@EvanTh's banner p

EvanTh


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 20:29:36 UTC

				

User ID: 138

EvanTh


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 20:29:36 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 138

(or a play instead of a film in Lewis's time)

Lewis was writing during WWII; film was very much a thing.

You can fill a theater with a film about romance

But they'd be coming for the story, for the actors, for the poetry of the lines, and for many other things besides just seeing a couple kiss. Remember that you can also fill a theater for a film about many other things besides romance. A strip-tease doesn't have any of that.

Whether the air force is a branch of the army or not is really an organizational bureaucratic matter rather than constitutional interpretation.

Yes, this. The Army Air Force was originally part of the Army, and everything was clearly fine with the Constitution. Then the National Defense Act of 1947 changed some names for the Army Air Force and the rest-of-the-Army and hybridized the organizational structure of the Army and Navy, but how does that cause Constitutional problems?

  1. Higher standards for filing a case to begin with

This could be a good thing, but I'm concerned about cases where people don't have the evidence up front and need to get it through discovery. People with very legitimate cases can end up in that situation.

  1. Another similar option, just ban someone from seeking further redress for a while (forever?) if they're found to be constantly abusing the courts.

This is a thing in some jurisdictions: recognized "vexatious litigants" have to get the court's pre-approval before filing further complaints. However, standards for being a vexatious litigant are high.

Better at performing each individual act associated with being a friend or romantic partner? Conceivably so (at least several model upgrades from now), within their constraints of being limited to computer systems. But my argument is, that's missing something of the core of being a friend or romantic partner.

Better at being a friend or romantic partner, despite that, than many people who can't visibly let someone behind her roles to the person herself? Entirely possible, but that's still missing something most people want.

When we interact with teachers, therapists, or editors, we're interacting with them within the confines of a particular role. You shouldn't use your editor as your therapist, or vice versa, and they shouldn't use you as theirs.

But with friends and romantic companions, we're hoping to interact outside those confines, with the person herself. If I only interact with a role she puts on, that's not a good friendship or romantic partnership. Same thing if I'm always putting on a role for her.

With an AI, you can't get beneath that role. If it looks like you have, that's just another role. That makes them great teachers and therapists (at least in this sense), but very bad at being friends or romantic partners.

You could always get a final ruling, rather than a preliminary injunction, from a court of competent jurisdiction.

If you say that getting a final ruling takes way too long - well, yes, that is a problem we urgently need to solve.

Yeah, my coworkers say the same thing about driving in India.

As a cyclist, I avoid 40mph roads whenever I can. Unfortunately, sometimes they're the only roads going where I want to go.