97620 pts ยท April 25, 2014
media designer, software dev, philosophy, neuroscience, cognition student, card game designer.
The actual reason right there. X-rays and extraction require general anesthesia for dogs, which makes it more expensive. Prices are also inflated, sure, but that's not the only issue here.
It's the other way round. The guys' skill is what allow the girls to do those moves. There's a lot of physical communication going on to make that happen.
That's evidence that they want such a person on call in case there's new casualties (sensible), not that the number of casualties is higher now.
I disagree. I think a lot of the demands people are making are explicitly and clearly pro copyright and intellectual property in all forms, and often only make sense when we assume this.
Just because a thing can hit the same scale in two different ways doesn't mean it's not a scale. But we don't need to hash out a perfect description of morality here, all I'm saying is that AI companies are not all evil in the same way or to the same degree and it's occasionally worth making the distinction (like in this case, where the thing we care about is surveillance and AI weapons, and a company that is doing copyright infringement turns out to be against those).
Based on the person's tone (and vocabulary: seems unfamiliar with many words but doesn't write uneducated) I'm genuinely assuming a teenager of the nitpicky kind. There's a mountain of circumstantial evidence, credible accusations, but the proven by a court or admitted to crimes aren't pedophilia (and really technically, he's clearly attracted to teens mid to end puberty, not pre). MAGA is a full-blown ideology, to me this is a kid in their devil's advocate phase of unknown ideological position.
Oh, fully agreed. Just, that's not a point anyone is making in the discourse.
... that's because it's not a dilemma? It's extreme ends on what the ends illustrate is a spectrum, criticizing purely black-and-white binary conception of "evil".
If that person is 15 and only starting out participation in online discourse, they're having a pretty interesting day that is not really teaching them anything about trans rights except that the people who care about them are brutal.
I see no evidence of that person being a MAGA republican (I now looked at their comment history and can't make out their position on trans rights or anything at all, really), I agree that the article isn't clear what the evidence is (and realizing that is a healthy thing more people should do, though they should then also click the sources), and I like to judge points made by themselves, not people.
To me, "sounds speculative, where's the facts?" - "here" - "oh thanks, my bad" just doesn't sound like bad faith discourse to me and the world would be better if we didn't think of it as such. Caveat: I didn't look into the commenter further. Additionally, it's not delegitimizing the trans community to ask those question - the article really gives no indication of any hard backing underneath the claims.
Yup, accusing trans people (me) of performative allyship is much more helpful.
I feel like stealing at the mall vs war crimes warrants more differentiation even when condemning all. For me, I just can't summon outrage over copyright infringement. I've been against copyright and patents all my adult life, art and AI haven't really changed that. I'll fight against surveillance and war AI any day though.
Really depends on the AI (you have any idea how great AI has been for cell counting in neuroscience? quality control in construction? protein folding? materials development? early sepsis detection in hospitals?) - I think the best analogy for AI is plastics. Wasteful, destructive, shitty, disruptive and transformative for many industries, but so genuinely useful in so many ways there's no way to stuff it back into pandora's box.
Yes, that sounds very productive and very helpful for improving communication /s
Me, needing to pee for the last 30 minutes: guess I'll keep scrolling imgur for another hour.
That looked so fucking rad, there's no way to not be disappointed in the end result even though it got a chuckle from me.
He's so goddamn tacky, his whole taste is stuck there. And emotionally he's in kindergarden, tantrums and bragging with easily caught lies, only interested in things that affect him, personally.
Honestly, I value this exchange as is. We should read critically, question things even if we align with them politically, and it shouldn't end with the question. When someone answers, that's not a gotcha or an epic own, it's just an answer to a legitimate question.
Their whole deal is "don't let AI become evil", so all their research is in "can we make it resistant to retraining, falsehoods and abuse". It's not perfect and they're adjacent/part of the "AI will improve itself and become a superintelligence that will reach consciousness" cult type of movement but it's really important they exist alongside the raw evil profit companies.
No. You have to realize there's more than one dimension of morality here. Anthropic's all about preventing AI from going evil and being used for evil; copyright and art does't really factor in there at all. If that's your only metric then sure, they're all the same.
It's Anthropic, not the bros. It's foundationally about holding AI accountable. Like, in a weird tech bubble way, but still, these guys mean it.
They're making the US military bases into more of a liability than an asset. It's so crystal clear who started this that both public sentiment and higher-ups will know who to blame.
There's two things that make people abroad care about a war: own casualties and consumer prices. This way, they can do both. US can kill hundreds of school children and people shrug, but a single dead US soldier and everyone's freaking out.
That is definitely my reaction as well. If we so much as consider joining the war I'm taking to the streets.
Habitual cheaters, often yes, though sometimes the kind that just gets excited by novelty and would still like it the same if it wasn't cheating. First-time cheaters usually are either unhappy in their primary relationship (but not enough to leave) or happened to fall for someone that liked them back (while still loving their partner). Different motivations.
Some is power trip stuff, some is "those poors better know their place" punishment stuff, some is deliberate to make statistics that imply there's no need for more services, as people refuse help or there's no needy people around seeking help.
Good for them! Nitpicking: I assume they mean the company is actively owned/managed by a guy who's in the Epstein files as an active associate of Epstein (there's all sorts of contexts people can be in the files for, and the name of a company is not the problem, who profits from it is).
If it's not incriminating a cop it's gonna be working fine.
The subroutine that decides whether something warrants conscious attention is fucking stupid. "hm yeah cape seems reasonable. oh, a cape, well, we're at the stylist, seems reasonable. huh, cape, yeah, seems reasonable." Individually, it's all beneath notice and filtered out, and that it's more than one and that is weird is a judgment that requires attention.
The actual reason right there. X-rays and extraction require general anesthesia for dogs, which makes it more expensive. Prices are also inflated, sure, but that's not the only issue here.
It's the other way round. The guys' skill is what allow the girls to do those moves. There's a lot of physical communication going on to make that happen.
That's evidence that they want such a person on call in case there's new casualties (sensible), not that the number of casualties is higher now.
I disagree. I think a lot of the demands people are making are explicitly and clearly pro copyright and intellectual property in all forms, and often only make sense when we assume this.
Just because a thing can hit the same scale in two different ways doesn't mean it's not a scale. But we don't need to hash out a perfect description of morality here, all I'm saying is that AI companies are not all evil in the same way or to the same degree and it's occasionally worth making the distinction (like in this case, where the thing we care about is surveillance and AI weapons, and a company that is doing copyright infringement turns out to be against those).
Based on the person's tone (and vocabulary: seems unfamiliar with many words but doesn't write uneducated) I'm genuinely assuming a teenager of the nitpicky kind. There's a mountain of circumstantial evidence, credible accusations, but the proven by a court or admitted to crimes aren't pedophilia (and really technically, he's clearly attracted to teens mid to end puberty, not pre). MAGA is a full-blown ideology, to me this is a kid in their devil's advocate phase of unknown ideological position.
Oh, fully agreed. Just, that's not a point anyone is making in the discourse.
... that's because it's not a dilemma? It's extreme ends on what the ends illustrate is a spectrum, criticizing purely black-and-white binary conception of "evil".
If that person is 15 and only starting out participation in online discourse, they're having a pretty interesting day that is not really teaching them anything about trans rights except that the people who care about them are brutal.
I see no evidence of that person being a MAGA republican (I now looked at their comment history and can't make out their position on trans rights or anything at all, really), I agree that the article isn't clear what the evidence is (and realizing that is a healthy thing more people should do, though they should then also click the sources), and I like to judge points made by themselves, not people.
To me, "sounds speculative, where's the facts?" - "here" - "oh thanks, my bad" just doesn't sound like bad faith discourse to me and the world would be better if we didn't think of it as such. Caveat: I didn't look into the commenter further. Additionally, it's not delegitimizing the trans community to ask those question - the article really gives no indication of any hard backing underneath the claims.
Yup, accusing trans people (me) of performative allyship is much more helpful.
I feel like stealing at the mall vs war crimes warrants more differentiation even when condemning all. For me, I just can't summon outrage over copyright infringement. I've been against copyright and patents all my adult life, art and AI haven't really changed that. I'll fight against surveillance and war AI any day though.
Really depends on the AI (you have any idea how great AI has been for cell counting in neuroscience? quality control in construction? protein folding? materials development? early sepsis detection in hospitals?) - I think the best analogy for AI is plastics. Wasteful, destructive, shitty, disruptive and transformative for many industries, but so genuinely useful in so many ways there's no way to stuff it back into pandora's box.
Yes, that sounds very productive and very helpful for improving communication /s
Me, needing to pee for the last 30 minutes: guess I'll keep scrolling imgur for another hour.
That looked so fucking rad, there's no way to not be disappointed in the end result even though it got a chuckle from me.
He's so goddamn tacky, his whole taste is stuck there. And emotionally he's in kindergarden, tantrums and bragging with easily caught lies, only interested in things that affect him, personally.
Honestly, I value this exchange as is. We should read critically, question things even if we align with them politically, and it shouldn't end with the question. When someone answers, that's not a gotcha or an epic own, it's just an answer to a legitimate question.
Their whole deal is "don't let AI become evil", so all their research is in "can we make it resistant to retraining, falsehoods and abuse". It's not perfect and they're adjacent/part of the "AI will improve itself and become a superintelligence that will reach consciousness" cult type of movement but it's really important they exist alongside the raw evil profit companies.
No. You have to realize there's more than one dimension of morality here. Anthropic's all about preventing AI from going evil and being used for evil; copyright and art does't really factor in there at all. If that's your only metric then sure, they're all the same.
It's Anthropic, not the bros. It's foundationally about holding AI accountable. Like, in a weird tech bubble way, but still, these guys mean it.
They're making the US military bases into more of a liability than an asset. It's so crystal clear who started this that both public sentiment and higher-ups will know who to blame.
There's two things that make people abroad care about a war: own casualties and consumer prices. This way, they can do both. US can kill hundreds of school children and people shrug, but a single dead US soldier and everyone's freaking out.
That is definitely my reaction as well. If we so much as consider joining the war I'm taking to the streets.
Habitual cheaters, often yes, though sometimes the kind that just gets excited by novelty and would still like it the same if it wasn't cheating. First-time cheaters usually are either unhappy in their primary relationship (but not enough to leave) or happened to fall for someone that liked them back (while still loving their partner). Different motivations.
Some is power trip stuff, some is "those poors better know their place" punishment stuff, some is deliberate to make statistics that imply there's no need for more services, as people refuse help or there's no needy people around seeking help.
Good for them! Nitpicking: I assume they mean the company is actively owned/managed by a guy who's in the Epstein files as an active associate of Epstein (there's all sorts of contexts people can be in the files for, and the name of a company is not the problem, who profits from it is).
If it's not incriminating a cop it's gonna be working fine.
The subroutine that decides whether something warrants conscious attention is fucking stupid. "hm yeah cape seems reasonable. oh, a cape, well, we're at the stylist, seems reasonable. huh, cape, yeah, seems reasonable." Individually, it's all beneath notice and filtered out, and that it's more than one and that is weird is a judgment that requires attention.