MountingSuspicion @ MountingSuspicion @reddthat.com

Posts

1

Comments

389

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm always torn when I read stories like this. Even though this is worse case scenario, both for the family and the country, at least he's standing by his decision. It's stupid because obviously he should see how irrational it is, but if he really believes there's some kind of "sleeper cell" network that must be caught, at least he's willing to sacrifice his own family's rights as well as the rights of others. I wonder if he'd feel the same way if it was him instead of his wife, but at least it's more consistent than the "I didn't realize he meant MY family" crowd that stops supporting once they see the effects on their own family. Obviously, no longer supporting is preferred no matter how they get there, but at least he's committed to being in the cult. I think it's just that it makes their vote seem more based in ignorance than in selfishness. I'd prefer to believe that people legitimately think they're surrounded by sleeper cells and this is the only thing that will keep people safe than think that they just don't care about other people and are unwilling to endure hardships they happily force upon others.

I think my big issue with the MCU, is that they don't even try to make the flaws logical. Before the snap, thanos has all of the infinity stones and can bend reality. He could have done any other kind of random macguffin BS other than remove half of all people. If the avengers could look into the future and envision the one reality where they defeated Thanos, Thanos could've done the same but for whatever heuristic he was attempting to optimize. I know the villain in Black Panther gets a lot of hate for having an unsympathetic side just tacked on, but unfortunately it's quite historically accurate to have people pushing for some kind of enlightened revolution that haven't quite done all of the work to unlearn things themselves. I do think that the fact that he was written that way and isn't a real person is a valid argument as to why it's a poor defense, but it's suggested that MLK cheated on his wife and prominent figures in the Black Panther party did abuse women. So, I'm a bit torn on that, but between Thanos and whatever the hell was happening in falcon in the winter soldier, I still think the villains and the heroes could use some work.

Just to be clear, I don't think it takes away from the movies being great. I also really like infinity war, I just don't that I was on board with everyone's motivations all the time.

Edit: I responded to this comment from my inbox, and now I'm seeing that you already have replies saying that Thanos really isn't understandable. I wasn't trying to pile on, I just also believe that.

There was something about that movie (uma Thurman) that no Batman movie after was able to do (it was uma Thurman). I haven't seen the movie in years, but I remember empathizing with the villains in a way that modern movies just don't want you to (it may have just been uma Thurman but I remember feeling bad for mr freeze too). I might just be queerer than other people but the level of camp felt genuine. I don't dislike other Batman movies, but that one felt fun to watch the way old comics were fun to read.

There is an impartial principle and it's science. Is it perfect, no, but it's there and there's a large community that is able to come to a consensus.

If they had your kids read a book where someone gets a vaccine and dies due to complications or where they don't get a vaccine and get the disease and live, would you have them not read that book? Because the fact is there is no class on being gay and there's no class on vaccines. No book they're reading is saying "God loves gay people". They're saying "gay people exist". That is true. People also die of diseases they're vaccinated against. That's also true. If they're having them read a book that says not to vaccinate, they're pushing an ideology, not spreading awareness. That's the distinction.

Maybe you're unaware, but if your ideological enemies are on the right, they will wield power that they were never granted against you. Conceding the truth to them is preemptive defeat. I will continue to push for facts to be taught in schools and the fact is that gay people exist, evolution is real, and some vaccinated people die anyway. None of that is ideological, it's factual, and if you don't want your kids to believe the facts then you're going to have to hope your "ideology" is as convincing as the science.

Right?! I had a roommate who would never rinse their toothbrush. I think. I have no idea what else would cause the kind of gross buildup I saw on it, so I think they just put toothpaste on it, brushed then put it back down. The bristles were all crusty and split and there was discoloration on the handle I'd never seen before or since. I wouldn't want to share with them. They were otherwise pretty hygienic, but I'd rather not brush for a day than use theirs.

I don't think religion and faith "are the problem." But if I'm honest, I think they're at least a little problematic. I think anything that encourages anti scientific beliefs or principles isn't "good" for society. I don't know I'd go so far to say it's "dangerous". I think anything that allows people to create in groups and out groups is not helpful, even if it does not overtly preach harming the out group. Any time spent bonding over religion or in religious community could be spent bonding over something more practical. I know a lot of people have found help through religion, but I can't help but think how much better off we would be if instead of finding that sense of community within a religion we found it within our actual community. Instead of a constancy in a higher power, we found it and built it up within ourselves. Maybe there is no way to frame society so that people look within themselves and their community for strength they seek a higher power for, but I believe that as long as religion exists we will never know.

I don't think talking about a thing that goes against any individual religion should be considered protecting religion. If my religion teaches vegetarianism, can I opt out of any books where a character eats meat or hunts? Can I be exempt from learning about early humans or the food chain because it involves learning about their diet? The answer is now yes, and I think it does a huge disservice to children. Reading a book about a gay couple is not forcing you to be gay or even support homosexual relationships. It's just showing you that gay people exist and that's legal and some gay people have families and are happy. You can think it's morally wrong, but it's happening and it's the schools job to educate children on things that are happening. I know people who were removed when evolution was discussed. They're no longer religious, but they have this gap in understanding they now have to fill in because their parents didn't want them to know the science. I think that's terrible and does not help, but I support that more than the book thing because at least you can argue testing a child about evolution forces them to say things they don't believe in whereas just reading or hearing about gay people doesn't make you do anything.

You misunderstood. She's focused on affordability for herself. How is she going to afford things if she can't get kickbacks from corpos and the rich for keeping taxes low?

Their comment is basically "we logged the whole forest and sold lumber for profit, now don't you feel stupid for not doing it when trees still existed?!" Most anti crypto people are more sad that crypto exists than upset that they didn't cash out big. A fascist government saying that everyone who engaged in ruining the forest was right isn't going to change how people actually feel about the fact the forest is now gone.

People like that would rather be "right" than good, and will side with whoever is declaring them "right".

I'm not religious, but I understand that a wedding is very important in some religions. Catholics for example consider it a sacrament. It's not about their guests, it's about the couple and if religion is important to them they should be able to have that included. You can just not go if you don't want to. It's about supporting them and their journey together. It's not about the attendees being religious.

It'd be like going to a vegetarians wedding and being upset they didn't offer meat dishes. It's their wedding and their views. If there's any day where they should be able to subject people to them (for lack of a better phrase) it's their wedding day.

I don't use these services, but out of curiosity how has that gone for you? To and from the airport where you can give a heads up of at least a few days makes sense to me, but I always figured part of the allure was flexible scheduling and the location algorithm. I can't imagine a driver would want to give their information out and possibly get a call at like 2 am to do a pickup somewhere they aren't close to. Do they give you their general schedule and service area? Do you have a long list or do you just pay 1 or 2 well enough that they will make the trip even if they're not actually working at that time?

The article explains that Thursday a statement was issued suggesting they would stop raids on these places. It was not long a long lasting pause since that very weekend he reversed course, likely due to the no kings protests. So he reversed his decision and then reversed it again within a week.

I'm glad you've put in the work, and I'm sorry your community of men is failing you. I think it's probably dependent on where in the country you are, but leftist political spaces have quite a few men who have put in the work. Not all of them, but that's the only thing I can think of that doesn't require you to have a specific interest. You'd be surprised how many fully actualized people you'll meet volunteering somewhere, even just once a month.

I don't see it regardless. Are you logged in? It's possible that if your account lists your country that they just set it to always appear? I'm unfortunately not sure, but having that notice would be a huge improvement imho.

It kind of is the governments job to do that. You might not want it to be, but the government has entire regulatory bodies to protect people. You can call them delusional if you want, but plenty of people that are not experiencing mental health problems don't understand that LLMs can lie or make up information. Lawyers have used it and it hallucinated case law. The lawyers weren't being delusional, they just legitimately did not know it could do that. Maybe you think they're dumb, or uninformed, but they're just average people. I do think a disclaimer like the SG warnings would go a long way. I also think some safeguards should be in place. It should not allow you to generate child abuse imagery for example. I don't think this will negatively impact it being able to generate your SQL queries.

My page does not say that. It's possible that in your country, which I'm guessing is different from my country seeing as you stated guns are illegal, they already have this legislation in place. That is not the case here.

It literally is not. ChatGpt has a blank page (a la google homepage) that says "What can I help you with?" And the input field says "Ask anything". If it said "Use this text field to play pretend" it would be at least a little better.

Thinking everything you see online is fake is bad advice. Being skeptical is important but the internet isn't all just fake.

There is a good place to regulate it. At the input and output level. It already is regulated there. It has guardrails already. Public data AI may be more ethical, but it is not going to solve the issue. The issue is the way people are using AI and the output it produces. It seems like you might not be wholly familiar with this subject.

Every single LLM should have a disclaimer on every page and potentially in every response that it is making things up, is not sentient, and just playing mad libs. If they had a "conversation" and every response ended with "THE CONTENTS OF THE RESPONSE ARE NOT VERIFIED AND ARE ENTIRELY MADE UP ON THE SPOT FOR ENTERTAINMENT AND HAS NO RELATION TO REALITY" or some other thing it might not get as far. Would some people ignore it? Yea, sure, but the companies are selling AI like it's a real thinking entity with a name. It's going to happen that the marketing works on someone.

I'm not saying that's the specific answer, but it should be made overwhelmingly clear that AI is not real right on the page. The same with AI video and audio. Education won't help kids who haven't had AI safety class yet, or adults who never had it, or people who slept through the class, or people who moved here and didn't have access to the education where they grew up. Education is important, but the fact you think regulation won't help at all seems dismissive.

Yea, that's my point. If someone has certain tendencies, education might not help. Your solution of more education is not going to stop this. There needs to be regulation and safeguards in place like the commenter above mentioned.

Education might help somewhat, but unfortunately education doesn't in itself protect from delusion. If someone is susceptible to this, it could happen regardless of education. A Google engineer believes an AI (not AGI just an LLM) is sentient. You can argue the definition of sentience in a philosophical manner if you want, but if a Google engineer believes it, it's hard to argue more education will solve this. If you think it's equivalent to a person who has access to privileged information, and that it tells you it was tasked to do harm, I'm not sure what else you should do with that.