Supposedly, I am a human, who does very human things.
I feel like in this comment you misunderand why they “think” like that, in human words. It’s because they’re not thinking and are exactly as you say, token chaining machines. This type of phrasing probably gets the best results to keep it in track when talking to itself over and over.
I mean, if being able to steal and swindle frequently and successfully is a mark of high intelligence, trump might be a stable genius.
Is the fact that SteamOS is based on Arch going to change this such that prior Arch users must now suffer through Gentoo or will they stay the same, considering the proprietary inclusions of SteamOS to be enough to exclude it from the fold?
Best reason to fight climate change
I’d say, at least for me, I try to remember that “cynical” is not always correct. Under the same idea as “trust, but verify"
Isn’t that already what cynicism prescribes?
Believing or showing the belief that people are motivated chiefly by base or selfish concerns; skeptical of the motives of others.
Negative or pessimistic, as from world-weariness.
Expressing jaded or scornful skepticism or negativity.
Skeptical of the integrity, sincerity, or motives of others.
It would seem, at least to me, we might not be disagreeing much but instead at a point of not quite getting our ideas across to each other, which is fair because words can have multiple meanings even within the same context.
I would say my point of contention are these 2 sentences
I extend the benefit of the doubt, but less so when there is some real risk or cost to me.
I lose little to nothing in keeping myself open to the possibility (and hope) that someone is being honest with me, while still looking for the signs that they might not be.
As to me, they seem somewhat contradictory, as the first with the benefit of the doubt seems contrary to the second with looking for the signs that they might not be worthy.
I find that viewing the world cynically is self-reinforcing, and it is a difficult cycle to escape from. Accurate or not
I know I cut partially into another sentence but to me its what my big takeaway is. There is an attitude that thinking cynically is bad, even when its accurate, and I don’t see the appeal. It seems to have the mild positive of letting people believe in their fellow man more, but then a bevy of negatives from allowing people to be manipulated more easily.
I prefer to think of humans as broadly better than that, without sacrificing pragmatic vigilance for the parts of my life where assumptions of potential innocence aren’t too risky
What level is that though? I’m struggling to think of a point where it doesn’t pay to accurately have a feeling of what the potential of the other person is.
Hanlon’s Razor is a good thing to keep in mind to keep from becoming cynical about the whole of humanity.
I think its terrible precisely because of that. It has people make excuses for other people doing terrible things.
If you try to apply it as a general rule that doesnt apply to anything in particular, what good is it doing? Is it not then only clouding your judgement of groups?
What is the use of a rule of thumb that is only useful in exceptional cases and requires so much additional filtering?
More than, that, I’m not sure I agree as many types of manipulative behaviours thrive of people using your ruleset. Think many things sales people do, basically most police questions, and on and on.
Pen testers for companies regularly abuse the fact so many people think like this to breach companies with tactics as simple as “aw shit, I forgot my badge at home”.
I imagine due to media beauty standards being quite racist
Gwyneth seems to mean well albeit ignorant,
Giving this much benefit of the doubt to people will be the end of us all.
I’m serious. Hanlons razor, that stupid rule of thumb, has probably caused the most harm of any phrase ever uttered.
Personally I feel that the hate for AI is misplaced (mostly, as I do get there is a lot of nuance regarding peoples feelings on training sourcing etc). Partially because its such a wide catch all term, and then mostly, by far, because all of the problems with AI are actually just problems with the underlying crony capitalism in charge of its development right now.
Every problem like AI “lacking empathy” is down to the people using it not caring to keep it out of places where it fails to accomplish such goals or where they are explicitly using it to strip people of their humanity; something that inherently lacks empathy.
If you take away the horrible business motivations etc, I think its pretty undeniable AI is and will be a great technology for a lot of purposes and not for a lot of the ones its used for now (this continued idea that all UI can be replaced such that programmers wont be needed for specific apps and other such uses).
Obviously we can’t just separate that but I think its important to think about especially regarding regulation. That’s because I believe that big AI currently is practically begging to be regulated such that the moat to create useful AI becomes so large that no useful open source general purpose AI tools can exist without corporate backing. That’s I think one of their end goals along with making it far more expensive to become a competitor.
That being said this is a little bit out of hand in that this was about software in general, and regarding that and AI, I do believe empathy can be included, and built correctly, a computer system could have a lot more empathy than most human beings who typically only have meaningful empathy towards people they personally empathize with in their actions, which leads to awful systemic discrimination reinforcing practices.
As for the flock example, I think its almost certain they got in with some backroom deals, and in a more fair world… where those still exist somehow, the police department would have a contract with some sort of stipulations regarding what happens with false identifications. The police officers also would not be traumatizing people over stolen property in the first place.
That is all to say, I think that often when software is blamed, what should actually be blamed is the business goals that lead to the creation of that software and the people behind them. The software is after all automation of the will of the owners.
Burden of proof? You literally just made your first point about anything I said, I shouldn’t have even wasted the time responding.
You are really staking your argument on thinking companies don’t get consequences for software fuckups?
I’m sure you’ll make up some excuses for why somehow none of these count, but the list is so deep you could debate every example here and 10 more would pop up. Tons more happens behind the scenes too with SLA contracts etc.
This sounds like you knew you were wrong all along but still wanted to be a snide, condescending, and undeservedly arrogant about it.
The fact that some don’t doesn’t mean that none do.
You go do some leg work before requesting it of me after thinking you could just troll your way out of your ridiculous initial comment
Reading your other comments outside this thread, this whole chain seems so illogical. What triggered this bizarre emotional reaction to such a relatively innocuous comment? You must have been reading something in.
With the amount you’ve typed you could have easily typed a rationale. The truth is your opinions don’t hold weight and have no good rationale. That is all.
This is pure pseudo intellectualism because you literally have no argument or point.
You have no reasoning and are projecting that onto me because you can’t explain this opinion your feelings have brought you to.
I like the part where you have no details or arguments, just vibes.
I don’t think this is wise at all.
Its just people putting into words their wish to be able to punish and appoint blame above their wishes to be pragmatic.
If software is better at something, there is no reason to be mad at that software.
More than that, the idea that the software vendor could not be held liable is farcical. Of course they could be, or the company running said software. In fact, they’d probably get more shit than managers who regularly get away with ridiculous shit.
I mean wage theft is the biggest form of theft for a reason, and none of the wage thieves are machines (or at least most aren’t).
This is great. Where did you find this?
The most important thing is to first have a governing body that governs the police, without being police.
Without this, nothing here matters because they haze, and brutalize those who do not conform to their awful internal group standards.
You can literally see what happens to good cops. They get forced out.
The problem with your post, is that you can’t help someone who does not want to be helped.
Ideally that type of person would be kicked out of the force, but instead they comprise of the majority of these forces.
Just to be clear, many if not most agencies have mandatory psych evals, visits etc after different types of incidents, but as you can see, they just don’t solve the problem.
It’s actually ok!
In reality, there wouldn’t be a void, but instead, simply a severe obstruction of flow!
Instead, both sides would be filled with decreasingly oxygenated blood as your heart continues to be less and less capable of oxygenating itself, eventually succumbing after a spat of looking like this robotic art piece.
Why would they? Ram hasn’t been a problem for more than a decade relating to UI.
Electron apps being 500MB simply isnt a problem. People aren’t loading 15 seperate instances, at most power users are loading like 3.