This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Wow nice goalpost move into the next province. "Oh I was totally wrong but acktually in "practical terms" I'm right."
The burden is on you to produce proof that it's still running and you can't. Even more so Sonnet can't.
I don't get why you're in such denial it's a hallucination because the AI has no proof it's correct and that's that.
Pick 10 actual articles and show me. Otherwise you're full of crap.
Your claim is that >45% of all news articles have major errors. So pick any darn subject you know about and if your claim is true it shouldn't take more than 10 minutes to find 10 examples of errors.
It is still running, since I showed that Project Pegasus is part of Opal and Opal is still running. QED.
Shameless to complain about goalpost-moving when this is what you're doing.
OK, here are some links (which is just tedious work since 10 or 10,000 links out of a gazillion articles has no statistical meaning). But since you seem to be dead set on this and love journalists so much...
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/cracks-in-j-20s-stealth-with-no-buyers-exposure/ (this whole thing is retarded if you know anything about aviation, incredibly misleading)
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/rafale-or-f-35-why-indian-rafale-jets-are-as-dangerous-as-stealth-5th-generation-f-35s/ (same kind of stupidity)
https://www.newsweek.com/india-overtakes-china-in-world-air-force-ranking-10882624 (even more retarded, I don't know how anyone can believe this, just check the squadron numbers lmao)
Here is a whole article about Indian media organizations inventing fake news, bombings of Karachi for example: https://institute.aljazeera.net/en/ajr/article/3188
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus (this was just a fantasy)
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/01/abc-news-issues-corrects-bombshell-michael-flynn-report.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/lifestyle/article-3018945/New-study-reveals-eating-chocolate-doesn-t-affect-Body-Mass-Index-help-LOSE-weight.html
https://www.allsides.com/blog/story-week-media-misfires-covington-catholic-story (Covington kids...)
https://web.archive.org/web/20060523081219/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=398274b5-9210-43e4-ba59-fa24f4c66ad4&k=28534 (this was just made up)
The whole Washington Post Steele dossier, the legendary pissgate: https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/581347-washington-post-removes-large-portions-of-two-stories-on-steele/
Ahahahaaha you have to stoop to posting Indian articles of all things. You're either indian yourself then or seriously scraping the bottom of the barrel.
You'e posted articles accusing others of fake news, yet not the fake news itself.
I ain't moving nothing. When you have to fish for decades old articles from tabloids and indian junk papers to "prove" that humans are worse than ai, you are proving nothing.
Oh so suddenly you take issue with my stance of deliberately choosing bad sources, which I explicitly explained was what the original article you chose was effectively doing and is a strategy that could without-doubt prove the whole human media was a joke... curious.
You are constantly demanding ridiculous proofs while you offer absolutely nothing at all, while you ignore or mischaracterize evidence with these word games like 'oh its not record high (it is)' or misread the difference between primary response and primary legislative response, or suddenly introduce arbitrary standards. It's pathetic and far beneath the performance of any modern AI, which will at least try. They have some kind of relationship with the truth. They're aiming for truth and miss sometimes. You're aiming for sophistry.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link