you’re probably an idiot. I know I am.

  • 0 Posts
  • 65 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 3rd, 2023

help-circle
  • Vespair@lemm.eetoPolitical Memes@lemmy.worlddemocrats got this
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Yeah people are missing your point and thinking you’re praising Booker’s specific action as the solution rather than what (I think) you’re actually doing, which is praising action in general and encouraging others to recognize and take up whatever actions they can/will in lieu of inaction.

    Good on you.





  • And it’s beyond obvious in the way LLMs are conditioned, especially if you’re used them long enough to notice trends. Where early on their responses were straight to the point (inaccurate as hell, yes, but that’s not what we’re talking about in this case) today instead they are meandering and full of straight engagement bait - programmed to feign some level of curiosity and ask stupid and needless follow-up questions to “keep the conversation going.” I suspect this is just a way to increase token usage to further exploit and drain the whales who tend to pay for these kinds of services, personally.

    There is no shortage of ethical quandaries brought into the world with the rise of LLMs, but in my opinion the locked-down nature of these systems is one of the most problematic; if LLMs are going to be the commonality it seems the tech sector is insistent on making happen, then we really need to push back on these companies being able to control and guide them in their own monetary interests.



  • I mean sure, but that’s not exclusive to Christianity; forgiveness can be learned anywhere, including through lived experience. Yes Christianity features forgiveness prominently, but it also prominently features fish and certainly you don’t think you can only acquire seafood from the pious.

    So practically you can appreciate and accept the philosophical lessons offered by Christianity while still rejecting the Christianity of it all in the same way that you can appreciate and endorse live music by buying tickets through Ticketmaster while also criticizing Ticketmaster for all of the awfulness they unnecessarily bring into the concert-going experience.












  • Vespair@lemm.eetoPolitical Memes@lemmy.worldAre we winning yet?
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    They can’t just let all paycheck to paycheck people die.

    Real question here - why not? If the powers that be are facing the potential of unrest in the face of their tyranny, why wouldn’t they let the protesters starve? Does this not only preemptively eliminate potential opposition? Do you think they simply care out of some hidden shred of dignity of something?

    I think all of you black & white accelerationists are either ignorant or deceitful about the reality of the stakes in play here. I’m not saying revolution shouldn’t happen, won’t happen, can’t happen, or any of that, but I’m tired of listening to people acting like this choice is as casual as picking what sandwich to have and not the very real acceptance of potentially fatal or otherwise devastating consequences. Necessary action or not, that’s not the kind of thing to treat so cavalier.


  • There is validity to this argument, certainly, but we are not talking about a social moral defined solely by legality, we are discussing a case where legality was defined within the confines of social expectation.

    Legality is not inherently morality, but it can be an indicator of social morals.

    There will be times when they are at odds, but I have yet to hear a compelling case in this situation.

    So I ask, what social harm is being caused by defining adulthood at 18? And let’s be clear, I am looking for actual harm here, not potential for harm; going through a dangerous intersection is not the same thing as experiencing a car accident.


  • I think you’re making serious assumptions and assuming a binary where none exists.

    First off, nobody, here or in mainstream popular culture, is holding Leo’s relationships as model behavior. Leo may perhaps have “role model” status, but all avenues to which that moniker can be affixed apply to his body of work, talent, work ethic, etc; there is just nobody in mainstream culture referring to him as a role model in terms of romantic entanglements, at least not seriously.

    So with that in mind, let’s discuss the binary here. Things aren’t either good or bad, they just simply aren’t. A entire gulf of experience in neutrality lays between the enviable and damned. So as I see it, the question here, at least the one posed by my comment, isn’t “are Leo’s relationships enviable role model behavior?,” because I don’t think that was ever in question, but rather “are Leo’s relationships damnedable?”, and to that the answer is a clear and resounding no, for me at least.