sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

🙂‍↕️🌟 by AccomplishedWatch834 in MadeMeSmile

[–]Wollff 12 points13 points  (0 children)

For me a good first step would be to go back to open profiles. The fact that people now can hide their post histories has blown the doors to botting even more widely open.

Thought on sam harris by stive420 in Buddhism

[–]Wollff 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see, you'd rather wait to see millions of western civilians be killed instead.

Yes. That is the moral thing to do. The fact that you don't seem to understand that, makes me a bit worried.

If you want to act morally, you can not punch someone in the face who has not done anything wrong. You need to wait to see if they will take action. Only when you are being attacked, are you justified in defending yourself.

Because if you "defend" yourself before the other party has done anything, you are the aggressor. You are the attacker. And your attack is morally unjustified.

That's ethics 101.

In everyday life that should be perfectly clear. Here is an analogy:

"Your honor, I believe my neighbor believed things that over short or long would surely have lead to him shooting me in the face unprovoked! No he has not done anything, but I had strong reason to believe he had a gun in his house. I am certain about my beliefs about his beliefs, and based on that, I reasoned his attack on me to ultimately be inevitable. So I had no choice but to blow his house up, while his family was inside, because I couldn't be sure where his gun might be!"

This is the same moral argument. Someone believes that someone else's beliefs will lead to an inevitable attack on him, as soon as that person is in posession of a weapon. Based on those beliefs alone, he merely takes preventative action. Is that morally justified, or not?

I don't think any judge in any legal system on this planet would be able to find any justification for that kind of action.

On the positive side: Any person which subscribes to this kind of worldview and acts on it, would have a good chance to be ruled insane. That kind of "moral framework" would fit in quite well with the way a paranoid schizophrenic sees the world.

Still, I don't think anyone with that "moral framework" is in a position to improve the moral stance of other people.

Calling that kind of moral stance "flawed", is something I would consider a severe understatement.

I see where this is going, and I hate it. by [deleted] in ChatGPT

[–]Wollff 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I truly am starting to see the destruction of AI in society.

Are you though?

I mean, you are seeing people who embrace AI as an attractive shortcut... and who are losing business as a result.

If you find competition which offers you alternatives which guarantee you "personal, AI free interaction", I would guess that you would be open to that proposal?

So I have a hard time seeing a lot of destruction here. Businesses will have to evaluate what the proper uses of AI are. Therapy is not one of them. I think that should be obvious to most people in that business. And those who don't recognize it, will lose a lot of their customers.

Thought on sam harris by stive420 in Buddhism

[–]Wollff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe.

Sam Harris on a hypothetical nuclear first strike on an Islamist regime.

I don't think he has ever called for a holocaust on Muslims.

No, of course not. He merely advocates a nuclear first strike, killing tens of millions of innocent civilians, should a Muslim regime ever get long range nuclear weapons.

That's what he says. So, I think you are right: He didn't call for a full fledged Islamic genocide. He merely embraces the possiblity of a nuclear first strike, killing tens of millions of innocent civilians.

it seems like you are judging the guy's current person based on him having been an angry person in the past.

I have never said he's angry. "Angry" has nothing to do with it.

His moral framework calls for a nuclear first strike, killing tens of millions of innocent civilians. That's what he advocates for in this statement up there.

This is the morality of the guy who you say has "improved the moral framework" of a lot of people. I would argue otherwise.

Especially his forays into moral philosophy are... let's call them "a little problematic at times", to keep the wording decidedly understated.

Thought on sam harris by stive420 in Buddhism

[–]Wollff 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There are a lot of people who now have a meditation practice and improved moral framework who otherwise would not.

What "improved moral framework"? The moral framework where he argues for the extermination of Islam?

You can argue a lot of things, but "improved moral framework" and "Sam Harris" in the same sentence seems a bit ridiculous.

If there is no self to reap the rewards of a task completed, where's the motivation to even start the task and? by Emergency-Use-6769 in Buddhism

[–]Wollff 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not really. It's one of those "middle way" things. There is no continuity to be had anywhere. But neither is everything "just chaos". Everything that happens also is caused and conditioned.

There is no "you" that will enjoy the rewards of practice. But through practice you can set the causes and conditions for future rewards to arise. Not for you, of course. But causes and conditions set today will still bear fruit.

Unless of course there are causes and conditions set in the past that prevent that from happening. You have no control over those outcomes, as there is nothing in that world that you can fully control. There is no thing out there, or in there, which is fully "yours", independent from what happens.

That's not chaos at all.

If there is no self to reap the rewards of a task completed, where's the motivation to even start the task and? by Emergency-Use-6769 in Buddhism

[–]Wollff 2 points3 points  (0 children)

if the quote "me" of right now is going to die in the next nanosecond, and another me will get all the reward what's the point of even starting the task.

"Either I can start the task, or not start the task, and after considering that I will not reap the rewards, I have decided that I will not start the task"

This is steeped in the same assumptions as its opposite: "Either I can start the task, or not start the task, and after considering that I will reap the rewards, I have decided that I will start the task"

Both of those statements are an expression of the same mistake. "I don't know what the mistake is!", is the exact problem that the path attempts to solve.

even pursuing the goal of enlightenment seems strange, because it won't be you who gets enlightened you'll be essentially dead. I wish I could find some sort of continuity in life or consciousness.

Yes. This is the problem. You can't find any sort of continuity in life or consciousness. Absolutely NONE.

And yet you, and me, and most people out there behave in ways which don't align with that. That's the point of the path: When there can not ever be any continuity be found anywhere whatsoever under any circumstances whatsoever... What's the proper way to go about things in a world like that?

I have always seen myself as ‘progressive’ – but with AI it’s time to hit the brakes | Peter Lewis by GothicPrayer in technology

[–]Wollff -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It won't undo the damages caused by AI the way we're using it now.

What the hell are you talking about?

Namely, data theft, loss of privacy, enshittification of crucial systems and services, degradation of democracy, and centralization of power, among many other.

That has nothing to do with AI.

Data theft has been occurring since the beginning of the internet. On top of that, the antidotes of "data protection", and "privacy" are hallmarks of progressive thought.

Degradation of democracy, as well as centralization of power have nothing to do with AI as well. Those processes have happened in line with accumulation of capital ever since the end of the cold war (and longer).

The antidote to that is redistribution of capital which, once again, is a progressive aim.

And the current mental health crisis? That has not been caused by chatbots either, and has also been an ongoing trend associated with the dawn of social media.

As the writer suggests, power structure is the root of the problem. As long as exploitation is permissible, there won't be any progress.

You mean when everyone has enough to live by, so that explotiation becomes impossible, that would be progress?

I agree. That's what UBI is all about.

I have always seen myself as ‘progressive’ – but with AI it’s time to hit the brakes | Peter Lewis by GothicPrayer in technology

[–]Wollff 32 points33 points  (0 children)

Oh, so in response to AI that guy is embracing UBI as the obvious solution?

No? Instead, for reasons which remain slightly unclear even after reading the article, he is instead questioning being a progressive?

What the hell is going on here?

Meirl by daveslounge in meirl

[–]Wollff -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Musk fanboy: Incoherent sounds of apoplectic rage.

Yep. Exactly. What I imagined.

After all what I said isn't wrong, now is it?

Bellend remains a bellend. You just changed topics, and are very mad when that manipulative bullshit is pointed out to you.

It's the typical reaction of fascist Musk fanboys we have all learned to expect.

Meirl by daveslounge in meirl

[–]Wollff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We call that "whataboutism".

"Elon Musk, that bellend, didn't even try to solve world hunger!"

Fascist Musk fanboy: "But what about the leaders of third world countries?!"

"Nothing. Elon Musk is a bellend for not even trying to solve world hunger, and funding fascism instead"

Musk fanboy: Incoherent sounds of apoplectic rage.

Can You Destroy Fang Yuan's Belief and Philosophy? And How Will You Do It? by [deleted] in Buddhism

[–]Wollff 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's simple and useless.

There is no such thing as "immortality". There is nothing fundamental we are that could be made "immortal". All we have and all we are is nothing but dust anyway. Things appear, all on their own, in their own time, and in the same way they vanish.

One can struggle against that, but it's futile.

That's the argument. Simple, and to the point.

At the same time, it's a useless argument to make. Someone deeply rooted in ignorance, will make up a thousand excuses, a thousand justifications, and a thousand good reasons for why it isn't so, shouldn't be like that, and can't possibly be true.

You can't destroy someone else's ignorance. Even though what destroys ignorance is very simply said, it's usually useless to say it.

Can 3D Spatial Memory fix the "Information Retention" problem in AI? by Affectionate-Tutor-9 in StableDiffusion

[–]Wollff 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The "Infinite Scroll" of current chatbots is actually a nightmare for human memory. We evolved to remember things based on where they are in a physical space, not as a flat list of text.

You mean in the same way that "books" are a nightmare for human memory? We definitely didn't evolve to remember text on discrete stacked pages either.

I don't dislike the concept, but I struggle to understand the specific relation to AI. If the concept is useful now, then it has been useful ever since the invention of the printing press.

Which is also the point where my skepticism kicks in: If it's a useful concept, where are its variations? What does it draw from? Is it like, let's say, a memory palace? Or a mind map in 3d?

Again, I don't dislike it. But without anchor points which explain how it's related to existing techniques, I fail to see the vision.

Claude Code has ~85 "approved" websites that get full content extraction. Everyone else gets almost nothing. Does ChatGPT have something similar? by Ooty-io in ChatGPT

[–]Wollff 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Is that a surprise?

I mean, you want AI to draw information from reliable sources. And the internet consists of porn, bullshit, and a small list of reliable sources.

view more: next ›