domain:web.law.duke.edu
Tree
5hr ago
I didn’t say that AIs are women/feminine or that women are parrots. I said the AI in this instance went from parroting men to parroting women, that would explain the gain in empathy and the loss in accuracy.
ulyssessword
5hr ago
AI companies all fail at naming things. There was:
- Claude 3.5 (June 2024)
- Claude 3.5 (October 2024)
- Claude 3.7 (Feb 2025)
You're probably thinking of the one between the original 3.5 and 3.7.
GBRK
6hr ago
Cherry picking but free lunches are just unironically a good thing. Investing in childhood nutrition has a demonstrably positive return, and it's also pretty basically the sort of coordination problem a well ordered government is designed to solve. Good childhood nutrition improves heath and intelligence with diffuse social benefits extending out well beyond just the parents normally required to pay for it. Maybe you have some implementation bugbear, or just want to complain about the quality of school meals in general, but I'm still pretty sure that free school lunches are both a good idea in principle and a net positive as actually implemented.
ChickenOverlord
6hr ago
For whatever it's worth, I think both your example comments are wrong and retarded (and I even replied to one of them with a 4chan copypasta effectively saying as much) but I didn't downvote either of them. The reason being that downvotes (and upvotes) are for narcissistic ninnies who care way too much about imaginary internet points.
GBRK
6hr ago
The old adage that goes, "anything you say should be at least two of: true, kind, useful" accurately encapsulates the tradeoff. The vast majority of communication benefit from being all three of these things... I wouldn't want, for example, and untrue, unkind, useless pasta recipe. But at some point along the optimization curve you start to hit serious tradeoffs. A well-ordered mind know when to make any given tradeoff... For example, It's best to be true and useful when describing gun safety, and it's best to be kind and useful when interacting with a grieving relative. But choosing what to optimize for at any given time is a matter of strategy and deep context, which AI still struggles with.
rae
7hr ago
Were you attracted to women before on any level?
I don’t see how conversion therapy can work unless you start off at least a little bit bi. There’s something just neurological different about gay vs straight brains and you can’t change that through therapy anymore than you can fix epilepsy. I also find the flip side - e.g. straight men watching gay porn and “turning gay” because straight porn became too boring - to be similarly questionable.
SnapDragon
7hr ago
Isn't it a massive meme (based in fact) that even the most pure and apparently useless theoretical mathematics ends up having practical utility?
Hell, it even has a name: "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences"
Definitely not! The article you're referring to was about theoretical physics having surprising application to the real world, not pure math. The rabbit hole of pure math goes ridiculously deep, and only the surface layers are in any danger of accidentally becoming useful. Even most of number theory is safe - the Riemann Hypothesis might matter to cryptography (which is partly why it's a Millennium Problem), but to pick some accessible examples, the Goldbach Conjecture, Twin Primes conjecture, Collatz conjecture, etc. are never going to affect anyone's life in the tiniest way.
My career never went that way, so I've only dipped my head into the rabbit hole, but even I can rattle off many examples of fascinating yet utterly useless math results. Angels dancing on the head of a pin are more relevant to the real world than the Banach-Tarski paradox. The existence of the Monster group is amazing, but nobody who's not explicitly studying it will ever encounter it. Is there any conceivable use of the fact that the set of real numbers is uncountable? If and when BB(6) is found, will the world shake on its axis? Does the President need to be notified that Peano arithmetic is not a strong enough formal system to prove Goodstein's theorem?
yofuckreddit
8hr ago
I was surprised about power being an issue and it was a bit of a self inflicted wound. I had a 10k mAh bank which is a lot. My phone's battery is old, and I came away deeply unimpressed with the Edge 840s battery life. I did use Ebike charging ports at restaurants sometimes. The euro concept of lunch was damaging to pace and time though. The German side was a 1.5 hour ordeal, the French side more.
I drank exclusively from faucets and filtered from streams only once. I think my infection could have come from a couple of different places. I normally have a strong stomach, I must have made a dumb mistake.
And yeah, I was right near what felt like the main strip. No beach but concrete steps into the water. Convenient to change into my unused bathing suit id carried with me.
yofuckreddit
8hr ago
I think that doing it in the lower parts is an excellent idea, especially stringing together hotels and mid-size cities. Do so on the Italian part as well to save money and eat better food... It's a great plan
Ademonera
8hr ago
I appreciate the 'why worry about it' perspective, but being an adult means you have to be honest with yourself, especially when you're at a point where you're making choices that will define your future and affect other people.
The indulgent, careless thing to do would be to just 'roll with it,' get married, and pretend this part of my history doesn't exist. That's the path that ends with me hurting a family someday because I decided to indulge in something hidden, something I refused to honestly confront beforehand.
It's about doing the difficult, private work of self-assessment now so that I don't live with regret, and more importantly, so that I don't betray the trust of a person I promise my life to.
Frankly, I see this process as the absolute opposite of indulgence. I see it as a prerequisite to being a decent husband and man.
anti_dan
8hr ago
Comment 1 is a combination of strawmanning and mocking. It also includes a reference to a meme that is arguably being applied incorrectly.
Overall a low-mid quality comment that, if you agree with you are likely to ignore, and if you disagree with you might throw a minus on it. That it has +10 at all is strong proof of anti-gun people voting on ideology.
The second one is perfectly mid, I would not have voted on it, and in fact did not. But it does invoke several anti-gun idiocies like appeals to other combat weapons, hunting, drivers licenses, etc. I can see a strong argument for giving it a downvote for being mealy-mouthed gish-gallop and I see no reason other than length and partisanship for an upvote.
faceh
8hr ago
It seems like there are still pockets of competence to be found and an increasing motivation to overcome short term political obstacles and create some robust institutions that will allow coordination amongst serious chaos. I think that even in the worst case scenarios of the U.S. FedGov starting to collapse, state governments are capable of acting as a backstop.
If Starship is successful and we get some orbital infrastructure, its JUST possible we can get some self-sufficient or semi-self sufficient off-world communities. Not a great place to bear and raise kids, of course, but somewhat insulated from turmoil on earth. Buys some time if nothing else.
Biggest problem I don't see a clear solution for is maintaining a decent technology stack if the global shipping network degrades. That is, all the materials, labor, expertise, and machinery/capital could still be intact, but if there's no cheap shipping to connect it all together, most nations are left only with what they can source domestically and from immediate (friendly) neighbors. Not ideal, and it means any places that have stockpiles of critical equipment and materials will need to be protected, and somehow organized to use all that for maintaining civilization.
AI is a wildcard here for the moment.
And... the big question is what, if anything, will convince women to start popping kids out again.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
8hr ago
What about fiction and code? How can that be quora slop? Parrots... parrot words we tell them. They don't combine them to create new ideas within a precise target area, nobody pays for parrot intellectual labour. Nobody has ever benchmarked a parrot or if they have it's 'wow this parrot knows 250 words!' The only things we benchmark on mental tasks like this are people with exams, then we use those benchmarks to decide who does what job. Same with AI, benchmarks and testing determines which one does what job.
These things are more like us than parrots in key domains (while being supremely alien in others, such as their stateless nature). So calling them parrots is unhelpful, they're alien intelligences. If it can write code, produce New Yorker cartoons, write fiction, analyse a document, provide literary criticism and translate legalese down to English, it's intelligent.
Even just on pure bro-science level, writing database code is not very effeminate, it requires precision!
srf0638
8hr ago
Nothing much of substance to add, but I enjoyed this quite a bit. Have done a few touring-with-a-purpose trips on pavement, would like to hit the GDMBR and Baja Divide someday.
anti_dan
8hr ago
They want to make money from both markets, but one just makes way more sense to focus on. Especially since people will prefer intelligent + sycophantic to less intelligent + equal amounts of sycophancy.
I dont think they actually do. IMO a large problem with most AI companies is they are vanity projects being overseen by bloated, already successful, companies that are looking to find a second revenue stream in the future. But that future is far off and the current revenue streams aren't going anywhere soon, so they can afford to be stupid and make their AI's intentionally stupid to placate their employees who don't want to see an AI outputting things that would offend said employees.
But is that really a popular message? Does Cruz think it makes him look good? It might make him look good to evangelicals who he might want to rely on or court favour with but America as a whole? Surely it's a small minority who believe 'we should support Israel for theological reasons'. That just opens up all kinds of problems for Cruz such as 'why should you be trusted with the nuclear codes if your foreign policy views are so dependant on religion', it makes most sense if he's just being honest.
erwgv3g34
8hr ago
Man, do you just bookmark every woman-hating rant on the Internet?
Not at all; I simply remember them, then look them up at need. For example, I recalled that the first two were from AntiDem's Ask.FM page, so I trawled the cache archives (which list several years worth of question and answers) with Ctrl+F until I found them. The last one I saw reblogged on @Capital_Room's tumblr once, so I searched and, sure enough...
A good rant lives rent-free in my head.
I deeply regret learning today what "3DPD" means.
I aim to please.
anti_dan
8hr ago
You can chalk me up as someone who thinks empathy and the truth are fundamentally at odds. And I think this scales quickly. Sure, on a personal level or in a family its something small like, "I know you're scared little guy but the shot wont hurt" or "sure honey you look good in that" but it quickly escalates to unmanageable levels even at the community level. Schools that let empathy take the wheel end up passing illiterates and violent kids through the system, they provide free lunches, they dismantle gifted programs. States enact unwieldy and expensive welfare programs, arcane minority benefit regulations, ever expanding censorship regimes, etc.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
8hr ago
You are almost certainly greatly overestimating the budget and technological sophistication involved.
How hard is it to buy a hidden camera? If Korean perverts can hide them in toilets or suspicious husbands can use them to watch their wives, a large institution like a prison should be able to come up with some. Cameras/mikes would be useful since prisoners often talk to eachother about their crimes and some useful evidence could be gleaned. The Allies did it to German POWs with 1940s tech.
Also, there is still the outside-the-cell looking in approach.
Furthermore, high profile prisoners should be especially watched, isn't this a natural inference?
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
8hr ago
I'm well aware what the ICJ said but courts say silly things all the time. Courts are for legalities, they're very much into this abstract 'who was in what administrative zone when, regardless of whatever else was happening' remit.
Nations and sovereignty are about more than that. This case is perfect proof in point. The US military base there isn't going anywhere and that's the key part of this equation, indeed the only people on the island are those on the base. The British are just paying lots of money to make this legal issue go away so that they wouldn't have the bad PR of ignoring this court (which they are entitled to do as a permanent security council member). America couldn't care less about some international court, they don't recognize its authority at all if they rule against the US, nor does Russia or Israel for that matter.
It's not real law if people can and do ignore it when they feel like it, it's just talk. The ICJ isn't a real court, their opinions don't have much inherent weight and certainly don't in this case, it's only a matter of PR.
Whether or not "patriarchy" is a system that was codified (as in the Abrahamic religions) or simply a set of norms that turned out to be optimal for dealing with pre-industrial (or, perhaps more properly, pre green revolution) life, the idea is that beyond a certain point an excess of male intrasexual competition is bad because energy spent on that (be that fighting and killing each other in more primitive contexts, or power-swiping on dating apps and spending tons of time and money in bars for the non checked out in our present context) isn't spent on more useful things like working (This can still be seen by the fact that married men still earn more money than their unmarried counterparts.).
Likewise, some degree or another of enforced monogamy fixes the failure that in a purely free market the sexually successful male is completely relieved of obligations toward women or their children because the value of a given woman for those men rapidly approaches zero (aka. "a bitch is a bitch").
That such an arrangement also boosts fertility by enabling the median man to have a wife and children (that he is in turn obligated to provide for and defend) and that said arrangement is good at securing the loyalty of average men is a nifty bonus.
IMO the easiest way to demonstrate that patriarchy hindered certain men rather than women is merely to ask who dismantled it. Was it women? Not really. Sure, the feminists were a thing and they went along with it for their own reason, and capitalists were certainly happy to get a new supply of labor, but it was largely a bunch of upper-class male lawyers who did it.
Edit: Something I failed to convey is that patriarchy has fallen apart in large part because it's been rendered obsolete (save for the "enabling fertility" part, anyway; we haven't figured out how to get women to take what they can get instead of living childless in someone's Tinder harem or giving up out of despair for how lacking they perceive their options to be). Male provision and protection are pretty much worthless, and even loyalty to a cause or group doesn't mean much in a world where real existential threats to elite (or elite through scumbaggery; you can't take what doesn't exist from those who don't have it) men are rare.
Is this about the legality of my statement vis a vis the rules of themotte, or about its truth/probability?
If the latter, I agree that those sources do not prove that a woman’s quora answer is on average less correct. But they do make it more likely my statement is true. I don't think women who answer general questions on the internet are subject to selection effects as strong as men on fashion forums.
If the former, demanding that a commenter proves every inflammatory statement is a prohibitively high standard.
More options
Context Copy link