On 15/08/2025 14:35, Melissa Hollingsworth wrote:
Verily, in article <107lugi$nmav$5@dont-email.me>, did agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM deliver unto us this message:
Girls have already lost most of their capacity to make connections
between neurons by the time they are born.
Again, how do you explain women learning after that time? If women
The same way that AI learns. You plug in an H200 and it trains the model running on it. Once you have the model trained you don't even need the
H200. You can run the trained model on your CPU and it is fully capable
of naturally reading out text or answering questions etc. without even
seeing the text or knowing the language before.
couldn't learn much after birth and not at all after age 13, society
would look pretty different. One major difference would be that the
Let's equate a girl to possessing 1000 H200s at birth. A boy would only possess say 200 H200s when born. By the time a girl reaches 13 she has
1200 H200s plugged into her brain. By the same age a boy also has 1200
H200s running. But the boy is able to continue to develop more
connections in his brain and configure even more H200s as a result, so
by their mid 20s the top 5% of the boys in the class have 2000 H200s
running, whereas the top girls are limited to about 1500 H200s on
average. The H200s still have RAM and they can still run new AI models
created by the AI itself which fills up that RAM, even if you can't
create any more of them.
females would be unable to speak, much less read. No one is born knowing
a language.
Nope. I can run natural AI text to speech synthesis on my CPU which is
over 10 years old with no problems. Speaking and reading is pretty
simple. AI learning is just the ability to do matrix multiplication.
Once you have the hardware which does that you can run mostly any model
you want to develop on it. The more H200s you have the larger and more complicated the model can be which will run. If you don't have enough
then the model or data can't be stored so won't run at all. You could
always write stuff down on paper to help with storage but holding all
the data in your head like Stephan Hawaking had to do is faster and more efficient.
Graphics cards like the RTX series became the basis for running AI
models because the matrix multiplication cores needed for creating 3D
graphics with ray tracing are exactly the same as what you need for AI.
In order to run the model you need to store both the input data and the
output data. In the case of graphics cards you need more video RAM in
order to render more complicated models and these days even an 8GB
graphics card doesn't have enough VRAM to run modern AAA games properly
or at all. The same goes for your brain. Boys develop more storage
capacity than girls after they reach the age of 13 along with more
neural connectivity, i.e. CUDA and Tensor cores. How you use those cores
while constructing an AI model is what is called learning.
According to mainstream neuroscience, all children make neural
connections wildly during infancy, and a great pruning occurs when the
child is three. This happens in both sexes. Researches have found some developmental differences between the sexes, but they're not nearly as
vast or as clear-cut as you seem to think.
The study I referred to says differently and makes more sense given the observed data.
Do you watch ST:TAS? I think you'd like "The Lorelei Signal." I saw it
TAS? The Animated Series? Not watched it in decades.
last night, and when the ladies explained what happened -- all their
stuff had been invented by the deceased men, they were nothing but
predatory parasites, and they were miserable -- I thought of you.
You might also enjoy Larry Niven's Kzinti. The Kzinti females are
literally nonsapient and nonsentient, like cattle. Kzinti society is
No. I suggest you read E E Smith's Second Stage Lensmen and Children of
the Lens which both call out the ideology of feminism as being no
different to fascism while still depicting strong female protagonists
when are not feminazis engage in eugenics to hold back to progress of
men. Then there is John Norman's Outlaw of Gor which also calls out
feminism and being nothing to do with what women actually want or have
always wanted.
something like Earth society would be if your theories were correct.
Nope. My theories reflect the observed realities we have today. 20 times
as many men than women make up the top 5% of people running the top
companies and the top people in STEM. This is what the extra
connectivity allows men to achieve. Also the AI models running on men
and on women differ drastically, and those models are hard wired as demonstrated by the ways girls and boys play with the same toys, since
they are determined by evolution not learning, so even if they had the
same number of connected neurons most men would still be better or more interested in STEM and in positions of leadership than most women.
Writers need to respect the facts and stop their ridiculous attempts at
social engineering.
Men have to learn from their environment in order to survive. Women only
have to submit, and this is reflected in the way men and women write.
It's the same with animals and it's been like that for hundreds of
millions of years so degenerate feminist ideology isn't going to change
the observed facts.
As far as Time Lords go, the best example of a female Time Lord we have
is Romana, and she has always seemed intelligent and capable. Of course, she's technically not human.
And of course Time Lords do not change gender when they regenerate since
that would make a total mockery of the character of Romana and make her
no different to a man rather than being an intelligent women based on
her own merit.
--
The True Doctor
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner
--- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)