galanthus @ galanthus @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

191

Joined

11 mo. ago

I partly agree with your second point, but the thing is that you have to figure out the person does not mean what they say - that's the point. If you state the sarcasm explicitly it is not really sarcasm. And while in some contexts it can be hard to know for sure whether something is sarcasm, I do not think this is a problem, and it is more often than not, like in this case, rather obvious.

Also, for the "antifascist" thing to work you would have to take everything everyone says at face value to make sure there are no ambiguities. So if made a joke withut the "/s" or "/j" or whatever you would assume I am being serious? Honestly, making our communication more primitive just so that fascists are marginally easier to spot(I mean you can probably figure it out without the "/s" anyway) is, in my opinion, absurd.

I feel like the "/s" thing always ruins the joke. For me, it's the ambiguity that makes it funny, if sarcasm is stated explicitly it just doesn't work that well.

I see it a lot nowadays, so my comment is not targeted at you, do not take it personally. Just a thought I had.

"Experiment" is a tool of the modern science. The usage of this word in this context is not appropriate.

There is no evidence. There either is a source which mentions this or there isn't one. I have not seen, nor found such a source. The story is most likely made up by some modern idiot.

This story is also beyond ridiculous. I wonder how many human fetuses an average ancient greek has seen, but surely, it can't be that many.

He really did hate beans, but the "spawned from the same source" and the "experiment" seem like bs.

Well that is what Trump was doing, appealing to his base, while completely alienating the centre-left and left. And it worked.

The two rhetorical questions in your first paragraph assume the universe is discrete and finite, and I am not sure why. But also, that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. You think that if you show the computers and brains work the same way(they don't), or in a similar way(maybe) I will have to accept an AI can do everything a human can, but that is not true at all.

Treating an AI like a subject capable of receiving information is inaccurate, but I will still assume it is identical to a human in that regard for the sake of argument.

It would still be nothing like a college student grappling with abstract concepts. It would be like giving you university textbooks on quantum mechanics written in chinese, and making you study them(it would be even more accurate if you didn't know any language at all). You would be able to notice patterns in the ways the words are placed relative to each other, and also use this information(theoretically) to make a combination of characters that resembles the texts you have, but you wouldn't be able to understand what they reference. Even if you had a dictionary you wouldn't be, because you wouldn't be able to understand the definitions. Words don't magically have their meanings stored inside, they are jnterpreted in our heads, but an AI can't do that, the word means nothing to it.

If the only thing you feed an AI is words, then how would it possibly understand what these words mean if it does not have access to the things the words are referring to?

If it does not know the meaning of words, then what can it do but find patterns in the ways they are used?

This is a shitpost.

We are special, I am in any case.

They wouldn't be able to get it out otherwise.

Can't you add it manually?

The superiority of german aryan ports proven once again.

(this is a joke, nazism is evil and I hate it)

Firstly, I would like to say that what happens in the animal world has no bearing on morality. You said it yourself, morality is a human thing. So a lion is not a moral agent, I would not judge it for eating a zebra, nor do I believe that we should try to prevent it from doing so. However, just because animals do something, it does not mean it is not immoral for us to do so, it is as natural for certain animals to eat humans, as it is to eat other animals. That does not mean that murder is moral now, suddenly. Similarly, it is not the case that because it is not immoral for animals to kill other animals(they are not moral agents), it is ok for us to do so.

Secondly, the words direct/indirect do not mean intentional/unintentional. I do not think it is sensible to claim that the more removed you are from the consequences of your actions, the less moral responsibility you bear, but it seems to me like you are excusing the behavour of carnists(that word is, as another commenter put it, metal as fuck) by claiming that most of them are ignorant of the consequences of their actions, but this has nothing to do with how "direct" the act is. I would like to add that the reason for the ignorance of most meaters(meat eaters) with regards to how the animals are treated is their characters, they are keeping themselves in ignorance and are resistant to attemps to enlighten them.

Why do you think direct immoral actions are worse than indirect immoral actions? I don't buy that. Hell, you are even saying that you are absolved of responsibility for animal abuse completely just because you are paying someone to do it, and not doing it personally. Most people just deny animal abuse happens at all, but you admit it is immoral, yet shift the blame on others along with the responsibility for murdering them, which they do for your pleasure.

This is like saying "x has hired hitmen to killed seven people, but my parent forces me to eat broccoli every day, so since x is commiting a indirect immoral action, my parent is the worst one of them.

I am not a moral person. I, quite frankly, do not care about animals, and I would like to think I would be able to murder an animal myself(for food), since I am doing it now, albeit indirectly, and if you can't live with the consequences of your decisions, why make them? Weigh the consequences of your actions. Do not run away from them like a coward(a lot of moralizing for a self-proclaimed immoral person).

I respect vegans. If you care about animal welfare, and are opposed to cruel treatment of animals you should not eat meat, and that's what they do.