Comments by "Taxtro" (@MrCmon113) on "Kyle Hill" channel.

  1. ??? Yes you do know as you just pointed out. And two civilizations arising exactly at the same time is even less likely than one arising alone and late.
    21
  2. There is plenty of more important stuff to store in your arms. And If I wanted a weapon, I'd install a gun in my arm instead.
    17
  3. What I find sad is that they apparently hadn't heard of radiactive materials. And then they learned it in the worst way.
    15
  4. No. That's precisely what inspired the discussion. That there was more than enough time for civilizations to settle the galaxy.
    9
  5. Most things that glow in the dark are harmless. When you don't know why it glows, then you should stay away.
    7
  6. They got stolen from and they should go to jail for it?! What kind of horrible proposal is that? If I break into your house and stab myself with your knife should I go to jail? Those people died from their own catastrophic ignorance and stupidity.
    4
  7. How tf does it look harmless? It glows.
    4
  8.  @babydriver8134  I'll see you in hell where your god will put you, because you failed to kill any gays.
    4
  9. Way to miss the point entirely.
    3
  10. This really has nothing to do with programming languages. You should read whatever you can get into your hands about learning theory, statistics, causal inference, cognitive science, etc. If you already have a decent grasp on linear algebra, multi-dimensional calculus and machine learning basics, you may want to play around with pytorch to gain experience with deep learning. If I really wanted to contribute to AGI, I'd aim at doing a masters at some place where there is active research into reinforcement learning or NLP.
    3
  11. I have never heard of a bobcat attacking a person. Let alone killing them. Are you sure you're talking about the small cat with short tail and funky ears?
    2
  12. The god of Christianity / Islam tortures people out of sadism not to change their behavior, so that's quite different.
    2
  13.  @mr_noob5931  That depends on how you look at causes and religion is intertwined with all concerns. A kingdom might attack another to get slaves. But obtaining slaves might be commanded by their faith. Or they might require slaves for something their faith commands. Or they might only be able to justify the attack in light of the others being unbelievers etc. So even the distinction between material concerns and religious ones are hard to draw. Similarly religious rivalries play out as conflicts over resources, like all conflicts do.
    2
  14.  @innocenttroll0  Turning an algorithm into code is no problem (when it's well defined). Researchers write their own programs - so if you want to contribute, I guess you have to become a researcher.
    2
  15. If they had been curious, they would have known about radioactive materials. This was one year after Chernobyl. More like a lack of curiosity killed the cat.
    1
  16.  @ZarniwoopIII  While I agree that they are more ignorant than stupid, this was one year after Chernobyl and they had facilities using nuclear material. They weren't savages living on some remote island.
    1
  17. A trillion lions won't make much of a difference, but the sun will die a tiny little bit sooner with the additional mass.
    1
  18. Lol, or maybe it's the currents?
    1
  19. That's not plausible at all. That makes the question of why we don't see any signs of civilizations far worse.
    1
  20. The pictures of the wounds don't tell me anything. I'm not an expert in medicine. Just telling me that a large wound refused to heal is way more harrowing than the pictures.
    1
  21. It's still impossible. Is it possible for Hitler to be an elephant violinist? No. But it's describable in general relativity.
    1
  22.  @mrknarf4438  Yeah because they're ignorant and too stupid to distinguish between a plausible causal connection and sth absurd. Superstition is exactly what makes tragedies like this one happen.
    1
  23.  @kiki-drawer2669  Do you have even one example of something going "south" with a bobcat? I'm also extremely tired of the "wild animal" nonsense. Dogs are highly unpredictable and dangerous as far as animals their size go. They're probably dangerous precisely because they aren't wild and are therefore much more potentially aggressive. Same thing goes with lots of other domesticated animals that are much less shy or cautious than their wild counterparts.
    1
  24. ​ @SuperM1206 Your beliefs make no sense. Either you lose so much buoyancy that you can walk on the floor or you swim. You can't have it both ways.
    1
  25. ​ @noonie6872 They obviously do NOT have expertise, since they all claim that you sink in bubbly water when the opposite is the case.
    1
  26. ​ @ChrisVillagomez And you guys think a conventional bomb is fun to be hit by?
    1
  27. ​ @mg7990 Japan made war specifically to enslave civilians. They didn't target US civilians at pearl harbour, the murdered Asian civilians at every opportunity. The USA should have continued giving them oil? Are you out of your mind?
    1
  28. God presumably already exists and he tortures people, not to change people's behavior, but out of sadism.
    1
  29. The problem with this argument is that it disregards time/ causality. Once things are said and done it doesn't make any difference whatsoever to torture you.
    1
  30. It's not about clarity, it's about the absence of techno signatures as a whole.
    1
  31. Firstly, "filters" is what leads to us being first. Secondly, that's simply wrong: there's plenty of solar systems just like ours but billions of years younger.
    1
  32. Once in a while those little experiments actually serve a purpose.
    1
  33. They always operate as a swarm, why would that change? Also I think the typical scenario contemplated is someone intentionally building them like that.
    1
  34. You didn't watch the video.
    1
  35. It was their fault as much as his. The entire group was dumb as shit, so he shouldn't feel bad about it.
    1
  36.  @Salsmachev  Exploiters? Wtf are you talking about? The cesium was even guarded and the thieves had to circumvent the guards. And no. They are not responsible. The people giving radioactive material to a child are responsible. People like you, who endlessly make up excuses for catastrophic ignorance are part of the problem.
    1
  37. It's frustrating to hear you blame the victims of theft for what a bunch of ignorant morons did with what they've stolen. If I break into your house and stab myself with your knife, should you be blamed for that? The cesium was contained. It was even guarded. But the thieves got in anyways.
    1
  38.  @JeantheSecond  Lol. We can put endless laws on anything with that mindset. At what point do you allow a dumbass to kill themselves? No more cars? No more knives? Useful stuff tends to also be dangerous.
    1
  39. ​ @JeantheSecond  Answer his question. Should you be held liable for leaving a knife in your locked up house? From all you have written so far, you should be.
    1
  40. Those signs do the opposite. An abundance of false warnings means that actually dangerous situations can't be recognized.
    1
  41. Those three arguments really have completely different problems. With Pascal's Wager I cannot tell what it is, but the conclusions are clearly absurd. Rocko's Basilisk can't change the past and doesn't have a reason to actually torture anyone once it exists. And the Ontological Argument seems to be about defining something and then assuming that at least one thing fulfills that definition. The modal Ontological Argument is somewhat finer, but seems to have this same core issue. Similarly to Pascal's Wager the modal argument also obviously leads to absurd conclusions.
    1
  42.  @themodernwizard7295  What do you mean with "the assumption in the Ontological Argument"? The Wager doesn't assume anything but ordinary reasoning about actions. You take the expected reward of one action and compare it to the expected reward of the alternatives. So when confronted with an infinite reward, you should always take the action that is associated with it, no matter how small the likelihood you associate with it. Some strangers says that if you kill your son, you both will experience infinite bliss in the afterlife. Of course you don't believe it, but how small is the probability associated with that claim? Infinity times anything is infinity. Pascal's Wager essentially forces you to associate a zero probability to proposals. Or to choose actions in a different way.
    1
  43.  @themodernwizard7295  What do you mean with "The Wager doesn't work with a zero probability"? My point was that assuming a zero probability for certain claims is one of the things that you might do to escape the absurd conclusions. All of this stuff about Christianity is a red herring and that "reason can't decide" is, too. The thought experiment is much stronger than that. Even if you only give a 10^-1000 chance to the claim, you must still do the action it prescribes. And I also said "action" on purpose, because you don't choose what you believe. The belief part is completely irrelevant. Moreover the downside of the action can be arbitrarily large. I have given thought to this. And I'm not sure where the problem is. Perhaps comparing expected rewards itself is somehow wrong. EDIT: I've just noticed that you actually believe in a God. Pascal's Wager can be used to argue for anything and its opposite. It is obviously wrong. The interesting part is to find out how it is wrong.
    1
  44. ​That's total horseshit. Currents and hot coffee are actually dangerous, bubbles aren't. Warning against something that's not dangerous is in itself dangerous.
    1
  45.  @yungjoemighty879  It's 100% the fault of the adults, who spread around the cesium. Your attitude is absolutely horrible. If I break into your house, steal your washing soda and drink it, are you responsible for what happens to me? The stuff was even guarded, they just circumvented the guards.
    1
  46. Completely different thing.
    1
  47. No, there is really no relation between the two. Also it's Anselm's Ontological Argument, not "Ansylum's Ontology".
    1
  48. It only takes a short time to colonize every solar system in a galaxy. There's no way to hide next to a star. So the best bet is to spread as quickly as possible. I don't think "dark forest" scenarios are realistic.
    1
  49. You're simply parroting the myth under a video debunking it.
    1
  50. No. I can, for example, lobby against pizza hawai. I can dedicate my entire life to fighting pizza hawai. When pizza hawai still exists after I'm dead, you can still tell that I was against it.
    1