smooth_tea @ smooth_tea @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

123

Joined

2 yr. ago

Oh ok.

Fewer mistakes might be a side-effect, but the real reason why this will be welcomed by the military and our dear leaders is because they don't have to stir up the public emotionally so that we give up our sons and daughters. It will further reduce our opposition to war because "the only people dying are the bad ones". I can't wait to read how the next model will reduce the false positive rate with another percentage point. Of course, I think it requires little imagination or intellect to figure out what the net result will be when the most noteworthy information we get from a war is the changelog from its soldiers, who have zero emotional response to taking a life.

Just like tasers were introduced to reduce gun incidents and are now often used as a form of cattle prod, they will function creep the shit out of this, and our adaptation to the idea of robots doing the killing will be over before we've perfected the technology.

It was unavoidable though, someone always has to have the biggest gun. It's not our technological advancement that has to adapt to our mentality, we have to adapt to technological advancement. Perhaps the nuclear bomb was simply not frightening enough to change our ways.

Why don't you drop the effort and just start grunting?

This battle of ideas on Wikipedia’s platform formed a crucial part of the encyclopaedia’s commitment to neutrality, which according to Sanger, was abandoned after 2009. In the years since, on issues ranging from Covid to Joe Biden, it has become increasingly partisan, primarily espousing an establishment viewpoint that increasingly represents “propaganda”. This, says Sanger, is why he left the site in 2007, describing it as “broken beyond repair”.

• Lawrence Mark Sanger is an American Internet project developer and philosopher who co-founded Wikipedia

Maybe we should talk about how many people Israel pays to constantly skew reality in their favor on websites like that.

https://www.politico.eu/article/israel-social-media-opinion-hamas-war/

https://theintercept.com/2024/02/07/gaza-israel-netanyahu-propaganda-lies-palestinians/

https://electronicintifada.net/content/inside-israels-million-dollar-troll-army/27566

historic grievances again

Oh the irony.

and I myself am not attempting to broaden context in order to force an angle the article isn't making.

Why are people who defend Israel always such insufferable weasels?

You're hiding behind an article that already takes things out of context and then you act as though it is the right thing to do to not provide any.

Of course you can't "broaden the context", or your entire point would fall apart. This is what Israel and its supporters do, they pick an arbitrary point in time, pretend that the conflict started then, and use that as an excuse to escalate.

I find it extremely insulting to mine and our collective intelligence when someone tries to argue otherwise. Nobody buys your victim complex anymore, have some decency and self respect and stop peddling it.

I don't know if it is that off-base to be honest, restraint does not mean that they practiced pacifism, just that the response was disproportionately small.

In what world would a country in a similar situation not support groups that try to counter an invading force? What about the assassinations inside Iran? The terrorist attacks orchestrated by the west? The sabotage of their nuclear facilities? How is it that those things can go on for decades, and then when Iran finally reacts, people go "oh look what these maniacs did, how dare they!"

Do you not care that Iran was on the receiving end of these things, or were you simply not aware?

Iran has been notoriously docile because it knows the US had been looking for an excuse to attack it. Just like Wesley Clarke stated.

That's like poking a bear and then halfway through your shenanigans claim you'll have to put it down because you're in danger. What a bunch of hollow rhetoric. There's 3 sentences in your paragraph and each one is just a slogan. Each one vague enough that it means both nothing and anything you can think of.

Diverting from the usual warmongering is not isolationism, in fact, the problem you allude to is the result of the former, not the other way around.

I know it's a crazy idea but perhaps we should look at our failed approaches from recent history and try to learn from it. But judging from your edit, you have an extremely short attention span mixed with tunnel vision. Where were you when the US and its allies assassinated people inside Iran? Funded terrorist groups to carry out attacks in Iran? Sabotaged their nuclear facilities? Or, you know, when the idea of another pre-emptive attack on that nation was so imminent that one presidential candidate figured it'd be funny to fuel that by singing "bomb bomb Iran", based on nothing but the lie that they were close to getting a nuclear bomb?

Was all that a festering problem that Iran should've responded to, or is it different when you're on the receiving end?

I'll take "how to repeat bad mistakes from recent history" for 500 Jim.

Did you sleep through the past 20 years or are you just not that observant?

So he was a fascist/racist who spent his entire life in politics without ever showing a sign of that ideology, was he waiting to spring his trap?

I'm not here to vouch for the guy, I'm just on the outside looking in, but this seems like a bunch of conjecture in its purest form.

Also, am I reading you correctly that you think racism is a great vehicle to sell the idea of libertarianism?

Your entire theory hinges on a racist remark that he didn't even write and was possibly unaware of. Unless I'm missing something groundbreaking on page 2 and 3 of that article which I can't read because it's paywalled.

Is there anything Ron Paul did politically that would suggest fascist ideologies? The word is thrown around a lot these days.

Bit easy to dismiss millions of people because they aren't cynical or bitter and then equating that to basically being young and dumb. Perhaps reality is what it is because it's always the Bush' and Clinton's, who only marginally affect the status quo, and never the Ron Paul's, who see inherent issues with the system, or 'reality', and at least have somewhat of an inclination to improve it.

To me, a European, he was one of the very few, if any, candidates that made sense and seemed consistent in how he voted and spoke. And I consider myself to be quite libertarian.

I don't really understand your remark to be honest, other than shoehorning the "he made a racist remark" thing into the conversation. Perhaps you could elaborate.

I'm sure someone already made a graph plotting the hours wasted learning vs the seconds gained not moving your mouse.

"Your honor the suspect had blood on his hands when we found him. Well you're 10% blood so what's your point?"

It's just a tighter grouping of (biased) data that can be searched and retrieved a bit quicker.

How is your intelligence different from being "biased data that can be accessed"?

The fact that something can reason about what it presents to you as information is a form of intelligence. And while this discussion is impossible without defining "reason", I think we should at least agree that when a machine can explain to you what and why it did what it did, it is a form of reason.

Should we also not define what it means when a person answers a question through reasoning? It's easy to overestimate the complexity of it because of our personal bias and our ability to fantasize about endless possibilities, but if you break our abilities down, they might be the result of nothing but a large dataset combined with a simple algorithm.

It's easy to handwave the intelligence of an AI, not because it isn't intelligent, but because it has no desires, and therefore doesn't act unless acted upon. It is not easy to jive that concept with the idea that something is alive, which is what we generally require before calling it intelligent.

You're missing the point. The issue with Fahrenheit is not about the conversion from Celsius, most Europeans don't need to do that anyway. The problem is Fahrenheit in itself, it's just not elegant or scientific and therefore comes off as arbitrary and only makes sense when you grow up with it.

I know a 5 year old who shoved a crayon up his nose.

Ah yes, "we did good but they messed it up, as usual!"

If the US cared enough about the well-being and the services the people have access to in the nations they invade, they would probably not do the invading bit.