It’s also not the apocalypse […] It’s just a tool.

So, the problem with tools is that their existence still affects the systems they’re a part of.

For instance, war between the US and Russia is much more dangerous now (yes, it used to be dangerous before as well) because now we have nuclear bombs. We did a whole cold war thing about it. Nuclear bombs change the world even when they’re not being used.

Similarly, meth is just a tool. It is entirely possible to smoke meth, not become addicted, have a great time, vacuum your entire house I guess, come down, chill, and move on with the rest of your life. But, that’s not what we would say meth’s effect on society is, is it?

I am so happy that you are capable of using AI without becoming a psychopath. I am concerned about the psychopaths.

just make an AI that says “it might be X or Y, only way to tell them apart is through the smell, so i can’t be sure”

I love when idea people tell me to just do this or that as if it’s easy.

If we could make something that would reduce the absolute amount of yearly mushroom poisonings,

You are begging the question. This is not known.

The player’s view is just another normal. If you set an angle range for how large their field of view is, and then check that the player’s normal and the vector from object to player are parallel enough, it shouldn’t be too hard.

Can we not put her on a pedestal and make her a representation of all women here?

Who is doing this?

What kind of Pokémon is this? Should I catch it?

I don’t know chippy, but I don’t get that vibe either. I can tell you that wanderingwonderer is known for throwing a tantrum every time men come up in conversation, so :shrug:

Was act your weight at the bottom of that list? That is fucked up. xD

The return to christandom thing is just something they say, it’s not exactly true.

I think I kind of understand where we’re talking past each other.

I’m holding a higher standard for what “truth seeking” means, and I would not describe what I see most conservative people doing, even the offline ones, as truth seeking.

I agree that a conservative watching Fox news believes they are consuming the truth, but I don’t think that this is the same as being a truth-seeking person.

I think that the modern, offline conservative is more accepting (just more) of inconsistencies in their worldview than they were, like, 20 years ago. There used to be more cultural emphasis on consistency as a virtue, and less distrust of smart people as a category, and those were things you could more easily leverage against a person.

But as you say, the old tactics still work, it just depends on who you’re talking to and when and how. The first step in any rhetorical battle is identifying who you’re talking to.

Flat earth would be so cool if it was just sci-fantasy authors and not weird, return to christandom, anti-modernity types.

I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying, but I’m also not entirely sure what you’re getting at.

What I was talking about:

If you look at the way that conservatives tend to argue online these days, or at the very least the 15-minutes of fame anti-woke-types on youtube and such, there has been a sizeable shift away from truth-seeking as a concept.

The goal with these conservatives is to get in, take a few pot shots, irritate the other person to farm clippable moments, and get out. It’s not uncommon to see one of these people withdraw an argument you’ve beaten, and then ten minutes later give the exact same argument, no amendments.

Their tactics have moved beyond “believing in things.” At least on the surface.

And MAGA is not their media figures, of course, but they do learn what works from them.

But anyway, I want to reiterate, I don’t disagree with you, I just like talking.

My at a glance understanding of the joke is that the… young boy character? does not understand the words he’s using. Not fully, anyway. Bit if a bone apple teeth situation.

Which is to say, I don’t think it scans. Dumb shit sounds to me like a school boy dunk and not confusion. I think different D and S medical terms could work pretty well, though.

1. This is not always true.
2. There is a third person in this equation.

set ourselves up for success […] while they take increasing doses of cope.

This is all well and good, but they also vote. Their cope will drown us in the Atlantic.

This is fine, though, because there are different ways of convincing people. Some people are moved by facts, and some people by narratives. And some people by power; the stupidest of the three, but what can you do.

It’s unfortunately just how things work. Facts only matter to people who care about the truth, and a lot of people don’t.

Understand what? That you have a robot girlfriend you don’t want to give up? That you would burn the world down for Her.

You know, human love is just a biochemical response to external stimuli, I’m sure there’s a drug that can replace it.

Yes, of course. Monte Carlo killed my father.

You know what the problem is? You think that you’re too smart to be caught with a meth addiction. See, your neighbor got fucked up, lost a bunch of his teeth, but you, you know about microdosing.

Your other neighbor fell off a construction site that was missing its guard rails, but that wouldn’t happen to you; you have excellent balance.

The movie Jurassic Park is literally about people like you.

Do you have a reason to restrict Gaussian mixture models you’d like to give me, or are we just pissing in the same bush?

Mate, this is how I make friends.

I know. I am perfectly capable of reading more than one comment.

zd9, you are aware that AI is making things worse, you say so yourself, and yet you feel the unsatable need to stand here bitching that no one understands your unique, special use case. For what?

I. Do. Not. Give. A. Fuck. that academics are using machine learning to solve problems. That is their business. <- Is that what you wanted? There you go.

Ooh, that’s sounds cool. Yeah, I’ll look at the third one then.