Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)S
Posts
0
Comments
307
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • While obviously anyone can be harassed by anyone, it's stupid to think that on average, an action by a man is the same as an action by a woman, in societies drowned in rape culture and toxic masculinity.

    If a man touches you, yeah, statistically it has more chances of being harassment than if a woman touches you. Doesn't mean that other cases aren't possible, but statistically that's how it is.

  • Also data is an artificial intelligence and sentience, not a stupid slop machine. So if this is technically AI art, then AI art doesn't exist in our reality.

  • People like the dominion war..?

  • And when it's basically all websites, and you require those to make money, which you have to make or capitalism kills you, you're out of options and it's too late.

  • That's a lot of ignorance.

    The ban defines social media in an extremely broad way. It's basically almost every website with a social aspect to it, comments under a news article would apply. Not only does it create a huge issue to have an unclear definition up to the interpretation of whomever will be taking advantage of it, it's also not a good measure to protect anyone. Kids that are feeling isolated because of, for example, their gender, identity, or looks, and who were using social media anonymously as an escape, are the ones that will struggle.

    And what do these bad effects cost? Massive, population-wide ID checks, that will need to be uploaded online, and France is soooo secure with their data breaches every ~3 days. So your ID information is in the wild, which will be heaven for hackers (who will consequently try even more to cause data breaches).

    Social media are, in general, horrible. You want to make laws, make laws that extremely strictly ban all the shit that facebook, twitter and youtube and the likes do. Ban toxic algorithms (or algorithms altogether, no one needs anything else than a good search engine), make big platforms responsible for hate speech and actually punish them, and make it a huge, in-depth criminal investigation with extremely harsh punishments when a platform like Facebook is found to hide and protect pedocriminal rings. At the same time, increase education budgets a lot and teach kids how things work instead of letting them be thrown in the jungle with no clue what's going on.

    Also, you think that a 15-years old with no social media experience is going to be safe online? That's doesn't make sense. Make a 70 years old suddenly use the internet and they'll also be lost, it's not just about age but about technology literacy.

  • No, he's saying that the atmosphere is a resource owned by the US and that other countries should pay for it.

  • What?

  • Yeah when the whole thing starts by referencing Games of Throne, you know it's going to be bullshit.

  • Yeah, but one could expect modern comics to have a bit more awareness on rather basic things like that.

    Your comment is a bit like saying that because sexism has been common in comics for ages, it's fine if a comic is sexist. Animal abuse shouldn't be something fine, and especially not in a comic that is trying to be more on the wholesome side.

  • What's up with comics showing torturously small fish aquariums lately?

  • Ah so I guess you can't read. Might explain the need to defend AI.

  • Side note and friendly reminders: fishes generally need a lot of living space, and a bowl like this would be torture for one fish, let alone three.

    Just like hamsters, birds, and basically most pet, you generally will need a much bigger living area than you assume they need. (Hamster cages that are a good 20cm x 20cm? The very bare minimum is 1m x 50cm x 50cm. Yes, the bare minimum.)

  • It's funny how everyone that tries to defend the use of AI, other than deny the fact that most evidence (and common sense/basic understanding of AIs) points to the idea that it's just negative, always avoid the subject of environment.

    Even if you assumed that you get the same result with Claude or whatever in 6 seconds, and with your brain in five minutes... Is the end of humanity and a massive extinction event worth those 5 minutes?

    Defending AI while there are literally news popping out right now about heat waves being more violent than ever recorded and killing thousands of people per day in countries that had no problems with heat a few decades ago, is extremely selfish and self-centered. And the only justification is "it's a bit faster and easier". Okay.

  • There can be a million papers on how AI is worthless, the vibe coders are way too brainwashed into their shitty habits that they'll never stop. It's basically a sect at this point, but a sect that is destroying the world.

  • His job of always helping the fascist oppressor side? Because that's what he continuously does.

  • Yeah they really don't understand anything related to biology.

    Good thing that DNA, genitals and gender are always 100% correlated right.

  • Good thing that the guillotines have forward compatibility with trillionaires and above.

  • Well, you are right.

    The thing is, the definition of "good by my standard" that I'm applying here is quite a basic one: what impacts people positively, without impacting other people negatively. It doesn't work for the most grey or ambiguous areas, but as a default baseline it works fine I would say.

    So Hitler wasn't having "good" intentions because his intentions were to impact people negatively.

    Obviously, if you start digging deeper, this core standard requires additional rules and such. Fighting against rich people would be bad according to this core, but I don't believe that it is bad; the reason for that is that rich people decide to be rich, and have a negative impact that is too important to neglect. Taxing them would then be good, because it helps people who are living poorer than they should be, by taking from people who are richer than they should be -> this adds a rule/exception of equity and of treating "bad" people under different rules (if you initiate something bad, then you stop counting as much in the balance of things, which varies depending on what you did).

    And yeah, this all ends up pretty subjectively, but I don't think that there is such a thing as an objective definition of good and evil, it depends on the scope. The scope that I'm trying to have is one that leads (or so I believe) to a fair and harmonious society, where people don't suffer (or as little as possible). Then you can even nitpick that wanting a fair society is also a subjective opinion (typically, capitalism wants the opposite, since the concept is to advantage some people by disadvantaging others), but there will never be a 100% consensus. Sometimes subjectivity is unavoidable, but I think that generally, decent people will at least have the idea of "feeling happy is good, suffering is bad" and the rest can be built on top of that.

    he was a gigantic nazi rapist (which is bad according to my definition, and for anyone that I deem worthy of respect), that ended up killing someone that he didn't really see as evil (or didn't care) purely for personal gain. None of those fall in the scope of having intentions of "good" (trying to impact others positively), so the action itself isn't good from Dukat's scope, even if it has a good result.

    If you analyse, let's say, Sisko committing crimes of war, he also falls a bit in the evil side for example: he decides to basically destroy a whole planet's worth of people, just to satisfy a personal vendetta. You could try to argue that the population can be moved, and that the guy would have caused issues down the road if he didn't get arrested, etc, but when it comes down to it, Sisko didn't care about that, he was just ready to sacrifice anything and anyone for his personal satisfaction. Therefore his intentions were bad, and the action is bad.

  • I mean, he was sort of fucking around. A lawyer that is fine using AI for a case should never be allowed to work as a lawyer after that. That's a gigantic moral flaw.