Refusing to reduce complex reality into slogans and clichés since 19XX
You don’t have to endorse anything.
No but presence is read as assent. I wouldn’t join a right-leaning march if people were flying Nazi flags there either. It doesn’t matter that I don’t personally support them. By being there I effectively do.
And I’m not equating a Nazi flag to a Palestinian flag. It’s just a provocative example to highlight my point.
I don’t see the issue. I have a friend I hang out with once a year for a day and we don’t talk eachother a single word for the remaining time.
If you are against one kind of oppression but not against another, you aren’t really against oppression.
Which circles back to my original point: simply being gay is no longer good enough.
No, I’m not excluded. I just don’t want to march for an unrelated cause that people smuggle in which I don’t support. They wouldn’t tolerate me waving an Israeli flag there either, nor should they.
Last pride march here had a ton of Palestinian flags there for example that not only has nothing to do with pride but is also a hilariously ignorant thing to do considering how gays get treated in most Muslim-majority countries.
It’s a left-wing event pretty much. If you’re gay who leans right you’re effectively straight.
And it spreads everywhere. Can’t even partake in pride march because of my wrong cultural views. Simply being gay isn’t enough anymore - need to sing up for the package deal.
From where I stand it seems that it’s because those people have no mutual aspirations - just mutual enemies. The group is not held together by a shared common goal but a shared enemy.
Bold claim considering there is no agreed upon definition on what we even mean by the term intelligence.
Guess what else heavily relies on pattern recognition and probabilities? Humans.
Which is a so-called thought terminating clishé: a slogan intended to end discussion without even engaging with it.
AI isn’t any one thing. It’s an broad term used in computer science to refer to any system designed to perform a cognitive task that would normally require human intelligence. The chess opponent on an old Atari console is an AI. It’s an intelligent system - but only narrowly so. That’s called “narrow” or “weak” AI.
It can still have superhuman abilities, but only within the specific task it was built for - like playing chess or generating language.
A large language model like ChatGPT is also narrow AI. It’s exceptionally good at what it was designed to do: generate natural-sounding language. What people expect from it, though, isn’t narrow intelligence - it’s general intelligence. The ability to apply cognitive skills across a wide range of domains the way a human can. That’s something LLMs simply can’t do - at least not yet. Artificial General Intelligence is the end goal for many AI companies, but LLMs are not generally intelligent. However they still fall under the umbrella of AI as a broad category of systems.
To be fair, a year is pretty pathetic performance even for work books unless you step on landmines for living.
I’m not a fan of Apple but to suggest their products aren’t of exceptionally high quality is a bit ridiculous. They’re not exactly known for cheaping out on stuff. I have an 11 year old MacBook still in daily use because it refuses to die. I plugged in my iPad too the other day and it fired right up. This one is from 2012.
Peterson mostly agrees with Harris? The guys who spend an hour trying to define the word “truth” and failing to do so? I could not disagree more.
VLC has hotkey for this. It’s pretty easy to tweak with just trial an error and no need to go to settings to guestimate the values.
The massive horse dildo may be a bit of an head scratcher, though knowing me - maybe not that surprising thing to find.
He is clearly uninterested in convincing his opponent.
Having watched his debates with Sam Harris, I’ll at least give him credit for being able to steelman the views he’s arguing against.
Whether one is able to get others to change their deeply held beliefs is another thing but simply being able to demonstrate that you’ve actually understood the point you’re arguing against is a rare skill in of itself.
I’ve definitely had people reconsider their stance by bringing in more data or an alternative perspective but I’m not sure if anyone has ever admitted to having their view change about something. Then again, I don’t always announce it either despite the fact that it does happen so I guess it’s safe to assume I’ve then made it happen too.
In all honesty though, most online arguments are people talking past each other and disagreeing on minute details. Often the conclusion is “we’re broadly in agreement but we disagree about this one thing.”
That’s why it’s so ridiculous that people treat disagreement as if the person must then hold the exact opposite view. That is almost never the case.
I don’t know what else I can say to make my view clearer. There are people in those events that I don’t want to be associated with. If they would only focus on the pride thing and keep the rest of it to themselves, then I could choose to not care about it but they don’t and thus I wish to not partake.