And how many times have you flagged someone for "furtherance of violent activities" that DIDN'T go forward to shoot up a school, or do much of anything you should intervene in? ChatGPT can't even brainstorm multiple choice questions on a short story without hallucinating bullshit, and you want us to believe it'd be effective as the thought police?
This is a cherry-picked argument being used to begin legitimizing AI for more serious uses, such as making legal decisions. This is not Minority Report; AI can fuck off with charging people with pre-crime.
I said in another post that I'm less familiar with Aristotle, but I thought that was the main divide between them, and was under the impression that Aristotle took the whole "I'm going to make own school" approach to their disagreements. Whereas Plato believed in the rule of the supposed phiosopher-king, Aristotle argued for the value of a more open democracy.
I misspoke in my original post and brain dead said Aristotle when I meant Plato, a mix-up which would have offended both of them.
Our governmental system is not built on Socrates' philosophies, neither in practice, nor on paper.
Alhough I am admittedly less familiar with his work, Aristotle is closer to our current (on paper) system, but I never intended to claim he was pro merit-based leadership; Socrates, as depicted through Plato, was. That's a problem, because whoever determines what "merit" is leads to unapologetic, authoritarian, often fascist, rule.
Socrates and Aristotle Plato also believed rule should be imposed by philospher-kings. They believed in rule by merit, a core right-wing philosophy. The difference between them and modern right-wingers is that the modern ones believe wealth is an indicator of merit.
Edit - Offended two dead philosophers by mixing them up with their rival.
Y'know, Yog, it's not very often I see a post by you and happily read it, let alone upvote it, but I'm glad we can both be happy to see world leaders telling Trump's government to go fuck itself.
Insinuating that everyone always performs perfectly at the Olympics? I just watched a woman cry because she only landed a double-spin instead of a triple during the figure skating competiton. I supposed she didn't land her jump on purpose too?
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe he accidentally
touched the rock, but I am shocked you find it so unbelievable that someone could be so focused on where their rock is going that they didn't pay enough attention to how their hand was positioned after they let go of the rock. High pressure situations create surprising mistakes.
Fair enough. I realize now that I spoke with more confidence on the reality of the situation than I intended. Any avid curler I've spoken with regarding this in the last couple days swears up and down that the level of interaction that supposidly occurred between the curler and the rock is genuinely a non-factor. I do not know from any level of personal experience, hence why I stated that I trust whatever Olympic panel exists. I merely wanted to counter the poor argument that "the rule wouldn't exist if it can't impact the rock," as the rule can absolutely exist for the purpose of more clear cut cases.
Armchair analysis is rarely worth taking seriously. I suspect that neither of us actually know from experience, but maybe you're a professional curler.
Because extreme cases can impact the rock. Barely touching the rock in the way caught on film realistically isn't impacting the rock, but the rule needs to exist to prevent someone from actively pushing the rock after letting go.
But again, these guys know better and have had the time and resources to train better.
I mean, fuck Hexbear, but this is in fact all over the news. I'm sure it's posted there in an anti-west bias, but that doesn't make it untrue, and I absolutely demand better from my country than to cheat at the Olympics.
I trust whatever committee they have at the Olympics to make the judgement on this, but if our team is cheating, fuck those guys.
Yes, there's some redactionist arguments about how it "doesn't actually impact the rock," but fuck that. We have a codified rule that specifically says you can't do it, and these athletes are playing at literally the highest level that exists. They know better and have had time to practice better. If they're cheating at the Olympics, I hope it follows them forever.
Imagine spending your time being intentionally obtuse about the colloquial understanding of "America" and then calling other people "lame ass trolls." C'mon man. Be better.
Funny, if I had to choose between Randy Fine and a dog, I don't think it would be a particularly hard choice either.
The difference however, is that I'm judging someone on their words and actions, not an obtuse understanding of cultural and religious affiliations. Because that would be racist, much like Randy.
If everyone on this list gave the same percentage as Warren Buffett, the world would be a visibly better place.
Edit: To be clear, I am of the opinion that no one should be as rich as Warren Buffet, but I simply wanted to make the point that even as much as one third of all their wealth would visibly change the world, while leaving these people with a dragon's hoard of wealth.
I dislike people normalizing hate speech through this kind of space, but I largely agree. If people want to follow a curator that will make sure they aren't emotionally blindsided by a female protagonist showing affection towards another woman, for example, that's a choice they can make. We wouldn't want the chuds to get their feelings hurt, afterall.
But in all seriousness, that's kind of their choice. Obviously, any comments that suggest violence against people who make/play/are represented in that kind of game needs to get shut down immediately, but you're allowed to not like LGBTQ+ representation. It's not illegal to clutch your pearls at the sight of non-heteronormative sexuality. It's just reprehensible.
I occasionally go through the lists posted by chud curators for small indie titles that would have escaped my notice. I don't have time to scrutinize every title on Steam, but these guys seemingly have infinite time to ensure every unheard of title with a case of LGBTQ+ representation gets criticism from them. Ironically, they're fantastic for finding small, progressive passion projects I would have otherwise missed.
Ha, no, fuck off, OpenAI.
And how many times have you flagged someone for "furtherance of violent activities" that DIDN'T go forward to shoot up a school, or do much of anything you should intervene in? ChatGPT can't even brainstorm multiple choice questions on a short story without hallucinating bullshit, and you want us to believe it'd be effective as the thought police?
This is a cherry-picked argument being used to begin legitimizing AI for more serious uses, such as making legal decisions. This is not Minority Report; AI can fuck off with charging people with pre-crime.
"Never let a good crisis go to waste."