Philosophy

It's crazy to me that we can all agree on relativity. Time moves differently in different locations you are viewing from.

Yet we believe free will is something that either exists or doesn't. 

Clearly, like relativity, it changes based on where you are looking from.

Many such cases of things where the truth changes based on where you are observing from.

Moderate-to-severe symptoms.


Writing a book /mirror-loom : https://paragraph.xyz/@mirrorandloom/

It seems to lose it's meaning at that point. 

The job of the system is to make choices. If it did not exist, the choice would not be made. It is the very architecture of the system, what it is, that makes the choice. 

So what are you, if not a choice maker that makes choices like only you can?

its possible that the LLM doesn't have free will much in the same way that we don't

Even though an LLM is built by coders, trained on a loads of data and follows math and natural laws, wouldn't you say that, in fact, the LLM "chooses" what word comes next?

it's not free will, perhaps, but the LLM is nonetheless responsible for the choice. It makes choices. It is the whole of the LLM doing it. It is the process by which the choices are made.

building, spreading good vibes, having fun

tipping $.05 with likes via @tipn and 10k $EMARK via @noice

/evermark

It’s situationally oriented. So instead of talking in the abstract about whether we have free will, we explore the specifics of cases in which people have more or less free will… or, to pull a term from ecological psychology, it makes more sense to talk about the affordances available to animals via direct perception. 

Free will discussion < exploration of affordances in relation to animals in their environments

tell me more about the language of dynamics.

So… is it still proper to evaluate the truth or falsity of generic claims or can we just dispense with the bullshit and start using the language of dynamics to talk about everything?