CynAq

I can’t believe in this day and age marijuana is still an object of political influence.

Just legalize the shit, period. What’s with all the conditionals attached to it? You just have to marginalize users one way or the other because god forbid we have fewer things “those people” do to point fingers at.

Right? Both the Israeli and Qatari governments suck ass

Hua long dong 6 is a hell of a name tho

Humans can do something, doesn’t mean humans only do that thing and nothing else.

Humans have many models of the world running in different modes in parallel, enabling us to make sense of things other than just process language and come up with plausible sounding answers within the rules of a given language.

Our understanding of concepts is different than how we process language, demonstrated in that there are perfectly intelligent people who can’t communicate using spoken or written language (including sign language) but can do so using other methods which demonstrate language processing isn’t essential to our intelligence.

The way we learn information and integrate it into our neural network is vastly different than how we train our artificial models using machine learning. Even if we just take language processing, we definitely don’t learn by reading the entirety of written human language many times over regardless of what language it’s written in, until we can understand how it’s underlying mechanics work so that we can form plausible structures of word-chunk strings without necessarily understanding the concepts behind the word-chunks.

That sounds nothing like a human.

LLMs are “generate something that sounds like it would answer the prompt” machines. Nothing more and nothing less.

Through that lens, they are a lot less impressive, a lot less frustrating and also a lot more fun.

deleted by creator

What in the actual fuck?

This is like a physical embodiment of Poe’s law.

Xitting, pronounced “shitting”

I, too, agree with the scientists that we’re all well and truly fucked.

Yes. That’s why who said what, and in what context, matters.

You’re misunderstanding NYT’s position and intention on this when they call it “strict new ethics rules”. They are a neoliberal organization who’ll side with republicans more often than they do with progressives. They are trying to paint it in a bad, big government kinda sentiment when they call it “strict”.

Who told you western teenagers were too dumb to understand this fact and would fail to include the remedies to their ideology when they rile up against capitalism?

TIL I didn’t know the meaning of normies.

It’s not a word I use but when I saw it first, I thought it meant neurotypical, then after a while I saw it in a more political context and thought it meant centrist. Turns out, it just means mainstream. I think.

What exactly does this word mean?

Or conversely, a Christian apologist coming to an atheist community and saying “if god isn’t real why do good things” as if declaring you are a poorly educated sociopath is a good way to challenge people’s well formed ideas.

I’ve spent quite a bit of time trying to explain to some people why “woke leftists” are so quick to shut them up that they feel like they aren’t given a right to speak their minds. “Woke” ideas are generally more developed and complex than “common sense” ideas, which requires some thought being put into them while they evolve from basic to their current level, so when you challenge a person’s developed idea with a superficial, usually knee jerk level question or critique, you’re most likely engaging in a line of thinking they were done with quite early in their evolution of the idea you’re trying to challenge.

Oligarchical defenestration

<insert yo mama joke here>

We want to discuss topics. This is a place to do that.

Simple need, simple solution.

You don’t need an extra incentive to make people talk about things if people talking about things is the thing you want. You don’t want to incentivize people who don’t want to talk about things to be active somewhere you want people to talk about things because then those people will start doing the thing your’e incentivizing them for instead of talk about things.

I personally only want people who want to talk about things here, and don’t want people who don’t want to talk about things.

Not the same misconception, though it’s a poor choice of wording.

Type II diabetes cases are actually increasing around the world, due to factors another comment summarizes very well, but it’s not obviously “spreading” like a contagious disease.

It’s not an issue of doctors starting to diagnose something that always existed but went undiagnosed due to ignorance/bias like the case with autistic women.

The extreme profit oriented business culture of the US combined with the human nature of bandwagons make these sort of disgusting practices possible.

Corporations are justified, by default, in anything they can do to increase profit, and will do so until there’s enough public backlash to negate the amount of profit that practice makes.

The public backlash is tied to the social momentum the idea has. Because profitability is the default idea to be promoted, you can’t say something like “don’t do this obviously profitable thing because it’s bad for people” unless there’s enough people around you who’ll get on the bandwagon. If suddenly some influential person or a critical number of schmucks say the opposite, then everyone is defending the corporation’s, not only the right, but the duty to be profitable.

It’s an unpleasant way to live, really, but people are creatures of habit and won’t easily go against the culture they grow up in.