celluloid_dream
No bio...
User ID: 758
celluloid_dream
19d ago
It should converge to blue, because people have loved ones, and the recursive "what do I think they think I think they'll press" combined with enough shared cultural sentiment of "I wouldn't want to live in a world without my loved ones" = Blue wins
but personally, like @sun_the_second , if I'm being brutally honest with myself, I value my own survival above others'. I'm a rationalist, not a romantic. I'd pick Red. Extrapolated out, maybe Red wins
(no, I don't have kids)
celluloid_dream
25d ago
Proponents will say that's good. It acts as a deterrent. Personally, I don't want the gun in the dialogue tree because I don't trust the average person to be in control of themselves at all times. Gun proponents will answer back that's exactly why they want the gun, and round we go.
But either way, it's a totally different thing than dangerous chemicals. No one is going to accidentally fly into a rage and manufacture explosives - at least not quickly
celluloid_dream
25d ago
It's less about the people who are plotting to do evil, and know they are in the wrong (terrorist, school shooter, pre-meditated murderer). It's more about the people who think they are in the right ("I feared for my life!"), maybe even are technically within their rights, but morally should not kill a person in the situation. It's more about the people having a bad day, pushed past their limits (fired, cheating spouse), etc, and might do something they can't take back.
A gun being in play (in the glovebox, open or concealed carry) adds an option to the dialogue tree. "so anyway, I start blasting"
plus, the second-order effects of this. If you think someone else might start blasting, how are you going to prepare?
So I choose to believe that whatever happens after this mortal existence, in the fullness of Eternity, is worth it.
*Yoda voice: Believe, or believe not. There is no choose.
celluloid_dream
28d ago
Yeah. It can go to some very weird places quick. you start writing in a fake lowercase ultracasual unpunctuated extrawordified mess to show off how not ai your prose is
There's also just the fact that language spreads organically, so it may not even be that a given person is getting it direct from the LLM. They might be getting it third-hand through their social circle or influencers.
This looks like your words. Please tell me it was all your words and not GPT-enhanced. I don't want to be taken in. The writing is good, but bloated, which is why I am still narrowing my eyes a little.
This sounds a lot like Claude. I've been keeping a list of Claude-isms so I don't accidentally start repeating its favourite phrases (possibly common to other LLMs as well), and I notice too many of them here to be a coincidence. My current list:
- "not just X, but Y" (or similar)
- "that tracks"
- "sit with" things
- "is X wearing a Y suit (X dressed up as Y, this wearing that, X with better Y, or similar)"
- em-dash, obviously
- "it costs something"
- "clear-eyed" about a thing
- "two (or both) things are true"
- "bones" of something. "has good bones"
- the correct possessive apostrophe and correct angled quotation marks, “” instead of ""
- some virtue "curdled" into some vice
- "a rounding error"
- "in real time"
- "quietly"
- "But here's the thing"
- "gently push back"
Edit: a few more
- "the kicker", "here's the kicker"
- "the X is the point"
- "he/she is going to be fine"
and more I haven't jotted down yet. A lot of them are just common expressions or phrases, but enough of them together, and I start to wonder..
@self_made_human , sorry if I'm mistaken about this, but I think you would want to know if they're slipping into your writing voice.
In your post, and in some replies here, you're constantly sliding between different implied definitions of good/bad opinion. I think it'd help if you were more explicit.
"Person has factually incorrect beliefs about the world" is different from "person's claim about morality is unpersuasive to me" is different from "person articulated this thought poorly" is different from "person says things I find aesthetically distasteful" is different from "person's post got ratioed on twitter".
If you mean all of them, what do they have to do with each other? If you mean specific ones, which and why?
More options
Context Copy link