Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:

You have 31 pages of posts in this thread, how do you not know who LoB is.

Lottery of Babylon posted:

I know. I prefer not to phrase it that way, either, because like you—like everybody who matters—I think males with late-onset gender dysphoria should have a respected place in Society to pursue their dream if that's what makes them happy.

But if you ignore the derogatory style of that way of phrasing it and just ask about the predictions made by the mental model that generated the derogatory phrasing, 'men who think they're women are delusional perverts' is the correct theory! If really smart people who are really good at philosophy can't get this really easy question right because saying the right answer out loud in clear language makes us look bad—what are we good for? Why should people who aren't already ideologically allied with us care?

Goon Danton posted:

If you join up with the right on the internet, you'll steadily close yourself off from people who think open racial slurs are bad, and steadily get used to hearing them. It was just a matter of time.

sexpig by night posted:

Does crazy rear end Christina Hoff Sommers count because she decided to branch out from 'feminism is actually evil and I'm a woman professor so I know' to some hilarious 'yea man the baby boomers are cool you millennial sjws need to loosen up like us babes' thing.

Maxwell Lord posted:

Antinatalism goes beyond "I don't want to have kids" to "Nobody should have kids."

I mean, overpopulation is a concern but I don't think crusading to lower the birth rate to 0 is the answer.

Mr.Radar posted:

Yeah. If you haven't seen the film (Soylent Green in case it wasn't clear) you really should. It's got a bit of 70s corniness (and of course the "twist" has been spoiled a million times over) but overall it holds up very well. It portrays a late-capitalist hell-hole where global warming has destroyed the environment to the point where the biggest source of food is plankton harvested from the sea and a few ounces of beef is an unimaginable luxury, and the 0.1% perpetuate a global conspiracy to retain their hold on society even if it means literally killing all life on the planet. Keep in mind this film was from the 70s! It also has one of the best-portrayed death scenes in movie history (the actor whose character was dying was himself dying IRL of cancer and Charlton Heston knew so he was barely acting).

pookel posted:

Wait what? Neil deGrasse Tyson is Wattles?

*mind blown*

Improbable Lobster posted:

https://twitter.com/drvox/status/972915124032888832

divabot posted:

https://twitter.com/BLACKMESSlAH/status/973792918757629953

Puppy Time posted:

I'm... I'm not seeing the downside here.

EDIT: Like, does he think that the women wanting to usurp men would suddenly pause and be like, "Hm, well, we wanted to be in power, but that's a bridge too far!"

ol qwerty bastard posted:

One notes that Microsoft and Google (and almost certainly others as well) have had, for quite some time now, AI systems that help write new AI systems. And while the output frequently is more optimized than what a human could design on their own, if there's been an "intelligence explosion" it's been kept remarkably quiet.

aware of dog posted:

https://twitter.com/lemieuxlgm/status/990425094752157696?s=21

Cinaedus Defututus posted:

https://twitter.com/St_Rev/status/989529051600687106?s=19
https://twitter.com/St_Rev/status/989546085168353280?s=19

Kit Walker posted:

Grimes is cool and if she's actually dating Elon Musk I hope she gets a few million out of him before she bounces

Flutch posted:

Relevant Tangent posted:

It's not like the DE has an agreed upon end goal either. They'll purge one another as soon as they're done with everyone else.

zoux posted:

https://mobile.twitter.com/PeteCarroll/status/994709685826605056

Subjunctive posted:

The idea that artificial systems are going to follow the evolutionary curve that humans did seems poorly grounded at best. They’re hardly unguided, and there’s a difference between the structure (hyperparameters) and training (weights).

Caveatimperator posted:

This comes back to a recurring theme with the right's inability to understand the left.

The left is fragmented for many reasons, and one of those reasons is very justified; the issues that different left wingers care about are not necessarily related to each other. Crunchy naturalistic hippies are often critical of capitalism, but that doesn't mean they're communists or that they agree with communists. Same with the neoliberals who often lean left on social issues but are sympathetic to capitalism. And the anarchists who are also critical of capitalism but reject the top-down approach of communists and some environmentalists. And on and on.

In principle, the right wing ought to be the same. Religious conservatives should not necessarily be fascist sympathizers, and the fascist sympathizers should not necessarily be the same as the survivalists and militiamen. But in the US, and often elsewhere, culture and media have brought those groups together. So the right sees those different ideas, observes that right wingers often belong to all of those groups, and assumes the left operates the same way.

How does this relate to pit bulls? Pit bull awareness activism occasionally touches on some left wing issues. The biggest one I can think of is tenant rights. A lot of landlords have special rules barring tenants from owning pit bulls. And the general animal sympathy sometimes crosses over with environmentalism. Beyond that, it's a very localized issue. Pit bull sympathizers are not necessarily involved in other types of political activism. gently caress, you could make a right-wing argument for allowing people to own pit bulls just as well. Libertarianism's live-and-let-live philosophy is perfectly compatible with letting people own the dogs they want.

I think this idiot is so caught up in his own contrarianism that he assumes pit bull advocates are leftists solely because they disagree with him, and not based on any real principles.

Caveatimperator posted:

I've never heard of this before. Is it a regional stereotype from where you live? I live in Los Angeles, and pits are perceived as macho people dogs first and macho Latino people dogs second, if at all.

prisoner of waffles posted:

quote:

gross

prisoner of waffles posted:

I get the sense that his capacity for cruelty has been realized in ways beyond the consumption of media and the writing of rants and screeds. Read the article if you care.

quote:

When asked what his constituents would think about his pedophiliac writings, he said, “People are open-minded.”

divabot posted:

larson is icky. how about some unfriendly artificial intelligence japes:

Syd Midnight posted:

My gut feeling is that they're just avoiding charity by making the problem needlessly complex. Like there's a chore to do, but they sit around daydreaming about innovative new methods and most efficient routes for achieving maximal results until someone else does it for them. This can backfire if it's something you personally need done like paying bills or taking out the garbage, but if it's something that someone else needs then logically its the belief that you're helping that benefits you the most. It's a galaxy brain version of Thoughts and Prayers.

Or just imagine you're a parent and they're a kid trying to avoid chores, and didn't mow the lawn because they spent all day thinking about better way to do it and decided it would be best if you bought some goats to eat the grass instead.

pidan posted:

So, the AI tells me it will torture a million simulations of me if I don't do what it wants. How should that convince me? If I'm one of the simulations that will be tortured, the matter is out of my hands because the AI will torture or not torture me based on what the original me did. If I'm the original, the AI won't be able to torture me regardless of what I do.

Am I missing something?

SolTerrasa posted:

Sort of, but the thing you're missing is stupid.

A baseline premise here is that you should treat a perfect simulation of yourself as morally equivalent to you. So preventing torture of your simulated self is morally equivalent to preventing real torture. Since you're supposed to care about that, and since the simulations are perfect, real you is capable of controlling what simulated you does (if you donate to MIRI, so will your simulation). Therefore real you is supposed to donate to MIRI because it will save a million simulations from robot hell.

maswastaken posted:

There's a 100% chance that one of the alternate universe mes will donate to the cause with sufficient generosity to save me.

pidan posted:

If I'm a simulation it doesn't matter what I do

If I'm the original, the best way to prevent people getting tortured is to not help the AI