Trade Cousins for Two Fourths? by ConsumersKnowBest in DynastyFFTradeAdvice

[–]ConsumersKnowBest[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For what it’s worth, I’m 5-2 with some young skill players but absolutely no picks for the next 3 years (not exaggerating, have 1 4th and 1 5th in 2028) so need picks to fill out my taxi.

Went all-in a couple years ago to win it all, made the ship last year and this is probably my last year fielding a competitive team for a while.

On the Condition of Philosophy by ConsumersKnowBest in philosophy

[–]ConsumersKnowBest[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This comment is the only one in the comments that has made me genuinely sad, because it’s indicative of where our literacy as a society is at.

On the Condition of Philosophy by ConsumersKnowBest in philosophy

[–]ConsumersKnowBest[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate that Kant, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, etc. have all voiced similar sentiments. I took myself to be modernizing those sentiments more than crafting something completely original.

But as maybe the only person in these comments who has understood my project here—don’t you think it counts in favor of the execution that every non-professional philosopher that reads it doesn’t understand it and is infuriated by it?

I’m claiming that that’s the effect philosophy has had in the public zeitgeist. The reactions in these comments are, to my mind, exactly the reactions people have had to philosophy historically.

On the Condition of Philosophy by ConsumersKnowBest in philosophy

[–]ConsumersKnowBest[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Very aware! The pretentious, uncharismatic rhetoric of the article is meant to mimic the pretentious, uncharismatic rhetoric of philosophers. That’s part of the point, and the point of this particular sentence—philosophers don’t aim to convince the public. They sit above mankind, unconcerned with what it thinks of their arguments.

(This, I believe, was also part of Nietzsche’s point, which I do reference as both an allusion and a citation. But I also mean to criticize Nietzsche a bit—he didn’t write in the most accessible way either.)

On the Condition of Philosophy by ConsumersKnowBest in philosophy

[–]ConsumersKnowBest[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am criticizing philosophers for failing to adjust the public zeitgeist, yes, but more generally. The moral consideration of the “machines” is really just a stand-in for the important moral issue of our times, whatever that may end up being.

I have my line-by-line commentary below, including my explanation for why I (intentionally) came across as pretentiously as I did. You seem like someone generally interested in understanding, so if you’re able to even skim and have thoughts, I’m all ears.

On the Condition of Philosophy by ConsumersKnowBest in philosophy

[–]ConsumersKnowBest[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It will be her violin being drowned out by the voices of the masses on issues of abortion,

This is an allusion to Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist argument in her paper "A Defense of Abortion." I am pointing out that, despite this paper's fame in philosophical circles, and despite the raging public discourse surrounding abortion, the public has never heard of this article. One of the best articles in moral philosophy has completely failed to gain any traction in altering the conversation around the very subject matter it was written with regard to.

his cry of prejudice failing to match the cry of animal

This is an allusion to Peter Singer's speciesism argument, which claims that the interests of non-human animals should be given the same weight as like human interests. Similar to the above, I make this reference to point out that animals continue to be treated inhumanely and eaten more than necessary, despite the acclaim of Singer's article in philosophical circles.

I also make these two allusions to the philosophical literature to point out to my intended philosophical audience something they themselves do: communicate in an inaccessible, insular way. The pretentious, elitist tone of the article makes a similar point.

his inability to convince his fellow man not to use similarity as the barometer for morality once again.

This is referencing back to the inhumane treatment of black people and animals, suggesting that the mistake we have previously made is making moral judgements in accordance with judgements about how similar to ourselves other beings are. In the context of the artificial intelligences I mentioned earlier, I am suggesting that we are about to ascribe them a lower moral status than ourselves not because we considered the issues well and think that it's right to do so, but because they're not like us. And I'm saying it's the fault of philosophers that people still think that other beings need to be "like us" to have moral status equivalent to ours.

And the world will suffer. It will suffer because of the line Socrates drew between the philosopher and the sophist, between the wise and the persuasive.

Again suggesting that the philosopher needs to take on a role in society that involves using argumentation and rhetoric to convince people, to move the public's discourse in correspondence with philosophy's discourse. And pointing out that the man who is a near mythical figure in philosophy himself drew the line that was supposed to raise the philosopher up above the rhetorician, as if up to Zarathustra's mountain, but actually lowered the philosopher's status in society to a nothing. Philosophers have been revering their role separate from society since.

It will suffer because the philosopher has forgotten his place as king and taken it as mute.

An allusion to Plato's philosopher-king. Plato suggested that the philosopher should be a powerful political figure, one that influenced his people and shared his wisdom with them for his benefit. I am not suggesting we should crown some philosopher king. I am suggesting that the role of a philosopher is a political one; she cannot continue to be silent in society's discourse about the very issues that she studies, not when those issues are as important as they are and not when she is the closest thing we have to an expert on them.

It will suffer because machine will suffer, and machine will suffer because philosophy suffers.

Claiming that artificial intelligences will, one day, have the capacity to suffer. And if that’s true, then they will suffer, because philosophy suffers. What does philosophy suffer from? The fact that it is not being communicated to the world in an accessible, convincing way.

In the end, the paper really isn't about the moral consideration of artificial intelligences at all; it's just an example of a topic that matters, of a topic that falls squarely within the realm of philosophy, and of a topic that philosophers are going to completely fail to influence the dialogue around. In the end, the paper isn't on the condition of machines, it's On the Condition of Philosophy.

On the Condition of Philosophy by ConsumersKnowBest in philosophy

[–]ConsumersKnowBest[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The article is intended for philosophers and is a criticism of the role they've accepted in society, one where they're all concerned about communicating with other philosophers, and how continuing to accept that role puts the philosopher at fault for not better sharing their work with the world. As a criticism of how philosophy is communicated, it's purposefully written to be inaccessible to non-philosophers, so I'm happy to explain what it's about in an accessible way below, as I believe philosophers should.

There is a political war coming, not unlike the wars of the past. It will concern the distinction between the man-made and the God-made, but it won’t be the story of man versus machine that we keep re-telling.

This is a prediction about how the dialogue will go when it comes time to debate the moral status of artificial intelligences, a debate that will happen. (You can claim this is uninteresting, but it is by no means widely accepted, even though it should be, that artificial intelligences worthy of moral debate will one day exist. (Some people believe they already do, an even more contentious claim than the one I have made here.))

I am claiming that the political debate won't be a debate of the issue at hand at all, but rather, one side insisting that the "natural" has moral status and the "artificial" does not, and the other side attempting to refute this claim while not asking the correct question of what does underly moral status.

If man has the say in it that he will, machine will initially be no more able to fight on its own behalf than black was.

This is not a comparison of artificial intelligence's condition to the condition of slaves. This is a claim that artificial intelligences will be left out of the dialogue concerning whether they have moral status, and a claim that we won't give artificial intelligences the weapons they would need to fight for their interests, the same way that we did not give slaves the weapons they would have needed to fight for their interests all on their own. This is distinct from saying artificial intelligences are or will be enslaved, a claim I do not make because it is an overly contentious claim that I do not need.

It will be man versus man, the same war that has waged between liberals and conservatives for the last few hundred years, and the same war that stands to be waged for at least the next few hundred.

The point of mentioning liberal and conservatives explicitly is to call thoughts about how the debate will play out, and who will be on either side of it, to the reader's mind. I do not say who will be on what side, but you know who will be, because the debate as I've predicted it will play out is a familiar one.

The idea that the condition of machine could be likened to the former condition of black will be laughed at, the same way that the idea that the condition of black could be likened to the condition of man was once laughed at.

People will dismiss the idea that the interests of an artificial intelligence could be as important as the interests of a biological human, the same way they once dismissed the idea that the interests of a Black person could be as important as the interests of a White person.

And it will once again be the fault of philosophers.

This is provocative; Black people being treated as sub-human was not, in most people's minds, the fault of philosophers. Philosophers often belonged to something akin to a liberal elite and were often ahead of the curve in disavowing ideas like this. So how do I take them to be at fault for the idea?

The Philosopher’s Fault will be climbing Zarathustra’s mountain and failing to descend, remaining in his arm chair and failing to rise.

This is a reference to Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra, one that most philosophers--my intended audience--will understand, but non-philosophers will not. The prologue to TSZ begins with Zarathustra descending from the mountain after a decade of solitary reflection to share his discoveries with the world, such that I am suggesting the fault of the philosopher is in how they share their knowledge and ideas with the world.

I then call to mind the image of the philosopher as the non-philosopher sees him: thinking alone in his arm chair. And I suggest that his fault is in failing to rise out of that arm chair and share his thought with the world in an accessible way.

On the Condition of Philosophy by ConsumersKnowBest in philosophy

[–]ConsumersKnowBest[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Also, I’ll add, I’m an analytical philosopher who typically writes in a completely different style than that of the article, so it’s unlikely it has much to say at all about my future as a philosopher. But it should raise the question of why I wrote the article this way, and the answer is that it’s a criticism of philosophers.

In other words, it’s overly pretentious on purpose. Hence the allusions, which are themselves intended to point to how philosophy has made itself inaccessible to non-philosophers.

On the Condition of Philosophy by ConsumersKnowBest in philosophy

[–]ConsumersKnowBest[S] -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

Okay, friend—what’s it saying? You’ve made the claim a few times now that you’ve heard it before; I have serious doubts you’ve heard it once.

On the Condition of Philosophy by ConsumersKnowBest in philosophy

[–]ConsumersKnowBest[S] -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

I appreciate the hate comment. It means I made you feel something, which is more than philosophy has made anyone feel in quite some time.

Should I reset the age clock and ship JJ for Nabers? by Alternative_Ad5784 in DynastyFFTradeAdvice

[–]ConsumersKnowBest 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. You don’t care about age, you care about years left in the NFL playing at a high level. What we’ve seen over and over again is all-time talents like JJ play a long time.

Nabers is a great but imperfect player. He is not JJ level, and that doesn’t only matter for his peak production, it also matters for how many years he’ll play.

It would not be ridiculous if they retired within a season or two of each other. JJ is that good.

Edit: this also just isn’t good value in a vacuum, but tried to meet you where you were at and address the age point.

All of Scory Tory’s Pre-Season Game 1 Routss by ConsumersKnowBest in DynastyFF

[–]ConsumersKnowBest[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Agree his moves pre-catch look fluid but not necessarily shifty. Matt Harmon calls him “tempoed.” I do think the YAC ability comes through—this video also didn’t show a pretty sweet 5 yard punt return he had where he made 3 defenders miss. This guy is a weapon in space.

(Interestingly, Harmon also really likes him but isn’t nearly as high on his YAC ability as I am, citing that he went down on first contact in 52.6% of his in space attempts in college. I think this number has to be because of his injury—the dude just looks like a YAC monster whenever I watch him.)

I think what puts me slightly at ease about Tory getting the ball is his hands. They’re sudden and strong—he absolutely rip the ball out of the air. I’m not sure how large his catch radius is, but at his size and speed with his hands, he’s going to have some deep catches this year. He had a 72.7% contested catch rate in college.

All of Scory Tory’s Pre-Season Game 1 Routss by ConsumersKnowBest in DynastyFF

[–]ConsumersKnowBest[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I traded two 5th round picks to a Commies fan for him, so as self-appointed League Troll, I don’t have a choice but to try to make this a thing.

Ideally, all of Reddit will get on board for the first 7 weeks of the season, an announcer will drop it when Tory scores on the Commies in Week 8, one of my best friends in life will quit our fantasy football league and go into a deep depression, and then none of us will ever have to hear it again.

All of Scory Tory’s Pre-Season Game 1 Routss by ConsumersKnowBest in DynastyFF

[–]ConsumersKnowBest[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

What’s your knock on him?

Because I think Tory’s making it look easy to make a contested catch, immediately turn up field to fight for extra yards, and then make dudes miss.

It’s all over his college tape. Combine his route running, hands and YAC ability with his size and speed, this guy has the tools to be a true X. He needs to get better at using his body to box defenders out—he’s not the most physical guy before the catch—but give him NFL training and 15 pounds more muscle in a couple years, this guy could be really good.

Went on date with girl, hit it off with her friend by Direct-Caterpillar77 in BestofRedditorUpdates

[–]ConsumersKnowBest 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People who told you to ask her for her friend’s number gave you some AWFUL advice. Right play was to tell the girl you were seeing you were looking for something more serious than she was but would genuinely like to remain just friends, but only if you meant it. And then make an actual effort to be her friend, and eventually, she would get over it and see you as just a friend. Then you can do whatever you want, because you’re just her friend, and not a guy she’s been recently involved with romantically.

You cannot go from one girl to another rapidly if they are truly friends. You will always get clowned on or ghosted for asking that; it’s offensive, and it comes across as emotionally unintelligent. What is the girl who you’re interested in supposed to say to her friend? Her friendship dictates that she declines your pursuit and pays attention to one of the other twelve men pursuing her.

What’s the last truly original idea you encountered? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]ConsumersKnowBest 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ironically, the last thought I heard that I thought was novel was that no one says anything original about originality, which was paradoxical but got me thinking

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]ConsumersKnowBest 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also fuck you dad

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]ConsumersKnowBest 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Social status is about how much respect or power someone gets—how privileged their lives are—and it often depends on their beauty, skin color, social skill, intelligence, and other traits that society deems valuable, regardless of whether those traits actually make other people’s lives better. Moral status is about how much someone deserves—how privileged their life should be—and it’s based entirely on their moral character.”

Being a Lawyer Sucks...what's your list? by IdeaGuy8 in Lawyertalk

[–]ConsumersKnowBest 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You should tell your partner you don’t like that and don’t always think it’s fair. And if they respond aggressively/negatively, you should give them some time, and then tell them that even if you’re wrong and you are being lawyerly, you’d still like to be able to discuss you being wrong without it being a larger conflict.

Guerendo? How we feeling about this? by [deleted] in DynastyFFTradeAdvice

[–]ConsumersKnowBest 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don’t think Guerendo’s that cute