Skip Navigation

Posts
5
Comments
213
Joined
2 mo. ago

I like bickering about useless nonsense with people who most definitely will not be changing their minds. Yes, I know it's a waste of time. No, I don't plan on stopping.

🇨🇦 (He/Him)

  • I think the idea generally is to replace the police with social welfare programs and unarmed crisis responders, but that’s jumping through so many hoops that it just sounds way too simplistic tbh. It sounds practical, but it treats the problem like it’s something that can be improved with just a few institutions reforming/being abolished.

    There’s never been a society without some form of justice system since cruelty is a part of human nature, and at this point these systems are far too intertwined and embedded in our societies for them to change dramatically without some form of societal collapse or retraction.

    Idealism is well and good but the things many want in place of police institutions seem like they’re ignoring how complex and non-specific the issues are as a whole. It’s definitely not a one size fits all situation, especially with how many factors there are. People can disagree with me but I’d prefer to hear why at least, there are probably things I’m not considering here.

  • This is just a blatant lie.

    On my planet we back up claims with evidence

  • Fork found in kitchen

  • We need more paperclips and we need them now!!!

  • When his crackhead brother died the monkey's paw curled and now we're stuck with this 250 pound mosquito

  • Yeah, this is what a lot of people fail to take into account when it comes to the purpose of policing in society. There's obviously a lot of inherent problems with the way the police are structured in many countries as a whole, but to believe that we can just make do without something like them altogether is pretty shortsighted to say the least. I think that prevents a lot of otherwise sympathetic people from taking the backlash against police institutions seriously.

  • It was the same way with the Vietnam war. It didn’t stop because people were upset about the humanitarian crisis it was causing, it stopped because of how fiscally ridiculous it was, especially near the end.

    This is how it’s always been.

  • You do realize that meat-eaters usually aren't subsisting solely off of meat, right? They don't need to rely on vitamin supplementation, that's the whole point of a balanced diet. If they eat all the stuff that's important on a regular enough basis, they'll be fine even if you take the supplements away from farm animals.

    Cause they don’t graze on lush natural meadows anymore, they’re fed mostly corn.

    This is too localized of a point, in Canada for example the diets of farm animals are regulated to consist of much more than just corn. Admittedly I'm not sure about other countries, though I'm sure there are others similar in that regard.

  • It's come to my attention that you're someone who genuinely believes Russia is not an imperialist nation (where you ironically also attempt to hand-wave the definition of imperialism as forceful authority over another nation and imply that the only right one is that it's a direct and unique result of capitalism—as if a word can't have more than one definition), so I doubt you're someone I can have a rational discussion about authoritarianism with regardless.

    And again, you're fixing the term based on your own perception to make it support your point, which doesn't really have any merit when it comes to using these words as they are by academics essentially ubiquitously. Until we can both accept that authoritarianism has a set definition independent of many ideologies and therefore cannot be universally applied to them, this will remain a purely rhetorical argument.

  • Poe’s law binds us all

  • This is such a funny thing to say lmao, if it's bait then it needs to be in a museum. Bravo Vince

    "You're ridiculous for participating in the society you were raised in, how dare you. You need to run out into the woods like Ted Kaczynski, never pay taxes again, and survive like the kid from Hatchet. Oh? You have people that you care about? Just forget about them, duh. Oh? I'm a hypocrite because I'm typing this on a device that was obtained through said 'ridiculous lifestyle'? Nah, false equivalence. Just trust me, I'm basically Siddhartha Gautama. All I need is Lemmy."

  • When is being mislead not a bad thing? In a perfect world, there would be none of that. Of course we don't live in a utopia, but I'd prefer if we avoid spreading skewed understandings of anything at all as much as possible. It's a matter of principle.

  • This is assuming that the average person has a solid grasp of the inner workings of an LLM, which unfortunately isn't the case. Regardless, it would only be a semantic argument if they were shifting the meanings of the relevant words to support their argument, which they evidently weren't doing here.

    LLMs don't think, they predict patterns in language mathematically, making them functionally incapable of human capacities like compassion and intelligence, both of which require a conscious mind to be displayed. To use words that go against that without being precise is to imply the opposite. It's simply a matter of describing it accurately.

    If anything, considering it 'AI' is a semantic argument because it implies there's some form of higher thinking occurring under the surface, which there clearly isn't. It would be like if I said my PC was intelligent because it has a CPU. Obviously we've passed the point of using a better term, but it's still unfortunate we've decided on that because it's inherently misleading.

    It’d be very cumbersome and add no value to any conversation.

    I think you're using cumbersome in an unnecessarily negative way since it's very much an inevitable feature of the concept at hand. Yes, it's cumbersome, like all controversial fields of study. Things like that work themselves out over time. Until then we'll just have to deal with it without misleading anyone.

  • How is it a semantic argument? They're talking about how LLMs work on a functional level, not arguing the meaning of compassion itself. It's not hard to say that they emulate compassion and intelligence relatively well, applying human adjectives without any nuance just opens it up to being misinterpreted by people who don't know any better.

  • The PS2 one is better anyway imo, and you can just emulate that for free. Speaking as someone who played the Insomniac Spider-Man games first too btw

  • This is a semantic argument so it's pretty much a nothingburger. I'm just gonna go ahead and apply Alder's razor and call it here