polite leftists make more leftists
☞ 🇨🇦 (it's a bit of a fixer-upper eh) ☜
more leftists make revolution
oh that's so sweet, you think i'm naïve <3
I said:
The problem is the market, IMO, if not capitalism entirely
but it seemed to me that you were disagreeing with my post when you said "the problem is making a profit off it." I could have misunderstood, and you were agreeing?
..no, that's just what I said is not the case. You must have misread?
under capitalism, almost nothing happens without a profit. If you're so sure the problem isn't capitalism, please explain to me how exactly you're imagining things should work.
I have a pretty good landlord. This isn't an ACAB situation. The problem is the market, IMO, if not capitalism entirely; even if you got rid of landlords (made it illegal to have tenants), housing prices would still be too high to buy a house. Supply-side or demand-side economics are the only viable solution under capitalism.
FYI everyone, you can install an authenticator app (like KeePassXC) on your laptop, so you don't need to use your phone.
The user content on fandom is generally pretty good, at least for the wikis I frequent. It's everything else about the site which is awful -- the pop-ups, the completely irrelevant auto-playing videos, how it's constantly trying to shove other fandom wikis into your attention.
I'm sure the site is improved with userscripts and such, and I am already using adblock, but it's pretty unforgivable IMO.
Important context: he’s not suggesting AIs writing content for Wikipedia. He’s suggesting using AI to provide feedback for new editors. Take that how you will.
Mkay, I think we agree more than we disagree. For instance yeah, I agree that AI has its uses and I actually agree with the top-level comment. Like you, I also don't particularly wish to join in the chorus of un-nuanced "AI bad!" takes (as opposed to more nuanced anti-AI takes). If there's a post that's exaggerating the environmental impact of AI, I will upvote a well-researched comment that dissents. (Environmental impact strikes me as one of the places where AI fears are really overblown -- golf courses currently use over 15× more water than datacenters in total, but they don't have even a 15th the outrage.) So yeah, I would rather that the "fuck AI" crowd be more level-headed when agitating against AI and not use poorly-researched, poorly-reasoned arguments when there are much better arguments against AI. If you were to really boil it down, I would say I agree with you here:
I also think that with the overwhelming number of anti/fuck ai posts it’s worth highlighting upside when there is upside.
But it's the same principles that lead me to upvote thoughtful dissent that makes me dislike the top-level comment here. It's not thoughtful. It might be a good comment in a thread about how AI is completely worthless with no redeeming qualities -- and I'd upvote it there -- but I am not going to take my frustration with threads like that and upvote the comment in this context, where a dozen other reasons were given to rally against AI (some I agree with, some I don't) and top-level-comment chooses the one time to bring up a good point in a context where it's not relevant.
Sure, the OP here is being rather overzealous, and if I were going to leave some dissent in this thread I would choose one of the things they said I disagreed with. But I just don't think this thread specifically is an appropriate place to say "actually, AI has some good uses." That strikes me as rounding the OP toward zero, and we don't need more of that.
Ok, I'll admit, "huh?" was terse and I should have been more polite. In my defense, I thought you were not arguing in good faith given that it felt like you were putting words in my mouth -- you said I claimed the author thought ¬X, but what I said was "the author did not say X." But yeah, I was rude -- I'm sorry.
Okay, I understand your position better, but I still disagree with you. I don't claim to know whether the OP thinks there are or are not useful uses for AI; rather -- and this is where we apparently disagree -- I don't think that "there are some good uses for AI" is a cogent rebuttal to the OP's claim. This is because I don't think it makes sense to look at a list of things that OP says, then imagine an additional point that the OP would likely agree with based on their overall vibes (but is actually entirely logically independent of everything they did say), and then refute that point.
For what it's worth, I am a person who agrees with most of what the OP says but I still wouldn't claim that AI is entirely devoid of utility. If I were someone who used microblog social media, I could easily see myself posting a similar rant as OP, since I have strong negative feelings about AI, but I would be mildly peeved if somebody responded the way top-level-comment did, since it's not a response to anything I said, nor even a point of contention for me. (I can enumerate my grievances with AI if you wish, but I don't think it's really important.)
Granted, it's not proof, but I find it very hard to believe that all cases of identical twins with apparently differing gender identities is explained by one of the twins simply electing not to transition while the other does. This is particularly hard to believe given that the twins grow up in similar environments, so if one is in a transition-hostile environment the other likely is as well. I think we should believe people when they insist they are not transgender, especially if they are part of a study where their identical twin is comfortable being open about it. If this were a rare occurrence, I would be more inclined to agree with you, but it is not rare at all.
"transgender"
One instance where I have seen "transgender" used this way is from the same article where I learned about the link between transgender, skin elasticity, and hyperflexibility:
it’s at least possible that EDS and transgender are linked
It's no typo; other articles by this same author use the same grammar. I have also for sure seen this used on other sites, including by trans authors, but in 5 minutes of searching I can't find those instances. "Being transgender" does seem grammatically fitting to me, but it doesn't always make sense to use "being transgender" as a substitute for "transgenderism"*/"transgender." Anyway we more or less agree here and I have little interest in semantics.
it’s weird to think that OP thinks there’s some utility. [...] you putting words in the mouth of the poster.
I don't get it. I literally just wrote an entire comment explaining how this was not my claim. Please, point me to where I said that OP thinks there is some utility to AI. Maybe go and re-read my comment in case you missed the whole comment while responding to it.
My evidence that OP wasn't saying it's never useful is that at no point in their post do they say it's not useful. Are you interpreting me saying "OP wasn't saying it's never useful" to mean "OP said it's sometimes useful"? Learn to read. (Sorry, I don't normally like to be impolite, but you are being rude to me for no reason.)
OP lists many objections to AI. It is causing harm to society. It is a privacy convern. It is a concern for intellectual property reasons. It is an environmental concern. It's making people stupid. Notice the absence of "it has no useful applications" or "it doesn't work very well."
Top Level Comment: "[I found a use for AI.]" My response: "[Although it sounds like you're responding to what OP said, that doesn't really contradict OP since they never claimed it has no uses. They are objecting to AI on different grounds entirely.]"
gender dysphoria is not what I'm talking about, since not all transgender people have dysphoria.
To be clear -- "transgender" the noun is not referring to a person ("that person is a transgender"* -- proscribed) but rather as a substitute for "transgenderism"* (proscribed). Personally, using "transgender" seems linguistically strange to me and it just reminds me of Trump saying "transgender for everybody" but if it's what people prefer then who am I to judge.
Anyway -- yes, I agree that it seems very probable that there are strong genetic components to transgender, but it's also clearly not purely genetic, given there are identical twins where one is cis and the other not.
Funny.
If we assume that the distribution is measuring some trait (e.g. "testosterone content," "femininity," measured however you will), and it's bimodal (distribution is dominated by two binary sexes), then there will be people on either side of both peaks.
I did not claim that the OP was saying it's sometimes useful.
huh?
my bad, updated to "transgender," I read online that's the preferred noun form (though it looks more adjectival to me)
gender identity is clearly not primarily genetic, as twin studies suggest otherwise.
I don't entirely agree, because gender identity is known to be at least partially biological, e.g. there are correlations between transgender, skin elasticity, and hyper-flexibility.
yes. Capitalism is the problem, not landlords per se. Under capitalism, I feel like it is more ethical to rent out a spare room in one's house than it is to not rent it out.