HopeOfTheGunblade

Yeah, I’ve been having this argument a lot lately, so the sarcasm shit right past me. It’s exhausting trying to get people to understand that no, really, genocide a * 3 plus additional genocide b is worse than genocide a alone.

I don’t think I said that. Can you show me where I did?

I will say that you have a slice of responsibility over the future, and you’ll have to live with the consequences of whatever decision you end up making - including the one where you sit on your hands. No matter what you do, you can still complain about it, but the future will be whichever one we collectively steer to. One of those possible futures is worse than the other. So it seems to me that we should steer away from it, rather than wrong our hands about how we don’t like the choices. Sure, you don’t like the choices. They’re the choices regardless. Model the outcomes of each possibility, decide which one you hate the least and steer towards it, because we are getting a future selected from among the possibilities. Jesus is not going to rapture us out of this.

Yes. Humans are given to certainty and judgement in excess of what the evidence merits, so I have taken to understatement.

I’m not convinced that Joe Biden is fascism, though. Would you be so kind as to compare him to Umberto eco’s list, and share examples on each point? Trump seems like a much better match to that, but perhaps I have missed something.

I mean, acknowledging that humans are never going to be fully informed or perfect calculators, the correct time is approximately when the expected outcome of action is better than the expected outcome of inaction, plus some finagle factor to account for bias.

Yes but see, if we just sit on our hands and don’t vote we won’t have any responsibility for what follows! Only voting for someone who is less than ideal on this issue is a morally bad choice!

And you can prove that corruption claim? Because the red team has been busting their asses trying to find something, anything, and they have fuck-all. Waaaah he has a failson, that’s your knockdown argument?

Or did you mean trump, who keeps losing court cases because he’s a corrupt lying rapist with bad taste and hygiene?

Who’s making excuses? I just don’t care. What office is the president’s failson running for again?

I would love to see research data pointing either way re #1, although it would be incredibly difficult to do so ethically, verging on impossible. For #2, people have extracted originals or near-originals of inputs to the algorithms. AI generated stuff - plagiarism machine generated stuff, runs the risk of effectively revictimizing people who were already abused to get said inputs.

It’s an ugly situation all around, and unfortunately I don’t know that much can be done about it beyond not demonizing people who have such drives, who have not offended, so that seeking therapy for the condition doesn’t screw them over. Ensuring that people are damned if they do and damned if they don’t seems to pretty reliably produce worse outcomes.

You’re missing 1.5: Make it impossible for people who every professional medical association of good repute says said medication help, get the medication by prescription.

A name for this?

Isn’t it ironic, dontcha think?

But not a Venus flytrap. Or a pitcher plant. Or rafflesia. Or…

You don’t think nearly 1/6th is statistically significant? What’s the lower bound on significance as you see things?

To be clear, it’s obviously dumb for their generative system to be overrepresenting turbans like this, although it’s likely to be a bias in the inputs rather than something the system came up with itself, I just think that 5% is generally enough to be considered significant and calling three times that not significant confuses me.

Nah, when Francine puts in this much effort to warn you I gotta listen to that costly signal.

That’s my prediction as well, but if the experiment is cheap to run, why not do so, and see of you learn something?

I mean, I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m going to keep my not-obviously-cishet-male ass home, thanks. For some reason I just can’t bring myself to trust their government.

So for the 99% there is an abolishment of private property, leaving only personal property and public property, everyone has an equal share, and the state has been dissolved?

Because if not, at least one of us doesn’t understand communism. It’s entirely possible we both don’t. Would you be willing to clarify the term as you understand it?

claymores

1. Anything labeled “This end toward enemy” is dangerous at both ends.

Build aligned seed AI.

Distribution of money and power is a facet of society.

I mean, not everyone agrees what the problems are. We can’t even approach talking about solutions until we settle on the problems. And that problem seems to be getting worse.