deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I accused the other of misinformation when the article even said I was wrong. I’d be a hypocrite, an idiot, and an asshole to not make it right.
Thanks for not only recognizing but also taking the time to reinforce what we both want to see more of.
Thank you for pointing out that I’m being an idiot in such a kind manner. I apologize. I also learned more about mpox.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
There’s an incredible story behind it. But, the short form is that Proton is more expensive because they’re not harvesting your private information. In a few months the law will prevent them from doing for as long as the core fiscal law and Proton exist (at least decades).
There’s been no rulings granting a transgender rights greater than another. It’d have been global news, the consequences of which would still be cascading through the judicial system.
So, when this transgender person was granted what may have been, after an arduous battle, equality in one situation, you disagreed.
What defines humans from other animals is complex communication and it’s derivatives. I need not know the transgender person, be transgender myself, or even have a gay friend to feel basic human sympathy and empathy for them. That’s the minimum human response: neutrality, equality. Anything less is animalistic hatred.
Edit: I’ve passed judgement on just this perspective you hold, not on you as a person. If I didn’t believe you valuable I’d not have invested the time to explain why I expect more and believe you capable.
deleted by creator
I’m not actually asking for good faith answers to these questions. Asking seems the best way to illustrate the concept.
Does the programmer fully control the extents of human meaning as the computation progresses, or is the value in leveraging ignorance of what the software will choose?
Shall we replace our judges with an AI?
Does the software understand the human meaning in what it does?
The problem with the majority of the AI projects I’ve seen (in rejecting many offers) is that the stakeholders believe they’ve significantly more influence over the human meaning of the results than exists in the quality and nature of the data they’ve access to. A scope of data limits a resultant scope of information, which limits a scope of meaning. Stakeholders want to break the rules with “AI voodoo”. Then, someone comes along and sells the suckers their snake oil.
deleted by creator
We’re living in a late stage capitalistic hellhole and you’re advocating faith in the free market.
What. The. Fuck.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
There’s a big difference between “I wouldn’t choose that,” and “They should be prevented by force from choosing that.”
What you’re looking for is a hate group. You can advocate not just judicial rulings limiting the freedom of minority groups, but for disposing of the minorities once and for all. If that’s too extreme then you’ll just need to tolerate them. Be better than those that didn’t tolerate your hatred.
Monopolies don’t care about the user experience, only profit. The AI doesnt understand the former, only the latter. The continued degredation of the user experience is a likely indicator of an increase in revenue as function of successful application of AI.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Crypto would at least offer a non-zero chance of ROI.
I’ve got a project coming hopefully this fall. You probably just saved me hours next summer.