Pinned Tweet
I finally created a substack (PsiPhiPi) and wrote an intro talking about my favorite things (link below). So, subscribe or whatever
I'm so glad I don't care about these debates anymore. It's a relief to just accept the mytho-history genre of the creation account(s) of Genesis and not have to worry about this stuff at all
Genesis 1's description of creation day 4 does NOT say God created the stars during the 4th creation day. Rather, it states God made the stars at unspecified times and that they became visible to creatures on Earth's surface for the first time on creation day 4. That's when Earth's atmosphere became transparent. See reasons.org/christianity/bib…
Questions like "how could plants survive from Day 3 to Day 4 without the sun being created yet?" and "how is the order of creation compatible with the big bang + evolution" are so far away from the point of the narrative I bet it would simply confuse the original author/audience
"The balance of theory and evidence strongly suggests that, no matter how intelligent it is, silicon-based AI is unlikely to be or become conscious. The default position of the research community should therefore be that AI is not conscious and should not be treated as such."
Some helpful, needed, and well-substantiated pushback on the computational functionalism assumed by so many
nature.com/articles/d41586-0…
Although I still think it's good for yourself to not be a jerk to AI models, and at some point risk-based arguments might have more bite than now
I didn't realize this wasn't open access, so here is a pdf! drive.google.com/file/d/1PYK…
I'm very surprised by this. Why would people prefer an LLM over YouTube?
Glancing at the comments/quotes, it looks like a number of people are quite cozy with an LLM?
Time for me to figure out if it's surprising that the laws of nature are paired with initial conditions in a way that successfully results in temporal evolution
Some of you guys gotta try this whole Patch-o-grass thing youtube.com/watch?v=Fx7eZItF…











