howrar

I see no indication that they missed the sarcasm.

I also think it's lame

The "also" meaning that they believe you also think it's lame.

Edit: Oh, I just realized the post-war suburbs are the walkable ones. That makes more sense.

To me that means an autonomous being that understands what it is.

A little thought experiment: How would you determine whether another human being understands what it is? What would that look like in a machine?

As far as I'm concerned, "intelligence" in the context of AI basically just means the ability to do things that we consider to be difficult. It's both very hand-wavy and a constantly moving goalpost. So a hypothetical pacman ghost is intelligent before we've figured out how to do it. After it's been figured out and implemented, it ceases to be intelligent but we continue to call it intelligent for historical reasons.

There's really no need for a specialized app. My partner and I would just message each other with "pee" or "poop" for diaper changes and the quantity of milk when feeding. Messages are automatically time-stamped.

Fair take. I never considered AI to be "true intelligence", but maybe that should be attributed to the vagueness of the term "intelligence".

The "artificial" in AI appears to be losing its meaning the same way that "literally" is losing its original meaning.

I would just like to take this opportunity to plug a RL community I started: !reinforcement_learning@lemmy.ca

I haven't been posting very much because I don't know what others are interested in seeing, so it'd be nice to hear if anyone has input on that. The field is so big and everything within it is so niche that it feels like anything that's interesting to me would basically only be interesting to me and probably also end up doxing me.

An interesting study I recall from my neuroscience classes is that we "decide" on what to do (or in this case, what to say) slightly before we're aware of the decision, and then our brain comes up with a story about why we made that decision so that it feels like we have agency.

There's no generally accepted answer. That's the point.

I guess I can't really contest it if you say a cup of olive oil would keep you full. That's not something I'm willing to try for myself. I'm curious about this butter trick you mention though. I can't find anything about it.

Consider a steak, which is just fat and protein… it starts delicious and wonderful, but quite rapidly it loses its luster and by the end eating the last few pieces can be quite a chore… this is how all food should be, and it can be, in the absence of carbohydrates.

My stomach capacity for a good steak or plain rice is approximately the same for both as measured by Calorie content. Though, combing both does allow me to eat more in total, so I guess maybe that's what you're trying to say. In any case, I'm not saying you're wrong on this point. My criticism was about your comment consisting of a bunch of disjoint statements under the guise of being supporting sentences.

There is truth in that protein has an important role in hunger signaling, but it's not being well supported by the other claims you're making.

over-eating fat or protein is very difficult - the body will simply be full

Fats are very easy to overeat though. I can chug a cup of olive oil in less than a minute and instantly meet my daily energy expenditure. I've never tried this myself because I would miss out on a lot of other nutrients, but I imagine I would be hungry again pretty soon afterwards.

With carbs, that drive blood glucose, and that drive insulin, eating anything will be used for anabolism (that is what insulin does)

Your body does a lot more with its energy than building new molecules. For example, ATP powers the movement of your muscles. So you could either consider ATP synthesis as anabolism, making this claim a non-sequitur (i.e. how does saying "carbs can be used to move muscle" support the claim of "low carbs will help you lose fat"?), or it's not anabolism, in which case you're just plain wrong.

Sadly calories are a useful lie, but not actually how the body works. Calories are how much energy is released in a tiny oven. The human body does not necessarily use everything that has a calorie attached to it.

No, we don't use everything. But it is a useful way of measuring what we do use for the purposes of weight control. It's trivial to verify for yourself. Just count the Calories in everything you eat and see that your weight gains and losses are very closely tied to that number. So it is indeed a "lie" in that sense that the number you see probably isn't actually what your body is burning, and "useful" in the sense that it will tell you whether you'll gain or lose weight. I assume that's how you got to calling it a "useful lie". I just don't see how that justifies your stance that no one should have to count Calories.

I can understand some negative sentiment in contexts where it's used dismissively (e.g. "I'm [self-diagnosed] autistic and I don't have this issue, so you're obviously just a bad person"), or if you use it as an excuse to be a shitty person. Although I'd say that a professional diagnosis wouldn't make any of these scenarios better.

In your case, you're experiencing problems and you're trying to solve them. A self diagnosis helps a lot in narrowing down what the causes could be and help you prioritize different potential solutions to try. It makes no sense to handicap yourself and try to fix things like a neurotypical person when you have good reason to believe you're not.