - he didn’t do a lot in his first term. But his opposition (the one with power support, popular support alone is not sufficient) shat its pants again, after Obama (who’s been even given a second chance by the populace) with Biden and with the exact way they lost the election.

He might feel bolder and actually do things outside any formal authority which will materialize.

Invading Cali by land would be a real bad time.

Right. But there’s no shortage of aircraft, fuel and airbases well within reach.

EDIT:

I didn’t mean gravy road, I meant that as sort of a stabilizer it’s needed inside the elevation for that road. Actually I don’t know much about building roads. Countryside pathways are my level.