• 0 Posts
  • 35 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 10th, 2023

help-circle



  • Propaganda doesn’t necessarily need to convince people, but can instead attack the peoples ability to differentiate truth and lie by sowing mistrust about the most mundane and conventional things. When people stop believing their own eyes or following logic, they become easier to manipulate. A bit like gas-lighting, where you sort of turn the critical thinking against them, but on a large scale.



  • What you consider masculine or feminine behavior is mostly socially constructed.

    There are these myths that only men where hunters while women where only gatherers, which turn out to be false. Women and men both hunted and gathered. Link

    IMO, the real issue is that current society places to much attention to gender roles, and for men it is done it in a way that makes it difficult and contradictory for young men to find their place: “You are a ‘man’, and you have to behave this specific way, however if you do that you are bad and will have trouble finding a partner. However if you do not behave like a ‘man’, you are weird.”

    The conservative gender roles don’t only hurt women, they hurt men as well. And dating and finding a good partner sucks for everyone.




  • Nah, reality doesn’t have a liberal bias. “Liberal” is something that humans invented, and not something that comes from reality or some intrinsic part of nature.

    LLMs are trained on past written stuff by humans, and humans for a long time have not been ridiculously right wing as the current political climate of the US.

    If you train a model on only right wing propaganda, it will not miraculously turn “liberal”, it will be right wing. LLMs also argue not more logical than any propagandist, if they were fed by only propaganda.

    I dislike it immensely when people argue that LLMs are truthful, unbiased, or somehow “know” or can create more that what was put into them. And connecting them with fundamental reality seems even more tech-bro-brained.

    Arguing that “reality” is this or that is also very annoying, because reality doesn’t have any intrisic morales or politics that can be measured by logic or science. So many people argue that their morales are better then someone else’s, because they where given by god, or by science, this is bullshit. They are all derived by human society, and the same is true by whatever “liberal” means.

    And lastly, assuming that some system somehow is “built into reality” shuts down any critique of the system. And critiquing any system in order to improve it is essential for any improvements, which should be part of any progressive thought.




  • Well my point is that pretty much all of our laws are build around ethic values, which are developed within a society. There is no logical or scientific reason that would make killing other people bad, but we still should have strict rules about this.

    Laws are always built around soft things like “what is obscene”, “at what point is someone naked in public”, “How much alcohol can a drink have before it is a alcoholic beverage?”, “did the person die of natural causes, or was killed by some event years ago, that wasn’t properly treated.”

    Society decides what is acceptable and what isn’t and that changes through time and culture.

    Your argument is therefore not a good one, you have to make a case based on ethics.


  • This sort of reminds myself on the discussion on “what is a women”. Is Siri a women? Many might say so, but t the same time Siri is not even human.

    The question on how old the person on a specific generated image might be and if it even depicts a person at all, can only be answered through society. There is no scientific or any logical answer for this.

    So this will always have grey areas and differing opinions and can be rulings in different cultures.

    In the end it is about discussions about ethics not logic.


  • I suppose some of that comes down to the personal understanding of what “smart” is.

    I guess you could call some person, that doesn’t understand a topic, but still manages to sound reasonable when talking about it, and might even convince people that they actually have a deep understanding of that topic, “smart”, in a kind of “smart imposter”.



  • OSM also uses localized names for places. So there might be name changes happening there as well.

    Not sure exactly how they do it for international names, they probably have a system, but if Trump starts renaming towns and states in the US like “State of Pu**ygrab”, “State of Hillaries-emails” or whatever, everyone has to adapt, in order to not be disrespectful of the people and culture of the united states as is making any kind of fun about these cultural and historic differences. People from outside just do not understand them and their need to validate their place in the world as deeply as the people living there.



  • Not sure you understood my point. The “Gold” that people search for when trying to push “AI” is that they have to pay less wages, because they need fewer employees. Wherever they find it, or not is irrelevant.

    Automation was always heralded as a time saver, but do employees really need to work less to get the same amount of money? No, because automation is always used to give the top percentages more money for less work, not the workers or the broad public.