Why are people so disappointing?
Joined February 2012
- Tweets1.3K
- Following354
- Followers48
- Likes21.4K
Has anyone noticed that the way left leaning people talk about intelligence in general is totally at odds with the way they talk about AI. As in; a vague rejection of intelligence as a concept is almost a left shibboleth.
You lose literally nothing by not downplaying or defending someone that did something wrong. I have no idea why people choose to do so.
Everything to do with discussion of the Cornell affair has changed over night on my timeline, and it’s very disorienting.
How do you deal with the unintentional bait and switch that happens in large group discussions? If you respond to something that someone actually claims as justification a lot of times other directionally similar pros of that idea will feel genuinely misinterpreted.
We will never be able to believe in anything if we lose the ability to say “you should do X” because someone with super special circumstances exist somewhere and is an exemption to that idea.
Feels worth noting that this is *exactly* by design for how idpol is used writ large.
Isn’t it interesting that the greatest moral taboo on most parts of the internet is saying slurs? Seems pretty strange if you take a step back.
I’m agnostic on a lot of the AI related questions. My issue with the left’s attitude to AI is that it seems like they adopted almost entirely ad-hoc to cater to in-group/out-group dynamics.
The completely absurd conclusions you get when you replace the underlying moral stances with descriptive signifiers that are subordinate to those stances. You will be an anti-imperialist that defends states annexing their neighbors. You will be an anti-carceralist, pro-prison.
A lot of the pro-ship style libertines being really quiet about this.
A federal appeals court ruled that the First Amendment protects an individual’s right to privately possess images or videos of child sexual abuse created using AI — if the material does not depict a real person and remains in the home.
The court relied on Supreme Court precedents Stanley v. Georgia (1969), which established protections for the private possession of obscene material in the home, and Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), which ruled that certain virtual depictions involving no real children are protected by the First Amendment.
The defendant in the case, Steven Anderegg, was charged with producing and distributing obscene AI-generated images and sending them to a minor over Instagram. The possession charge was dismissed under the Supreme Court precedents.
The judge panel in the case has asked the Supreme Court to “reconsider legal precedents that predate advances in AI.”
(washingtonpost.com/technolog…)
The idpolers often fall into an absurd tribal dynamic in order to assert their interest. Anti-idpolers do the same but their tribe is the ignorant populist white majoritarian.
The social democrats don’t care about the developing world. The MLs just abdicate morality completely when it’s time to be an apologist for anti-imperialists.
The amount of lifestyle evangelism that gets conflated with dating tips is staggering. “Women love it when a man can tie them up.” Thanks for the info I guess.
Thinking that there is no distinction between more or less ethical forms of consumption and being pro sex work is a pretty eyebrow raising combination of beliefs.
Attaining a diagnosis as a form of absolvement is a horrible incentive IMO.
Eric Ramon 🌱 retweeted
Una nutria se convirtió en madre en un zoológico japonés, y salió a mostrarles a los visitantes a su bebé.
Y entonces apareció su amiga la envidiosa. Presentándoles con orgullo… un trozo de tubería.🦦🦦
The inherent conditions for the kind of interactions you can have with people are different online. Lots of incentives make people bigger jerks online. I don’t think it’s a attitude or personality issue writ large.
