Removed by mod

It’s not any of that, and Americans don’t get to have opinions on slurs, for obvious reasons.

Both negative (when bell, I will hit you) and positive reinforcement (when bell, I will give food) are associated with Pavlov’s dog experiments (for shockingly obvious reasons).

For PTSD and other traumatic things, this is an example of negative reinforcement; something bad happened and something neutral happened, now they are associated forever in the victim’s mind. i.e.

Soldiers seeing their friends get blown up while in a humvee and associating any music playing or the humvee engine sound with that scene.

When you have a ‘Pavlovian response’ it is a stimulus (bell) that makes your mind consciously or unconsciously remember the reward/punishment (food) that happened at the same time; causing an involuntary response (hunger/salivation in the original experiment).

Bell. Dog. Food.

When bell, food.

Dog eat food.

When bell, give dog food.

Food when bell.

Dog learn food when bell.

When bell, dog expects food, because dog get food when bell before.

As you can surmise references to this phenomena are likening whatever action to the ringing of the bell, which makes the subject expect an action that has been previously associated with the bell, allowing for effective training. The Dog does not know why it expects food when the bell rings, just that when the bell rings it gets hungry and expects food to be there.

Here’s an instance agnostic link: Patientgamers

So generally you got three things happening that give the illusion it happens way more than it really does. Choctaw/Chinese/White mix btw. Yes that order is weird.

Anyway:

1. White Americans want an identity, and the one they’re born with is broken. The US education system really, really fails to define ‘White’ in any way that makes sense, because as an identity it doesn’t make sense unless you’re racist. Most white Americans actually do understand this, and either embrace it while secretly denying it, or do anything possible to deny they were the ‘bad whites’ and that just happens to be their skin colour and then overcorrect and cling onto any identity they can find in their family history which brings us to:

2. They probably are mixed somewhere around 1850-1920. Statistically they are. Lots of what are now white people mixed with brown skinned people during this time. During this time period Natives that were ‘integrated’ into society had their identity stolen and they were rebranded as either ‘mulatto,’ ‘the old word for black,’ or ‘Mexican/Latin (if they were in a real fancy area.)’ During this time in American history many “white” ethnicities were not considered white, most famously Irish and Italians were lumped in with the ‘slur for black people,’ which included pretty much all natives at that time that weren’t backstabbing their brothers and sisters by sucking up to the whites (not naming tribes but some tribes did end up better than others for some mysterious reason). So guess what happens when a bunch of disparate communities get together? They mix. The mixing was also encouraged by every single christian group in order to help ‘mellow out’ the native influence (i.e. actual cultural genocide to the survivors of the big genocide). It was also encouraged by a minority of natives themselves, i.e. if you mix with a white person you get their money/protection/you won’t be as subject to violence. This was ultimately wrong as an idea and was never a majority view… but it happened.

also rape and forced marriage if they are white but not italian or irish. Statistically that’s a thing, especially if they’re more than 1/128 and over 30.

That also brings us to:

3. Being native after the 1980s is a good thing, actually. You get a lot of federally guaranteed things, on tribal land at least. For example the only group besides congress which gets free healthcare* are native Americans. You’re also seen as ‘more legitimate’ of an American for some ancestor of yours being here longer, and you generally have a better sense of community and belonging once you’re confirmed into a tribe (which can range from actual DNA tests to just finding your ancestor and proving you’re related).

For white people that don’t care that much and don’t want to go through that trouble but want to belong to the native group for clout, just saying they’re related gives them that feel good ‘I’m a real american, I’m special and not just white, I can’t be the bad white because my alleged ancestor suffered.’

To really narrow down the problem, the white identity sucks for obvious reasons unless you want to go full racist. The American identity sucks if you’re white skinned, because of the whole genocide thing, also it’s too new, too cosmopolitan, and not real to most other people. And most white americans have no cultural basis from their immigrant past because either they had to integrate to survive, it’s shameful, or they come from the whites that hated the countries they were from (i.e. the English whites.)

This leads to any attempt to latch onto something they’re missing at their core, mainly due to the natural alienation that comes for everyone under capitalism, but especially in a cosmopolitan nation built to integrate everyone under a constructed identity.

In states and countries with porn ‘bans’ (which is increasingly becoming all of them) sites following the law require ID age check.

The only genocide I’m interested in is gradual cultural genocide by consensually breeding with people that have objectively bad cultures and creating a communist harem to generate the next several generations of freedom fighters against real genocide.

It’s impossible to ‘hurt the climate’ using non-ancient non-sequestered sources.

Reread try again. I’m not commenting on animal agriculture; and rice fields are the least problematic mass produced crop for biodiversity given they act as wetlands and use no chemical pesticides or herbicides.

If more vegans used a rice based diet instead of corn, potatoes, lentils, or chickpeas we’d actually have fewer animal deaths given the ridiculous amount of pesticides needed for monocultures of those plants.

We can do it to living people (Gene Therapy is just editing DNA using an inert virus to deliver the payload and modify gene expressions), and there is a very good chance CRISPR allows it for in utero cells.

If we had zero ethical boards, we’d be at the active experimentation stage to discover what each nucleotide pair precisely does which would involve growing humans directly.

That being said we are doing things that are close to it. For example look up the term organoid. Then Brain organoid. Then realize pretty much every university is growing unique but stunted human brains and experimenting on them; and then realize these organoids dream. Anyway that existential horror aside, this also extends to almost every organ in the human body. We’re essentially brute forcing gene expression discovery at the individual component level; if we were to scale that up to a full human (or get much, much faster computers so we could simulate it) we’d have the totality of DNA fully understood.

From there it’s trivial to combine our current tech that allows free form editing of DNA with exactly what we would need to change.

Only superficially. It’s really hard to tell what percentage of our DNA is actually useful, or could be useful under conditions we haven’t seen, or is actually a part of any given variation. What we do know, of the number of DNA combinations we have seen if we play out each possible version of those variations there’s around 4^2000 variations. Or in other words If a billion people were born every day since the start of the universe, there would not be a single duplicate person. And this is the extreme low end estimate based on limited data sets that generally don’t even include people of every major region, much less interesting micro-populations that have been breeding in isolation for a thousand years or more.

Now lets assume we remove all causes of congenital blindness. Generally speaking the number of genes making up most identified causes are less than 20 total. That would (simplified, yell at me later math nerds) knock that number down to around 4^1995.

That would still be more viable combinations than we could possibly run through from now until the heat death of the universe, assuming current population growth rates which we’ll have until we invent birthing pods.

In other words we’ll probably be fine, but if we need to, and it’s allowed to be researched more, we could just simply artifically introduce safe variation. i.e. people giving birth to people they aren’t genetically related to anymore.

We’re talking about the Earth, not some fictional hellscape of drop bears, made up plants like Eucalyptus, and giant flamethrower wielding spiders.

Substantial is severely overstated as any crop you would replace rice with where rice is grown in water would objectively destroy all local water cycles if not the entire local ecosystem. That would have a much greater impact on climate change than if rice accounted for 100% of all calories eaten globally.

A) Rice paddies are generally in wetlands and swamps, protecting these areas, any other grain you would grow here would destroy that wetland biome. Corn especially would essentially render the entire area sterile because

B) Domesticated rice grown in water does not use any pesticides or herbicides whatsoever. There’s no need for it. Occasionally, in specific areas, you’ll need scare crows, frequent human activity, or crabs/ducks depending on the exact pest you’re getting rid of, but you don’t need glyphosate. This has massive knock on effects for climate, fewer herbicides and pesticides means more carbon being sequestered. Fewer herbicides and pesticides in water means more microorganisms turning CO2 back into oxygen and sequestering the carbon in tasty tasty microscopic corpses. Which brings us to

C) Methane and the GHG cycle: While methane is a much more effective greenhouse gas than CO2, it also has practically no shelf life in the atmosphere. It is a natural part of the GHG cycle and even if all grains everywhere were converted to rice, we could not generate enough methane to effect the climate. It would decay to hydrogen within ten years in the upper atmosphere (versus 50 or more for CO2) but more importantly every single type of forest sequesters it more efficiently than CO2. Saying a natural source of CH4 that is easily accounted for by growing it upwind of a forest, like it almost always is, is a serious driver of climate change or even a risk for it is silly doomerism.

The truth is climate change is 100% a matter of fossil fuels. If we stop using fossil fuels, we will immediately stall climate change. Nothing else we can realistically do except burning fossil fuels will cause climate change, and even if we go full net zero on every other thing we do, without stopping fossil fuels, we will not make any progress whatsoever. Even if we used 100% ethanol fuel in ICE vehicles, we would stop climate change. Because we would not be introducing ancient sequestered energy back into the system, we would be taking energy from the system one year, and putting it back in the next.

Rice is the same. All methane renewed by growing rice will be sequestered or decayed in less time than it will take for properly dried and stored rice to decay, and none of whats generated would effect the total amount of methane circulating in the system.

We’d have to define the end goal clearly enough for it to be feasible. Is it possible for a machine to do every -action- a human is likely to do, as an imitation? Sure. We’re pretty close to that now.

Can we define consciousness or intelligence in a way that does not eliminate free will, so that we can build a machine that has either? That’s a much harder ask. Free will is the opposite of a deterministic universe, and if we’re in a deterministic universe then absolutely a machine can be made as good or better than a human, but we won’t have free will so whether or not we ever make that then depends on the starting conditions of the universe.

If we do have free will the question then becomes what gives us free will and can we recreate what gives us free will so we may impart it on others.

It’s just as likely any GAN, of which LLMs are largely a subset, which does cover nearly the entirety of what current ‘AI’ is, to develop into True AI as any given duck suddenly generating a metal xenon egg.

While certainly far be it from me to be the arbiter of what consciousness or even a replacement-level intelligence is, simple ‘neural’ networks and generative adversarial networks aren’t ever going to be more than simple machines. They’re great at generating chaos and deciding what is or isn’t close to what is not chaos, by the very narrow definitions that they are given, and with enough of them stacked I’m sure you can trick someone into believing they’re alive; but that’s still a far cry from being equivocal intelligence, or any kind of intelligence.

LLMs have as much chance of magically transforming into True AI as frogs have of transforming into the Bagger 288.

Well see here little buddy, back in the 1980s you’d get this little cardboard circle with a variety of characters on it, and there was this whole game around building a tower and knocking these circles off the tower, but no one played the game. Hell most people refuse to believe a game with them existed. They were going to be the next big collectible before Pokemon brought back trading cards and beanie babies took over for anyone that didn’t like cards.

Some pogs were also metal. For some reason.

Years later a weird asian man made a face and coincidentally got pog brought in the the common vernacular, but that’s a different pog entirely, a pretender to the throne. Every day I lament that that asian man made that silly face, if only because it has obscured to the true nature of the pog.

Pre-birth DNA editing to ensure a healthy and ideal child.

Eugenics is awful. It’s horrible. There is no question and there’s a million historical and fictional deep dives one can do to objectively prove that it is against any form of morality you could possibly come up with.

But, improving the human experience, ensuring no one is born with a disability, ensuring that everyone has the best possible chance to enjoy and experience life would be amazing. If society could get its collective shit together we could in fact make sure that every person gets the best possible experience of our species. We could pretty much entirely eliminate childhood cancers. We could make super heroes (relative to unmodified humans). We could eliminate genetic defects that have plagued families and entire populations since pre-history.

And I replied telling you you were wrong.

Rice is one of the most environmentally friendly carb sources, and in its native environments is an essential plant. Corn takes up more space and the production and refining creates more CO2 than rice. Potatoes are much more vulnerable to rot and much more likely to fail, not to mention the much higher fertilizer requirements.

Climate change is not one thing. Methane isn’t the enemy. Hell CO2 isn’t the enemy. It is taking out things out of balance. If we were to eliminate rice and just grow corn, yes, we’d drop 10% of methane production… except we wouldn’t because corn requires 5x the fertilizer and fertilizer production is a larger contributor to GHG emissions than aviation and shipping.

Corn is also horribly space inefficient outside the US. Not just outside the Americas, but outside specifically the midwest in the US. Despite it now being attempted to be grown on every continent there is no place on Earth besides the US and Canada that corn becomes more productive per hectacre than rice. It simply cannot replace rice, which is more productive on every single other continent.

So that’s 5x the fertilizer, at least 1.5x the space (up to 3x the space) which then logarithmically increase the amount of CO2 produced for transportation and production, all while destroying native ecosystems (or at least ecosystems that have adapted to rice farming over the last few thousand years), oh and we can’t forget water management systems would need to change drastically so add 50 years of construction to any CO2 calcs.

‘Methane bad’ is true, sure, but we can’t look at one single source, which provides HALF OF ALL CALORIES CONSUMED BY HUMANS, and say that’s a thing that needs to switch. If we replaced corn with rice tomorrow the world would have a net negative GHG production from where we started. The same is not true in reverse, despite rice causing a minor amount of separate methane production.