domain:greyenlightenment.com
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
10m ago
But the opposite, right? She is aware of her sexual value. So she doesn't squander it on a 19 year old. He has no money.
In reality, perhaps this is what’s happening. But I don’t think it’s what’s happening in the ephepophile’s fantasy, that causes him to be attracted to the 19 year old, no. Golddigging is an unattractive trait in a partner even if you are the beneficiary. One would prefer to think that the free-spirited young thing with few sexual hangups is exactly that, rather than secretly calculative.
Botond173
20m ago
Or maybe he is just predisposed to noticing a particular type of bad thing in his life.
In other words, he's a racist.
sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
42m ago
The original english translation you posted below is incomprehensible.
Eh, it was comprehensible enough, the most mistranslated part was "reacted really disgusting me" vs what I assume was meant to be "reacted really disgusted with me" - and the true meaning can be error-corrected from context. The AIsloppy editing destroyed more meaning, originality, dare I say soul than the lack of English skills of the author.
Interestingly @RandomRanger cited a video in another thread that's an unintentional example of this. It's an Avatar compilation video titled "Hardest RDA Edit" where 'hard' is used to mean based/awesome/woah. My browser mistranslated that to "[Most Difficult] RDA Edit' i.e. 最も難しい RDA 編集.
If GPT is given both the title and the summary (which Youtube could do internally with their API) it gives the much better translations "Max strength RDA edit" 史上最強RDA編集 or "Most villainous RDA edit" 最凶RDA編集. In general I find GPT much better on language problems than they are on almost any other task, and miles better than standard machine translation.
Corvos
1hr ago
今、天国に色気分だわ
@4bpp sorry for double-dipping, but since I've got you here do you know why わ is used? Obviously it's usually feminine, and I understand that the male usage is from the archaic patterns where it's broadly an emphasiser like ぞ and therefore used by archaic / cool characters to express emphasis. Is that what's going on here? It doesn't quite seem to fit.
aldomilyar
1hr ago
I do feel like it's insane how much content is now AI driven.
Even random innocuous social media blurbs have em-dashes when it's like 'You could have written that your restaurant is open for longer hours'. I understand using AI to marshall your thoughts or if you're wanting to do longer form writing but there's plenty of messages where I feel like it'd just be quicker and easier to not open ChatGPT and provide a prompt.
I didn't spot that tbh. After a decade I still can't quite get all the nuances of how に should be used, especially when it's used as part of more sophisticated/niche grammar structures. N1 is still a little ways off...
I do notice that none of the translations got the nuance of 「キモい！」と反応してくれて right.
Moreover, she said “You’re degenerate!!!” for me.
The use of くれて to imply this was a sort of mutually positive interaction changes the entire tone of the passage, so it's kind of bad GPT misses it. Though I feel like I'm putting far too much thought into the ramblings of a perv on the internet.
And this particular condition is not characteristic of the whole law either, and as such characterizing the broader law in terms of this particular condition is wilfully misrepresenting the broader law.
Or, to put in other terms, it is missing the forest for a tree. It can indeed be a joo-tree in the forest, but it is not a joo-tree forest.
More importantly, and part of that broader context, the joo-tree is coincidentally planted beside the anti-DEI-tree, and the anti-illegal-immigration (ALL) tree, in same same small grove with exceptional visibility, under the care of the hated forest-lord. This grove is now being publicized to audiences with people who would like to cut down joo-trees, anti-DEI-trees, and ALL-trees even before their hatred of the forest-lord is considered.
That's bait, and SS fell for it as much or more than the intended targets.
Corvos
1hr ago
It's as if Kaczynski was using AI agents and hypersonic missiles, starting a VC-backed startup for the cause of destroying technology.
'The Master's tools can absolutely dismantle the Master's house,' said Kaczynski, watching from his penthouse as smoke rose on the horizon. 'With great efficacy.'
sohois
1hr ago
enshittify
This verb implies a movement from a good state to a bad one; the language was previously not shit. Except, the people using LLMs in this way already can't communicate. The original english translation you posted below is incomprehensible. You suggest
the English they do write will be worse
but I can't see how anyone would suggest the AI translation is worse than the original. It might screw up some of the meaning, but that comes with the tradeoff of being more readable.
Or are you just using this example to push your point that native speakers are going to degrade the quality of their communication? This seems far more to reinforce the argument that smart users of LLMs will use them to leap forward, while poor users will get left behind. As I write this post I am using the Grammarly add-on; it's a useful spelling and grammar checker. It will also pop up "writing improvements". Almost without exception, these improvements are shit, and they've been shit long before ChatGPT came along. However, it hasn't changed the way I write, because I am capable of judging the quality of its suggestions. Do you think that Grammarly has been degrading the quality of English for years because some users implement everything it says?
It's the same story with translation. 15 years ago, a non-native speaker might go to babelfish.com and pump out something completely useless. 10 years ago, they would have switched to Google translate, and got something better, but still missing a ton of meaning. 5 years ago, DeepL was the standard, but still a long way off human translation. Now it's LLMs. When learning any language, one of the first lessons a student learns is not to blindly trust any machine translation.
Dean
Flairless
1hr ago
Sounds like quibbling over priorities. They also said taking out Saddam would aid in regime-changing Iran.
'Don't do [course of action] unless you're going to do it the right way' may be dismissed as quibbling over priorities, but it is still a caution against, and are not even indirectly instigating the [course of action] either.
Also, was what you're mentioning said in public, or in private? Because if it was the latter, you can't blame the public for not knowing what was deliberately kept from them.
When the result of private discussions are later publicized, and have been public for nearly two decades now, it is a distinction without a difference. Someone can claim the later public revelations were lies, but absent that we can absolutely blame people for not knowing the historical record exists.
And maybe I'm typical minding, but if it was anything like the times I've blindly trusted a woman who told me she was on birth control, the truth of the matter is that in the moment I didn't give a single shit if she might get pregnant.
Would you have still had sex with her had she stated she was not on birth control? If no, then clearly you did in fact give a shit to some extent if she might get pregnant.
If you would still have done so, then yes - I don't think it's appropriate for you to typical-mind.
I am with amadan here
So I'm of no impression that Amadan will ever agree with me (or that many of the people advocating this will ever agree with me, really), which is why I declined to pursue the point too much, but let's examine the core of this moral evaluation for a bit. If it is really the case that a child has the right to provision from both biological parents and that this deprivation of the child is so unacceptable that freedoms should be curtailed to pursue that objective, then the following should also be a logical corollary of this belief:
1: A woman should not avail herself of the services of a sperm bank, as it results in the production of a child without the father involved. This is especially true for single women, who should be barred from using a sperm bank under any circumstances, and if they do they should be aggressively socially shamed for intentionally producing a child who will grow up in that deprived state. After all, the statistics on children raised by single mothers speak for themselves. Same thing for men and surrogacy.
2: It should be against the law for a woman to leave the biological father off the birth certificate, or to fail to inform him of the existence of a child. She should be required to identify the father and get him involved in supporting the child either by choice or by force. A woman who does not do so is being horribly negligent and should be castigated.
3: Women should have no access to safe haven abandonment (or adoption, for that matter) under any circumstances, possibly even extremely coercive ones. This is possibly even worse as it results in the unilateral abandonment of a child and alienation from both biological parents, and is a complete and total infringement of the child's right, excluding it support from even just one parent and possibly consigning it to become a ward of the state.
Of course, none of these things are currently the case. Are you willing to assent to all the above, and state that anybody who makes the above choices in contravention of these dictums is being capricious and immoral? If so, I would say you're perfectly consistent, understandable, have a nice day. If not, it stands to reason that any child produced does not in fact have the inherent right to the support of both biological parents, and that this right can be infringed in practice for many reasons, including "she just wanted to be a single mother", or in fact "she just didn't want her child". In practice I don't actually think most people believe that a child has an inherent and inalienable right to support from both biological parents, they certainly don't prioritise it above all else. They are perfectly willing to infringe on this principle especially if they can be convinced that it gives women more choice.
If it is perfectly moral for a single woman to use a sperm bank and produce a child out of wedlock which will not be entitled to any support from the father, if it is moral for somebody to choose to raise a kid on their own, by extension it should be perfectly moral for a man to surrender responsibility for a child before birth, producing the very same deprivation if the woman decides to keep it. This especially applies if he was duped into becoming a father by false representation, regardless of whether or not he was "thinking with his dick". But I don't think anyone who has advocated this position has really thought through its moral ramifications. They're just operating entirely on ick.
According to the current system, a child has a right to basic provision and support, but he/she does not have the right to support from both biological parents.
Personally in a situation like this I'd try to get custody of the kid and bring it home with me.
In theory I agree that would be ideal (I would not want a child of mine in the custody of a woman who would do something like that), in practice that's not going to be easy.
4bpp
Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs
2hr ago
Right, this translation gets closer to the original in some ways by not reproducing the additions and deletions in the original proposal, but also loses some of the colour. Notably, none of the three translations really quite reproduces the heroin-addled vibe of the original (this was perfect, I am in a state of absolute bliss, I took a dose, and then I got another dose!! and soon I'll get yet another dose, I can't wait!!). I wonder if this sort of pathology has been thoroughly RLHFed out of ChatGPT, or one could elicit it with the right prompt.
(The "sexy heaven" thing in yours came from a typo @phailyoor introduced - it's 天国にいる気分 on paper, not the enigmatic 天国に色気分 for which that interpretation would be a fair guess.)
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
2hr ago
If the goal is just discrimination, why single out Israel specifically? It’s an odd flex considering that there are other trade partners that would qualify under anti discrimination rules (India, Japan, Korea, Latin America, etc.) but they don’t get the same protections. If I passed a law in North Dakota that said “no money goes to Asian countries,” it’s perfectly fine. If I do the same with South Asia, again, fine. It’s only when North Dakota says “we aren’t buying from Israel,” that anything happens.
Corvos
2hr ago
I think he must have tried to iterate on his original translation. The direct translation is more accurate:
Today’s stream was perfect! When I commented, “Step on me, please!” my oshi, Haachama, actually responded with “You’re gross!” And then she even followed up with “You’re way too much of a perv!” It was insane!! I feel like I’m in sexy heaven right now. This is honestly the most peaceful moment of my life.
And the thing I’m most hyped for is Haachama’s birthday live on Sunday, August 10th at 9PM!! I seriously want to support her with everything I’ve got. Just imagining that day feels like I’m drinking her bathwater.
Though I agree with @phailyoor that a lot of self-expression is lost here compared to his original attempted translation.
Corvos
2hr ago
Sort of. Broadly, I believe that young people weren’t in serious danger so depriving them of the vaccine for a while was fine. Rather, young people weren’t being deprived per se. Whereas your white guy over 45 was still in some need of a vaccine and depriving them is therefore a problem.
If the disparity was massive enough I imagine I’d bite that bullet and give the vaccines to the young black people first out of obvious necessity.
My understanding is that the disparities weren’t that wide and that in the cultural moment professionals were sort of overjoyed to find a reason to demonstrate their anti-racist credentials by giving black people preference in a matter of life and death. Which obviously affects my perception.
4bpp
Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs
2hr ago
Wait, so what was the process there? Was ChatGPT given the Japanese text and asked to generate its own translation for comparison, or asked to improve/iterate on his? In general, I agree with your critique of non-native speakers using AI for text massaging (the feeling of something not quite coherent being said in superficially polished prose by an AI broadcast announcer voice with occasionally inappropriate diction is pretty grating), but in this particular case, it seems to me that the AI translation is in fact superior and somewhat more true to the original, which may be because unlike in the "Indians making slop for Tiktok/Youtube shorts" case, it had access to a literate source text. Specifically, for example, there is in fact nothing to the effect of "I could die there" in the JP text. The author must have spontaneously come up with it while writing his own proposed translation.
In general, the text we are looking at is close to a pessimal case for both AI translation and translation by someone who learned formulaic English at school, because the original is dense with subculture references and memes that are not just invoked as keywords but determine the syntax and narrative form as well. It's like trying to translate a 4chan greentext, or a doge image.
quiet_NaN
3hr ago
Under the lens of the Civil Rights Act, a company saying "We won't do business with Israeli nationals" (note the number of dual-citizenships and US citizens residing in Israel, which is more than in Canada) is a pretty transparent violation.
[...] But in this particular case, "will not buy from Israel-linked companies" is pretty strongly associated with attempts to discriminate against persons of Israeli origin. I think this case is maybe winnable, but you'd likely need to be squeaky clean on the persons (not corporate) level.
Discriminating against Israeli citizens in the US seems bad from a civil rights perspective, yes.
Discriminating against Israeli companies or products seems much less problematic, especially if it is just spending decisions. Both states and companies should be free to chose with which companies they do business. If Texas prefers to arm its police force with weapons produced in Texas, that seems the kind of decision a state should be able to make. If Google decides that it hates South Korea and refuses to buy any computer components produced there, that is something for the market to solve.
I think that the use of financial incentives is pretty disingenuous, because it allows the feds to say "we did not violate your rights, you could just opt out of FEMA or not take tax credits".
If federal funds come with strings attached on how to spend that money specifically, that seems fine. "If you buy emergency shelters from your FEMA grant, you may not discriminate against Israeli companies" - "None of the medicaid funds may be spent on medical marijuana" - "5% of the medicaids funds are earmarked for abortion services. If you can not provide these, you do not get the 5%."
But my understanding is that this is not what is happening here. Instead, it is "follow our rules generally, or you don't get money", which I find bad.
ControlsFreak
3hr ago
Saying something about the military implicitly distingushes between military things and non-military things.
But what are the actual clauses with actual words that go on to make further distinctions between things? Without that, your hypothetical isn't analogous.
I don't know. You could make arguments for either one.
Then at least try. Because right now, you're not even trying, and it's becoming ever clearer that it's because you can't. Because the Air Force just isn't authorized. It doesn't fit.
Don't worry, though. There's an easy fix. It's why we have Article V. Literally everybody really wants to have a legal Air Force. You want it so bad that you're tying yourself in knots trying to imagine that you already have it, when you clearly can't even come up with a half-hearted argument for it. Nobody is going to get in the way of passing an amendment to finally make it constitutional.
Original English:
Today’s stream was stunning! I commented “踏んでくだSTEP ON ME!!!” and My Oshi HAACHAMA reacted really disgusting me. Moreover, she said “You’re degenerate!!!” for me. OMG I’m in a heaven right now. It was a peaceful and an amazing moment in my life.
And also, the most excited thing is There’s HAACHAMA’s birthday live soon. It’s in August 10th 21.00JST. I could die there. I can’t wait to watch that!! I really wanna support her live too. Imagine that live I feel like drinking her bath water.
Original Japanese:
今日の配信は完璧でした！俺は”踏んでくだステップオンミー！”とコメントすると、推しのはあちゃまが「キモい！」と反応してくれて
さらに、「あんた変態すぎ！」と言ってくれたんだ、やばすぎ！！ 今、天国に色気分だわ。 これは、俺の人生で最高に平和な瞬間だよ。
そしてさらに、１番楽しみで仕方ないことははあちゃまの誕生日ライブが８月10日（日）２１：００にあるってこと！！全力で応援したいと思ってるんだ。 その日をライブを想像すると、彼女の風呂水を飲んでる気持ちになるよ。
ChatGPT output:
Today’s stream was absolutely mind-blowing!
I typed “踏んでくだSTEP ON ME!!!” in the comments, and my oshi, Haachama, actually reacted. Not only that —em—dash— she called me “degenerate!!!” directly OMG. I’m in heaven. That one moment was pure peace and bliss. Probably one of the best highlights of my life.
And the most exciting part is still ahead. Haachama’s birthday live is coming up on August 10th at 21:00 JST. I seriously can’t wait. I really, truly want to support her with everything I’ve got. Just thinking about that live … feels like I could drink her bathwater.
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
3hr ago
Things started going wrong in a way that felt both predictable and deeply informative about human variance. My friend and I had a plan: 9 a.m., a specific train platform in south London. My model of the world holds that a plan between two people, especially one involving pre-booked tickets, is a settled fact. It has inertia. My friend’s model, it turned out, required a final handshake protocol - a morning-of confirmation call - without which the previous agreement existed only in a state of quantum superposition. I discovered this when my call at 9:02 found him mid-shower.
Norf vs Souf is a fractal, recursive pattern, it seems, that applies even to Indian immigrants in Britain.
Then came the second, more significant system error. An hour into our journey, my friend consulted a map and discovered that our train was, in fact, headed to the wrong side of Kent. Not a fatal error, but one that would cost us another hour in detours and connections. It’s strange how robust modern infrastructure is; you can make a fairly significant navigational blunder and the system just gently reroutes you, albeit with a time penalty. A hundred and fifty years ago, we would have ended up in the wrong village and had to marry a local.
Was it one of these trains that split in two? I travelled to Canterbury by one once, and even the natives were mildly confused.
And this is where the second part of the mission began. My friend, who had planned this leg of the journey, had mentioned a “long walk.” I had stored this information under the tag “pleasant stroll.” This turned out to be a failure of definition. I was also, thanks to having planned a far less prolonged or adventurous trip, resigned to wearing shoes that could best be described as “smart casual.” They were the best £20 in the local Primark could buy, and had netted me about twice that value in unearned compliments. Alas, they weren't quite built for this task.
My wife and I once rode a cable car to a mountain in Austria, where a guide book promised a "pleasant 40-minute round-trip around the summit". Yeah, right. It had stone steps tall enough to qualify as ledges you would have to press a button to climb in a video game. It had fucking via ferrata segments. Like you, we were wearing smart casual shoes. The next time I heard such curses from my wife was a week ago, when we were hiking in 35-degree heat.
It seemed half of Asia was haunting the cliffs that day. We counted nationalities like rare birds, there went the French (and very many of them), those two ladies were Ukrainian (my friend insisted on his heuristic that if they looked Slavic but were ugly, they must be Russian - I am unconvinced that this technique works well).
Recognizing Ukrainians post 2022 is as easy as recognizing Canadians, vegans and people who use Arch. That is, they will make sure you know. Phenotypically, it's as hard as telling an Indian and a Pakistani apart. Especially if they are both Punjabi.
I love British countryside. If you're in the mood for another trip, Lewes to Brighton is another good option. Make sure your friend is on time, though, it's a four-hour walk and you'll want to spend three or four hours in either town.
MathWizard
Good things are good
3hr ago
Or take the stock market. Nvidia has a net profit of 76G$/year and a market cap of 4T$, so it is worth about 50 years of profit. If there was less capital around to be invested, it might only be worth 2T$ instead, but I fail to see what would be so bad about that.
Tiny probabilities of huge profits are what drive Venture Capital to take risks. If a Venture Capitalist sees a chance to spend $10 billion for 10% chance of $90 billion, they don't take that risk. If they see a 10% chance of $180 billion they probably do.
Nvidia is currently planning to invest $500 billion in new infrastructure over the next few years. If hypothetical Mvidia startup entrepreneur sees that and thinks they have a 20% chance of rising up to compete with them to also be worth $4T (average output $800b), investors will throw those dice and happily pay $500b. We end up with more competition and diversity, lowering prices for consumers. If taxes go up and Nvidia and hypothetical peers are worth $2T, the dice odds don't look so good and there's more of a monopoly (unless someone is so confident that they can compete with 40% odds.
For any marginal tax increase, the cost/benefit ratio for new competitors shifts and it requires greater odds and more monopolistic profits before you get more entrepreneurial competitors. This leads to more monopolies, higher consumer prices, and people working for megacorps instead of starting their own small businesses.
Technically sure. But not really. He is a supervisor of an oil rig. You would still have managers and capital owners in this world. It still fits with the described knowledge worker atrophy.
Consider also that he got that position by gambling. Not as a career path or through credentialism. Again lending credence to the theory that knoweldge work is dead and everything is a blue collar larp.
More options
Context Copy link