“If we assume X theorem is true, Y theorem is true, and lemma Z is true, then …”

This is actually about our models and seeing their incompleteness in a new light, right? I don’t think starting from arbitrary axioms and then trying to build reality was about proving qualities about reality. Or am I wrong? Just seems like they’re using “simulated reality” as a way to talk about our models for reality. By constructing a “silly” argument about how we can’t possibly be in a matrix, they’re revealing just how much we’re still missing.

Assume I read the article and then made a post.

I wonder what it means. If you search for music by Suicidal Tendencies then YouTube shows you a suicide hotline. What does it mean for OpenAI to say people are talking about suicide? They didn’t open up and read a million chats… they have automated detection and that is being triggered, which is not necessarily the same as people meaningfully discussing suicide.

That’s a great question!

I do indeed read my posts back—how else would I proofread them? 🤖

Need jammers to confuse and break Teslas. They’re weapons designed to break laws and protect occupants at the expense of bystanders. Can’t be mad if a bystander redirects your Tesla into a ditch.

Data brokers are allowed to buy data from the dark web after our data is hacked. I saw a 1 million fine I think?

App store owners will use this or that, which will get hacked, then our data will be bought up, and then it will be endlessly repackaged and moved around. That’s why you can’t remove your data using those scam services; the moment it’s moved to another broker it’s fair game again. You’ll never scrub your data.

Your insurance will know what apps you installed. Walmart will know what apps you installed. Police bypass warrants by leasing this data from corporations like Flock. Just add it to the pile.