@itschaeiry@Lauren_Southern If you think 19 year olds aren't mature enough to choose their dating partners, then they shouldn't be allowed to buy cigarettes or join the army either.
Not everyone dates for love—some old men just want sex, and some young women just want money and to associate with fame
@tafphorisms I would read the rest.
In part 2, I'd hope to hear about (a) how to align incentives of the elite, and (b) address the fact that proving that a form of government is flawed doesn't prove that it isn't the best possible form of government for flawed humans
@KnowingBetterYT It's strange that invading, killing everyone with guns, & settling the land would be "fair and square" while reneging on an agreement is considered unfair. Is deceiving your enemy with a fake treaty more inhumane than killing them, especially pre-Geneva conventions? Idk myself
@TateTheTalisman@TheOmniLiberal If you're antivax, why would you link an article that says verbatim: "Chance of under-50s getting blood clot with low platelets from AstraZeneca vaccine = 1 in 50,000"
Are you trying to convince us vaccines are incredibly safe? If so, well done bro
p.s. have fun in prison ✌🏻
@tafphorisms The problem is that people place too much significance on "intelligence". Although it's important, it's not synonymous with being good, or correct, or wise. Ben Shapiro has high IQ but believes bible stories literally happened. Musk is high IQ but seems extremely low EQ.
@itschaeiry Yeah, because they don't. If you take away the good things from life and leave only the bad things, it becomes a net negative. The point isn't that they should kill themselves, the point is that the only way for them to be happy is to materially change their lives.
@RealSmeth What's an example of a position he argued that demonstrated a lack of cohesive worldview (i.e. contradicted the principles underpinning one or more of his other positions)?
@petercoffin@doodoodadi2@Hbomberguy by your logic, if hbomb kills himself tomorrow, you will be partly responsible for it because of the severity of your accusation against him
@hankgreen@waitbutwhy You could also say an AI therapist with no emotions would be more capable of maintaining objectivity while listening to a patient explain their worldview. A human therapist feeling sympathy is constantly at risk of identifying with the patient and taking their word for granted.
@RealSmeth@eli_hassell He's not emotionally invested in most debates if that's what you mean. He cares deeply about J6/Trump, probably not about Isr/Pal. But he clearly chooses the side that he honestly believes matches the facts—if he prioritized being contrarian, he'd have to ignore the facts
@OrbitBoi@JayBauman1 Obviously the "if" is holding up the entire scenario, that's what a hypothetical is. What's your answer to the question? If "yes", then your only gripe with AI is that it isn't good enough yet, and all you have to do is wait a few more years while it improves. If "no"... why?
@RealSmeth@eli_hassell There's no way he'd go into a debate intentionally representing the wrong side because it's somehow "good content". The top priority for him is looking as smart as possible and being seen as the winner. You think he researches positions he disagrees with on-stream for hours?
@RealSmeth@eli_hassell If you choose positions that you think will be the easiest to defend, then you'll be choosing the positions that you genuinely believe to be true. It's always easiest to defend the truth. So you're saying all the positions he espouses perfectly reflect his genuine beliefs.