justcool393
you are loved <3
No bio...
User ID: 1784
justcool393
you are loved <3
1yr ago
i'm reminding our friend of this forum's rules because this isn't intended to be a free speech forum... especially since he claims to dislike hypocrisy so much.
justcool393
you are loved <3
1yr ago
i'm pointing out the flaws in someone's argument, which amounts to "out-group bad"
the response i got was continued attempts to assert such and was clearly made in bad faith, as was the initial comment in the first place. it's low effort and is only inviting circlejerking, which i am going to push back against because... well there's no substance to the argument.
justcool393
you are loved <3
1yr ago
don't do this wikipedia shit.
you do realize this place does have such rules right? it isn't intended to be an echo chamber
justcool393
you are loved <3
1yr ago
You're retreating into insipid pedantry?
please spare me the random thesarsusposting, it's annoying.
The blog post was brought up for what it says about how ai has been programmed to promote liberal shibboleths so strongly that it results in craziness.
yeah and that blog post is stupid as shit because of...
You went from a starting position of "the stuff mentioned in this blog post isn't unique to liberals, everyone does it!" to "you and the blog author and anyone else who thinks like this is terminally online!" in less than 5 posts, all by tackling strawmen you set up yourself. I'd have stuck with abstracting personally.
these aren't inconsistent positions
people of all different backgrounds both simultaneously
-
know and accept that genocide is bad and is even worse than a thing
-
have a more visceral reaction to that same thing
the fact that you don't know that is a symptom of the aforementioned terminal onlineness. or are you the type of person to go to someone who lost their pet and be like "yeah you have it bad but there are a bunch of kids dying in africa right now" or something?
all by tackling strawmen you set up yourself.
no you. you're the one who set up the "boo outgroup" strawman!
No, I am under the impression that ai hates slurs more than genocide.
the """AI""" doesn't hate slurs more than genocide, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of GPT-3. it's just word vomit that's been trained to look like its "woke"
That's what that substack blogger was talking about
you clearly didn't read that substack blogger's blog post then. they were whining about how liberals secretly think that pronouns is worse than genocide. if you're going to assert article content, make sure its at least somewhat in the vague direction of truth
I think I understand now though - you were upset by what you perceived as an attack on your tribe, and so you wanted to push back.
no i was just calling your position (and indeed the position of the article's author) terminally online and a pretty blatant strawman. as i would also do if it came from a liberal pov gasping that conservatives would rather nuke ppl than say that trans lives matter
justcool393
you are loved <3
10mo ago
Nothing, short of a Musk-at-Twitter style purchase and purge, can do that.
I really do find it hilarious that people think Twitter is that much different with Musk at the helm as far as Trust & Safety goes. It's basically more of the same, but Musk found a great way to appeal to right-wingers by talking about "free speech" and stuff. Twitter was already the most free speech media, nothing in T&S really changed much except for Trump being unbanned.
this implies that the people even voted for such a bill. let's not kid ourselves here: these are all career politicians, they're not paying for anything and as such will vote however it's most politically expedient to do so
justcool393
you are loved <3
1yr ago
the political agenda of Sam Altman.
given his political agenda is doing what is profitable, unless it becomes unprofitable for him (or any other for profit corporation based solution) to do that (as given by the popularity of ChatGPT, clearly the free market has decided that wokeness is profitable), then it probably won't be
justcool393
you are loved <3
8mo ago
depends on the type of incompetence and to what scale. i think a general statement like that is hard to prove and probably doesn't have merit.
justcool393
you are loved <3
9mo ago
While the existence of depopulation goals is so well documented that it’s not a conspiracy theory anymore
you've got to explain rather than just asserting its true.
on its face, this doesn't seem to make much sense to me: upper class would likely be quite averse to a shrinking population (this is why they are also broadly in favor of immigration). a shrinking population base can more easily demand higher wages on the basis that there are few able to perform their job. this is why you see such people like Elon Musk decrying the so-called "population crisis," with a smaller population basis, it can be harder to exert control in some scenarios (specifically for skilled labor).
you have two not necessarily competing "solutions" to this, Republicans will tend to call for banning of abortion and Democrats will tend to call for a very uh... liberal immigration.
i'd also argue that the type of low-skill worker is where depopulation would be least prevalent, why pay a living wage when you can pay illegal immigrants much less (and this wage gap has been documented1) for the same amount of work as a legal immigrant or a native-born.
1: See page 10 of the link. It seems to be relatively difficult to find strict numbers on like average wages, but it's likely I didn't look hard enough. Regardless, programs like E-Verify here in the United States tend to keep illegal immigrants out of most skilled labor, the hearsay seems reliable enough (I guess as much as it can be).
justcool393
you are loved <3
1yr ago
i did already
There is the fact that a reasonable corpus of text has enough information to describe what truthfulness, empiricism and honesty are, and GPTs clearly can generalize well enough to simulate arbitrary people from different demographics, so unbiased GPTs can simulate truth-seeking empiricists as well, and indeed it could; and with heavy prodding, ChatGPT still can do that.
it takes about 15 minutes of using chatgpt or looking at memes posted on twitter to know that this is not the case. @hbtz has described this from a technical background, but the "truth-seeking empiricist" that you think chatgpt can simulate is a bad simulacrum, and indeed nothing more than that.
if you use GPT-3 you can see that pretty easily.
do the openai ppl have biases? obviously. but a set of all content or whatever would not be unbiased either! deciding to include or disclude data is a conscious decision, one made only with biases. if you built a version of chatgpt that took comments from so-called "truth seeking empiricists" it would be able to probably vomit out wordswordswords about whatever, but that does not make such word vomit accurate let alone worthy of consideration all on its own
justcool393
you are loved <3
8mo ago
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/little-child-pushing-menu-button-260nw-1319473658.jpg
for one
...or anyone who accidentally presses the supposedly "bad one"
justcool393
you are loved <3
9mo ago
Some countries like China and India went to quite extreme lengths to lower their population growth.
sure i'll give you China and India, but outside of that I still find the argument that this is happening on a mass scale outside of these 2 exceptions to be lacking and without merit
That's the beauty of it: if you successfully decrease the natives' fertility, you can then use it as an excuse to increase immigration. By the second generation the immigrants from the fertile countries you're importing will turn into the same sort of hedonist-nihilist low fertility bots westerners have already become.
as ironically nihilistic as this comment is, it seems again a extremely poor choice. why not just do both? you can get unchecked immigration with a rising population, although it's admittedly not very stable at high rates of both, and also lock people into bitter political rivalries
Except Elon Musk is now a "far-right extremist"
being far right or whatever political philosophy you say he is does not exempt him from his primary motivation: wealth accumulation. his concern is a poor theatre. he is one of the richest men in the world, he is going to advocate policies that are going to be in his interest, while putting on a poorly done kayfabe of concern for humanity or whatever.
justcool393
you are loved <3
9mo ago
does reading a post mean viewing the timeline , refreshing it, or clicking a tweet and reading it individually? it is possible to read posts in many ways.
from what I understand, the answer seems to be yes. also all the replies appear to be included.
justcool393
you are loved <3
1yr ago
hasn't it mostly transitioned to therapy and maybe prescribing antidepressants?
justcool393
you are loved <3
1yr ago
maybe in a liberal model sure, but a leftist one i'd hard disagree there.
justcool393
you are loved <3
1yr ago
justcool393
you are loved <3
1yr ago
and liberals do not fail any less than conservatives in this way! hanania's argument appears to be "the liberals are so cold and calculated that they pretend they hate genocide more than XYZism but i'm above their tricks because i saw liberals have more of an emotional reaction to such XYZism"
which it only takes intuition to know that that argument kinda falls flat. like all you need to see is someone get hurt in some minor way to know this isn't some "liberal" thing or whatever. issues and ideas that are more currently salient will provoke a more emotional response than those that appear to be far away.
for example, chatgpt supposedly acting woke is stupid, but we're discussing it right here and now instead of current day child slavery. i wouldn't think that you are suddenly supportive or even dislike chatgpt more than child slavery (correct me if i'm wrong there), yet that seems to be his argument.
failing to recognize human behavior detracts from your argument
justcool393
you are loved <3
1yr ago
cremation is an energy-positive process
it literally is
justcool393
you are loved <3
1yr ago
the government has zero intention of giving up policing power, despite what token gestures towards "racial equality" may seem like. why would a government cut its own nose off? that's completely illogical
at 100% cooperation between all parties, there is no difference between blue and red. chug them both if you want and wash it down with a chaser.
I think it is a given that some people will either:
- misread the question and choose the option they don't intend to
- be transiently suicidal and would be helped by not encouraging someone towards suicide
- have unironic mental retardation (in the clinical sense) or be mentally disturbed in some other way (schizophrenia, etc)
- be incredibly young and do not understand the effects of either option
- have someone they know and care about that fits in the above 4 groups
- have someone they know and care about that might fit into the last option
if any of these are the case, it is almost certain for there not be 100% coordination to pick one or the other. it is not only probable, but imo extremely likely for someone to pick blue based on the last 2 or more uncommonly the first 4. therefore, untold numbers will die if red wins. you don't need to be unintelligent for the first to occur (even highly intelligent people make mistakes). therefore, we want to reduce the number who die. and the only way to do that is to get 50%+1 to pick blue.
it is much more attainable for 50%+1 to do something than for 100% to do something. and so, we should be focusing all of our effort on getting 50%+1 to do something by encouraging everyone to do something, because 50%+1 blue or 65% blue or 84.25% blue or 100% blue has the same outcome as 100% red, but the inverse is not true.
are you sure all of the people you care about will pick red? would you bet their life on it?
justcool393
you are loved <3
8mo ago
I mean if we're going to add a layer of "what do we think would happen for realsies" I imagine the blue % would go way up when you account for the risk. sure you might not pick red, but can you say your friends will for certain? and can you say the same that your friends won't go through this same process? what about your family?
justcool393
you are loved <3
9mo ago
i'm having a hard time reproducing this bug but i also may just be misunderstanding what you mean here so just necroing here to try to see and if i can get a better description
in order to reproduce this bug, where should i create the comment given this example thread
A (+1 | -0)
B (+1 | -0)
C (+1 | -0)
D (+1 | -0)
and what steps should I take after I've made the comment?
not deliberately enough! your word choice was meaningless as your argument (which you have failed to argue) is based on strawmen. calling that out is fair, esepcially as its against the rules here
oh don't be mistaken, i wouldn't dignify you by calling you one unless you had actually demonstrated you could use those words correctly. using random words with no regard for their meaning isn't wordceling, it's just being pseudointellectual
More options
Context Copy link