• 3.22K Posts
  • 494 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: December 11th, 2024

help-circle

  • The joke is that the user is asked for their mother’s maiden name, and they think it’s a website/application on the laptop. However, it’s actually the laptop itself that’s asking. The laptop then starts romancing the user’s mother, telling the user that their mother’s maiden name won’t remain that for long, presumably because the laptop plans on marrying the mother.

    As @agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works points out, that’s not actually how maiden names work though. Your maiden name stays the same before and after marriage, it’s your last name that changes.

    I think the joke would’ve worked better if the user responded “She doesn’t have one” and the laptop replied “She will soon!!” or something like that.



























  • I think it’s also a little thrown off by the phrasing. “That’s my last day in this second-rate lab!” is kind of a setup for a punchline where they don’t get to advance and are stuck in the same lab, but that doesn’t seem to be the joke here. It would probably work better with the second panel first, and then an “Earlier” narrative box, and just “Behold! An instant sex change pill!”



  • I think we generally agree with each other. The existence of an omniscient AI or deity doesn’t change the “experience” of free will. It doesn’t “invalidate choice” from the point of view of the observed. It does “invalidate choice” from the point of view of the observer, who can now say “This thing exhibits no unpredictable behavior to me”. You and I both think we have free will, because we can’t predict our own behavior. Our experience is unchanged, whether or not some other observer exists or could exist that could predict our behavior.

    Agreeing on a frame of reference is exactly my point. “Does something have free will?” requires the follow-up question, “According to whom?”. Just like “I’m far from that rock” requires the followup question, “According to whom?”. The ant might think you’re far from the rock, something else might think you’re near the rock.

    To boil it down a bit more, my point is just that you can always replace the phrase “free will” in speech with “unpredictable behavior” without loss of meaning, because that is what people actually mean when they say it, whether they realize that or not.




  • Free will is incompatible with omniscience. People really want it to work, but it doesn’t.

    Free will is observer-dependent, and is short for “I can’t predict the behavior of this thing”. For an omniscient observer, there is no thing that it can say that about.

    Free will is not an inherent property of a thing, and that’s what trips people up so much.

    To ponder it a bit, does a rock have free will? A dog? A human? A super-intelligent AI that we can’t hope to comprehend? Why or why not for each step?

    The definition above explains it all. Of course a rock doesn’t, we can predict its behavior with physics! Maybe a monkey does, people disagree on that. Of course human do though, because I do!

    Now ponder what the super-intelligent AI would think. “Of course the first three don’t have free will, their behavior is entirely predictable with physics”