I find myself caught between two forces on this issue. My dad is one of those tech dads, who watches David Shapiro and builds his own GPTs in his free time. He is convinced that AI has (or will imminently have) the ability to replace us as workers entirely. Economically, we are not ready for that. People who don't work just don't get to have anything. Food and housing aren't even universal human rights.
The urge for me to stick my head in the sand, despite my father pushing me to learn to use AI, is very real. I don't have faith that we as a society will be able to make a good future with AI. So my only option feels like learning to build, manipulate, and wield the tool that I believe could cause enormous societal upheaval, because the alternative is to be upheaved like a modern boomer dropped in the middle of Cyberpunk's Night City.
I mean no offense here, but I think your take reflects how few relatively ground-shattering innovations have really happened over the last twenty years or so. I mean truly life-changing. Maybe the internet was last, I'm unsure.
I'm probably too young to have an accurate idea of how often an innovation is supposed to change the world, but it really feels like we've become used to seeing new tech that only changes life incrementally at best. How many people, if such an innovation was created, would fail to recognize it or reject it altogether? Entire generations to this day refuse to learn computer literacy, which actively detriments them on a daily or weekly basis.
Won't update their insurance because they don't want to use a computer. Don't know how to reboot a router/modem. Don't know how to change their password. Congressmen asking if Facebook/TikTok requires Internet access. Some small companies operating exclusively on fax and printed paper, copying said paper, sorting said paper, and then re-faxing it instead of automating or even just using one PC (I worked at a place like this).
Honestly, if you didn't enjoy the first hour of RDR2, it might not be the game for you. I'm a strong believer that not every game should appeal to every player, and RDR2 really knows who it tries to sell itself to.
I think there's a distinct difference between him with the 'sinners' and him with the fishermen. By my probably biased understanding, most of what he did with the fishermen/apostles was tell them what to do, like one facet of a leader. And what he seemed to do with everyone else was uplift and occasionally teach, also like a leader.
I apologize. I've been up for twenty-four hours, the last twelve of which were on a delayed and then stranded bus in a snow storm. I was taking out my frustrations on you, and was needlessly snarky.
Upon reread, I see that you were genuine, and I actually do need to check and correct myself. I'll leave my earlier comments up with an edit.
My bad, I assumed we were actually staying on topic - getting incels mental help. I'll correct myself and assume from now on that any comments that fail to make sense are bad-faith attempts to co-opt a post.
Edit: Upon reread, I see that you were genuine, and I actually do need to check and correct myself. I apologize.
I mean how about instead of hyperbolizing, we actually find a good acronym that does less to push people away from our world-view? If the problem is the system, find an acronym about the system. It doesn't have to be perfect, but if we don't genuinely think every single cop is bad, we should stop saying it, no?
Assuming half of all women are right-wing is wild lmao