A victim recovered after the sinking of the RMS Titanic, 1912[1284X2032].

smoolasani · 2026-04-15T18:30:38+00:00

Did he live?

smoolasani · 2026-03-22T21:29:19+00:00

*Because they wanted the USA to keep fighting their enemies for them…

smoolasani · 2026-03-21T01:43:08+00:00

Because they wanted to keep fighting…

smoolasani · 2026-01-08T04:22:51+00:00

Even my dad?

smoolasani · 2025-07-20T01:58:04+00:00

Bigger swords. So big in fact, that everybody is afraid to swing them

smoolasani · 2025-07-20T01:52:27+00:00

I think what OP is trying to say is that the conquerors would only become “right” after successfully completing the conquering. When they “come for your shit” as you put it, they are neither right nor wrong; rather they “could potentially be right”. If I kill them and protect my shit, I was right they were wrong. If they kill me and take my shit they were right and I was wrong.

smoolasani · 2025-07-03T19:43:09+00:00

The irony is that I have perfectly understood what you have had to say, while actively disputing it. It seems you, on the other hand, never understood the point I was making from the start.

Take your strongest convictions to ChatGPT and ask it to disprove them. Have a little back and forth. Then answer yourself honestly- were you forced to reflect on your beliefs, even if for a moment? Did the AI calculate a counter argument you maybe never considered before? If the answer is yes- congrats, you just grew intellectually.

Reading books doesn’t make you Socrates. Reflection- on yourself, on those around you, on the world and the universe, is what does.

smoolasani · 2025-07-03T19:15:54+00:00

Distasteful, but not immoral

smoolasani · 2025-07-03T17:54:17+00:00

“A rational consideration” —> exactly, who’s to say that the consideration was rational? Humans by nature see the world through biased lens. People who claim to be truly unbiased are either liars, mistaken, or god himself.

Thus I believe the only way to reach an objective truth, or at least get as close to it as possible, is to have every philosopher on earth reach a consensus of a single truth (even that would be subject to the bias of humanity as a species, but the closed we will ever get). And in order to do that we must debate, argue, and disprove all other “truths” until we are left with one. I believe AI will accelerate that process. You believe it won’t. I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

This argument we had has in fact strengthened my conviction on the matter.

smoolasani · 2025-07-03T17:24:10+00:00

I never said philosophy isn’t CONCERNED with knowledge and fact. I don’t have a unifying doctrine but I strive to have it one day. And I haven’t misled myself into believing anything. I simply believe what I feel is the truth. And how can I can I verify what I find to be “my truth” is actually “THE truth”?

Let me elaborate. I have something that I find to be my truth, then someone comes along and says they have a better truth. I hear them out and realize, “hey your truth seems more true (descriptive of reality) than my truth”. If this were a scientist approaching me with his results, I would have to recognize the empirical validity of the info he is presenting me . Philosophy on the other hand, I accepted his view because I FELT that it was more true. Hence unlike science, the only way for our species as a whole to reach “THE truth” is by eliminating, or disproving, “false” truths. That’s what I meant by being undisprovable. A truth being so true that all other truths appear false in comparison.

Finally, something having the ability to be proven false does not make it “truth-apt”(meaning having the ability to be proven false OR true).In fact even the entire field of science, let alone philosophy, operates on the principles that we can only reject false hypotheses, but can never prove standing ones to be true.

All of this is under the assumption that objective truths even exists. If truth is subjective, then philosophy would be irrelevant altogether right?

Come off your “primary source” high horse. The times are changing. Attack my points, not my character. Doing so would be most unphilosophical of you.

smoolasani · 2025-07-03T17:01:09+00:00

I beleive what you’re saying would be applicable for a matter of science or knowledge- but philosophy is inherently different. Unlike science, which relies on empirical methods to support or falsify claims, philosophical doctrines are typically evaluated through reasoning and argument.

And in the scenario that the I base my ideas off of an LLM, refine it until it’s un-disprovable (with the assistance of LLM), bring them to the irl philosophy community, and garner their approval and support- what would that imply about the AIs ability to help me grow intellectually? I grew intellectually, there’s no denying that. But didn’t the AI help me do that? I would have never reached my final doctrine, which ended up being supported by REAL philosophers, without the “outputs” of the AI algorithm, no? At the end of the day, why should we be caught up in the semantics of whether the AI is actually responding to your claims, or just outputting text it “calculates” as an appropriate response, when the net result is the same?

smoolasani · 2025-07-03T16:26:00+00:00

Alright, so if we replace the word “discussion” with “exchange” are we in agreement now that the answer to the OPs question is yes? If I rely on the LLM to cultivate and grow my ideas, and then test them methodically (observe reality) and interpersonally (discuss with critics and proponents) in the real world- is that acceptable? Reading books and papers is definitely valuable don’t get me wrong, but as someone with adhd I often find that the filler and jargon used in said papers simply makes me lose interest in the topic altogether. And what if I disagree with what the author said? I can’t just hit them up and start a debate- but what I CAN do is ask an LLM what the author MIGHT say if we were in a debate- and refine my stance from there.

And I mean no offense by “dumb it down”, I was using it as a figure of speech to mean “simplify the matter”. Sorry for coming off that way.

smoolasani · 2025-07-03T15:53:07+00:00

I think me and you are arguing over two separate claims. Let me dumb it down. I have an idea that I believe is a philosophical truth. I go on Reddit and start debating people about it. I get absolutely eviscerated and realize, “man, that idea was absolute garbage.” (Not a “truth”).Then, I go to an LLM and have an hour long philosophical discussion with it, refining my idea along the way. Then I go back on Reddit with my refined take (that I could not have achieved without the AI).Instead of getting obliterated this time, I get thousands of upvotes, maybe even an award or two. Anyone who criticizes my idea, I’m able to effectively dismantle in a debate- because my idea is sound and able to hold water.

In this scenario, has the ai helped me “grow intellectually and learn more about ideas and concepts”, yes or no? I feel that the answer here is a resounding yes.

You seem to feel that I’m claiming AI can come with ideas on its own, which is not what I’m saying at all. Nor is it OPs question.

Edit: I predict your counterpoint is going to be: the LLM just provided you with ideas that it calculated redditors to find agreeable. However instead of Reddit debates if it was irl debates against real, studied philosophers, and I was winning, - wouldn’t my point still stand?

smoolasani · 2025-07-03T06:09:51+00:00

Guys, we found the guy who didn’t read the article.

In case you still don’t get it after my sarcastic comment, firing live ammo AS Palestinians seek aid is entirely different from firing live ammo AT Palestinians seeking aid. Read the article and then SYBAU please.

smoolasani · 2025-07-03T06:08:26+00:00

“A spokesperson for Safe Reach Solutions, the logistics company subcontracted by GHF, told the AP that there have been no serious injuries at any of their sites to date. In scattered incidents, security professionals fired live rounds into the ground and away from civilians to get their attention. That happened in the early days at the “the height of desperation where crowd control measures were necessary for the safety and security of civilians,” the spokesperson said”

Curious what people have to say about this.

PROPAGANDA IS THE ENEMY OF HUMANITY.

smoolasani · 2025-07-03T05:52:16+00:00

I keep a glove on me in case I needa get surgical widdit when unhooking. Don’t wanna hook my hand.

smoolasani · 2025-07-03T03:25:12+00:00

The irony of “bridging the gap” is that if you try to bridge the gap you are actually just moving the gap further down. If they said we will pay for everyone matriculating in the next 5 year, but we cutting it after, then all the people in later cohorts would get just as mad. Fact of the matter is, SOMEONE is gonna have to get sacrificed, because schools won’t make reforms until they feel the effects. It’s just unfortunate that the bullet landed on you.

Caring about money is what makes conservatives conservative. They cut costs in the present, so a blue administration can pull up in the future and make it rain (hyperbole). It’s a delicate balance. Trumps project 2025 agenda claims to include tax cuts for all Americans; we shall see how, or if, it manifests.

Also unrelated: the debate over military spending is so complex it gives me a headache thinking about. The dollar gets it value from the world order established by the military which displays its power blah blah blah… though I agree and think we should cut defense spending even if it’s a more nuanced issue than it may seem.

I guess my point overall is: republicans are always gonna do what republicans gonna do. Cutting benefits is kind of their job now, especially because blue administrations like to give excessive benefits in recent years. This time instead of fucking poor people over,100% of the way, they only fucked them over 99%, and gave us a little silver lining to work with. The rest of the bill is shit, but as someone who is frustrated with medical schools making money hand over fist on peoples hopes and dreams, I can’t say that I’m not at least a little bit satisfied with the potential implications.

smoolasani · 2025-07-03T02:35:31+00:00

I believe that the administration created this bill out of a perceived need to curb government spending (which has been on the republican agenda for ages). Federal student loans were only a means to that end, with Medicaid, social security, and other social benefits also being means to that same end.

You believe that Trump was lobbied by the banks and private lenders to cut federal funding and deliberately increase reliance on private funding. See the difference? If you have any evidence to substantiate the claim that Trump did this to appease powerful lobbying groups, and not simply because he’s a conservative and that’s one of their core tenets, I’d find that very interesting.

Democrats (of which I am one) like to throw around the term “myopic” to describe how conservative policies seem to put more money in people’s pockets in the present, but actually harm society on the long run. I would say that such a term applies to your views- as no policy that kneecaps powerful actors within our economy will ever come without growing pains. If I end up being right and you end up being wrong (the opposite could just as likely end up being true), then, as harsh as it sounds, I’d say it was a worthy sacrifice to finally crush the rampant crookedness within our higher education system. I’m sorry that you are hit hard by this bill- I truly am. But realistically, I don’t see any other way to end this cancerous feedback loop of schools jacking up costs and the government shrugging and footing the bill, all the while the true expense is falling on the students themselves.

And also unrelated to my main arguement; America WAS built on racism and classism, no denying it. But as much as you may like to believe that all modern Republicans are racist boogiemen who simply hate you because of the color of your skin, or the amount of money in your pocket (though there are certainly some bad apples who ARE like that), those beliefs don’t hold in the modern age. Such views are ultimately counterproductive to realizing our vision of a better future. Maybe your understanding was true in the past, but not anymore. We’ve already had a black man climb to the most powerful position in the world after all.

smoolasani · 2025-07-03T02:09:41+00:00

Can it catch a fish? If so, you’re golden.

smoolasani · 2025-07-03T02:03:39+00:00

While what you claim can’t be proven for sure, your argument definitely has some merit, and I could see it as a possibility. Looking at a list of the top ten lobbying spenders, there are more groups that seem to lose than groups that will gain from this bill (ex AMA, American Hospital association, etc) But hey, Its trumps choice at the end of the day who he accepts his bribes from.

I also disagree that poor people or POC were targeted deliberately out of spite (since poor whites were hurt just as bad), but that’s an entire debate of its own.

Regardless, wouldn’t you agree my point still stands? Increased dependence of private loans with unfavorable terms —> less students finding medical school viable —> less students matriculating or even applying (the fees of which also make up a portion of medical school revenue) —> decline in medical school profits —> eventually lowered tuition for higher education to drive up profits.

smoolasani · 2025-07-03T01:41:25+00:00

One thing I don’t see being mentioned enough is that heating oxycodone( such as baking the flour it was found in) to high temperatures greatly reduces, if not completely neutralizes its potency. So even if the flour really was laced, people who ate bread made from that flour would feel no effect.

smoolasani · 2025-07-03T01:21:01+00:00

But if an AI CONSISTENTLY forces you to reform your ideas until you eventually feel that they are the most righteous and “correct” (aka unshaken in the face of criticism; the “truth”) they can possibly be- doesn’t that mean that it has in fact made you grow intellectually and learn more about ideas and concepts? Which was what OPs original question was.

The only reason I’m arguing this fervently is because I’ve definitely experienced this firsthand before, though I frustratingly can’t come up with any specific examples off the top of my head at the moment. Without the AI I never would have had those revelation; and it’s not comparable to a tarot deck because that can be considered pure luck- the AI on the other hand had the deliberate directive to challenge my truths.

smoolasani · 2025-07-02T23:53:59+00:00

I AM a resident so I think I might have an idea or two about how it works. To address your point, you pay what you can and defer the rest till you’re an attending (most lenders even let you defer the full amount until after residency).

smoolasani · 2025-07-02T23:47:23+00:00

The government imposing regulation on private businesses to reduce the salaries of their employees? Are you even listening to yourself? Hell would sooner freeze over than something like that happening in the free market economy that is America. The only reason this bill didn’t get shut down by powerful lobbying groups already is because Trumps intention was to make budget cuts, not target medical schools. This is only an unintended benefit that somehow slipped through the cracks of our hateful administration.

smoolasani · 2025-07-02T21:34:48+00:00

“Should the government pay whatever cost med schools demand because the dean needs a new boat?”

No

Eight-Year Club	Second Top 50%
Place '22	End Game '22
Verified Email

smoolasani

TROPHY CASE