If you think we should offload to AI even if it’s worse, I have serious questions about your day to day life. What industry do you think could stand to be worse? Doctor’s offices? Lawyers? Mechanics? Accounts?

The end user (aka the PEOPLE NEEDING A SERVICE) are the ones getting screwed over when companies offload to AI. You tell AI to schedule an appointment tomorrow, and 80% of the time it does and 20% it just never does or puts it on for next week. That hurts both the office trying to maximize the people seen/helped and the person that needs the help. Working less hours due to tech advancement is awesome, but in reality offloading to AI in the current work climate is not going to result in working less hours. Additionally, how costly is each task the AI is doing? Are the machines running off of renewables, or is using this going to contribute to worse air quality and worse climate outcomes for people you’re trying to save from working more. People shouldn’t have to work their lives away, but we have other problems that need to be solved before prematurely switching to AI.

I wonder how much of that difference can be attributed to gun violence. I’m not anti gun, but few countries have gun laws as lax as the US so there’s a larger number committed by guns which may be more difficult to solve. The sale of guns themselves are not always tracked, and gun violence is something that can be done from afar and not leave as much evidence. We’re also quite a large country with very populous cities. Berlin has 3.7 million people and is the most populous EU city. NYC has over twice that. Much easier to solve crime in a town of a few hundred people than in large cities, which the US has more of.

Jesus was Jewish the first time around. Maybe he’s willing to associate with anyone but Christians at this point.

I understand that, but that imagines he’s standing by his decision for the sake of it. I’m not trying to go to bat for a Trump supporter right now, but in general my point is that his “reasoning” seems to hold even if he’s in the crosshairs. If his opinion is that sacrificing some freedom is necessary in order to ensure safety, then he seems like he still believes that even if it affects him personally. I understand your comment, but it doesn’t actually address his position or my point. I don’t think anything has happened to make him think he’s wrong about the sleeper cell things. You’re projecting your worldview onto him. He says he believes there’s a problem and he’s willing to face familial hardship to ensure the problem is rooted out.

I’m always torn when I read stories like this. Even though this is worse case scenario, both for the family and the country, at least he’s standing by his decision. It’s stupid because obviously he should see how irrational it is, but if he really believes there’s some kind of “sleeper cell” network that must be caught, at least he’s willing to sacrifice his own family’s rights as well as the rights of others. I wonder if he’d feel the same way if it was him instead of his wife, but at least it’s more consistent than the “I didn’t realize he meant MY family” crowd that stops supporting once they see the effects on their own family. Obviously, no longer supporting is preferred no matter how they get there, but at least he’s committed to being in the cult. I think it’s just that it makes their vote seem more based in ignorance than in selfishness. I’d prefer to believe that people legitimately think they’re surrounded by sleeper cells and this is the only thing that will keep people safe than think that they just don’t care about other people and are unwilling to endure hardships they happily force upon others.

There is an impartial principle and it’s science. Is it perfect, no, but it’s there and there’s a large community that is able to come to a consensus.

If they had your kids read a book where someone gets a vaccine and dies due to complications or where they don’t get a vaccine and get the disease and live, would you have them not read that book? Because the fact is there is no class on being gay and there’s no class on vaccines. No book they’re reading is saying “God loves gay people”. They’re saying “gay people exist”. That is true. People also die of diseases they’re vaccinated against. That’s also true. If they’re having them read a book that says not to vaccinate, they’re pushing an ideology, not spreading awareness. That’s the distinction.

Maybe you’re unaware, but if your ideological enemies are on the right, they will wield power that they were never granted against you. Conceding the truth to them is preemptive defeat. I will continue to push for facts to be taught in schools and the fact is that gay people exist, evolution is real, and some vaccinated people die anyway. None of that is ideological, it’s factual, and if you don’t want your kids to believe the facts then you’re going to have to hope your “ideology” is as convincing as the science.

I don’t think religion and faith “are the problem.” But if I’m honest, I think they’re at least a little problematic. I think anything that encourages anti scientific beliefs or principles isn’t “good” for society. I don’t know I’d go so far to say it’s “dangerous”. I think anything that allows people to create in groups and out groups is not helpful, even if it does not overtly preach harming the out group. Any time spent bonding over religion or in religious community could be spent bonding over something more practical. I know a lot of people have found help through religion, but I can’t help but think how much better off we would be if instead of finding that sense of community within a religion we found it within our actual community. Instead of a constancy in a higher power, we found it and built it up within ourselves. Maybe there is no way to frame society so that people look within themselves and their community for strength they seek a higher power for, but I believe that as long as religion exists we will never know.

I don’t think talking about a thing that goes against any individual religion should be considered protecting religion. If my religion teaches vegetarianism, can I opt out of any books where a character eats meat or hunts? Can I be exempt from learning about early humans or the food chain because it involves learning about their diet? The answer is now yes, and I think it does a huge disservice to children. Reading a book about a gay couple is not forcing you to be gay or even support homosexual relationships. It’s just showing you that gay people exist and that’s legal and some gay people have families and are happy. You can think it’s morally wrong, but it’s happening and it’s the schools job to educate children on things that are happening. I know people who were removed when evolution was discussed. They’re no longer religious, but they have this gap in understanding they now have to fill in because their parents didn’t want them to know the science. I think that’s terrible and does not help, but I support that more than the book thing because at least you can argue testing a child about evolution forces them to say things they don’t believe in whereas just reading or hearing about gay people doesn’t make you do anything.

You misunderstood. She’s focused on affordability for herself. How is she going to afford things if she can’t get kickbacks from corpos and the rich for keeping taxes low?

Their comment is basically “we logged the whole forest and sold lumber for profit, now don’t you feel stupid for not doing it when trees still existed?!” Most anti crypto people are more sad that crypto exists than upset that they didn’t cash out big. A fascist government saying that everyone who engaged in ruining the forest was right isn’t going to change how people actually feel about the fact the forest is now gone.

People like that would rather be “right” than good, and will side with whoever is declaring them “right”.

I’m not religious, but I understand that a wedding is very important in some religions. Catholics for example consider it a sacrament. It’s not about their guests, it’s about the couple and if religion is important to them they should be able to have that included. You can just not go if you don’t want to. It’s about supporting them and their journey together. It’s not about the attendees being religious.

It’d be like going to a vegetarians wedding and being upset they didn’t offer meat dishes. It’s their wedding and their views. If there’s any day where they should be able to subject people to them (for lack of a better phrase) it’s their wedding day.

I don’t use these services, but out of curiosity how has that gone for you? To and from the airport where you can give a heads up of at least a few days makes sense to me, but I always figured part of the allure was flexible scheduling and the location algorithm. I can’t imagine a driver would want to give their information out and possibly get a call at like 2 am to do a pickup somewhere they aren’t close to. Do they give you their general schedule and service area? Do you have a long list or do you just pay 1 or 2 well enough that they will make the trip even if they’re not actually working at that time?

This post is bait, but for anyone passing through, afterwards he told people he rushed to pick them up because he was worried that if anyone else did there might be violence. Being concerned that your ally is so trigger happy that they would be glad to have reporters assaulted just for daring to get close to help them does not make anyone look good, but he was legitimately concerned for people’s safety. That’s the kind of leader we should be looking for. Not someone who’s obsessed with posturing and would not help on the chance it makes them look weak.

The article explains that Thursday a statement was issued suggesting they would stop raids on these places. It was not long a long lasting pause since that very weekend he reversed course, likely due to the no kings protests. So he reversed his decision and then reversed it again within a week.

I’m glad you’ve put in the work, and I’m sorry your community of men is failing you. I think it’s probably dependent on where in the country you are, but leftist political spaces have quite a few men who have put in the work. Not all of them, but that’s the only thing I can think of that doesn’t require you to have a specific interest. You’d be surprised how many fully actualized people you’ll meet volunteering somewhere, even just once a month.

I don’t see it regardless. Are you logged in? It’s possible that if your account lists your country that they just set it to always appear? I’m unfortunately not sure, but having that notice would be a huge improvement imho.

It kind of is the governments job to do that. You might not want it to be, but the government has entire regulatory bodies to protect people. You can call them delusional if you want, but plenty of people that are not experiencing mental health problems don’t understand that LLMs can lie or make up information. Lawyers have used it and it hallucinated case law. The lawyers weren’t being delusional, they just legitimately did not know it could do that. Maybe you think they’re dumb, or uninformed, but they’re just average people. I do think a disclaimer like the SG warnings would go a long way. I also think some safeguards should be in place. It should not allow you to generate child abuse imagery for example. I don’t think this will negatively impact it being able to generate your SQL queries.

My page does not say that. It’s possible that in your country, which I’m guessing is different from my country seeing as you stated guns are illegal, they already have this legislation in place. That is not the case here.

It literally is not. ChatGpt has a blank page (a la google homepage) that says “What can I help you with?” And the input field says “Ask anything”. If it said “Use this text field to play pretend” it would be at least a little better.

Thinking everything you see online is fake is bad advice. Being skeptical is important but the internet isn’t all just fake.

There is a good place to regulate it. At the input and output level. It already is regulated there. It has guardrails already. Public data AI may be more ethical, but it is not going to solve the issue. The issue is the way people are using AI and the output it produces. It seems like you might not be wholly familiar with this subject.

Every single LLM should have a disclaimer on every page and potentially in every response that it is making things up, is not sentient, and just playing mad libs. If they had a “conversation” and every response ended with “THE CONTENTS OF THE RESPONSE ARE NOT VERIFIED AND ARE ENTIRELY MADE UP ON THE SPOT FOR ENTERTAINMENT AND HAS NO RELATION TO REALITY” or some other thing it might not get as far. Would some people ignore it? Yea, sure, but the companies are selling AI like it’s a real thinking entity with a name. It’s going to happen that the marketing works on someone.

I’m not saying that’s the specific answer, but it should be made overwhelmingly clear that AI is not real right on the page. The same with AI video and audio. Education won’t help kids who haven’t had AI safety class yet, or adults who never had it, or people who slept through the class, or people who moved here and didn’t have access to the education where they grew up. Education is important, but the fact you think regulation won’t help at all seems dismissive.