@elaifresh I more or less always prefer to at least rephrase the AI writing. Usually, when I look closer, the way AIs write technically is a touch ridiculous
Tbf, by all accounts the Project 2025 attacks worked quite well
Voters learned of it and it was massively unpopular. NYT focus group participants would cite it as a reason they're not backing him.
And it gave a simple ominous name to all the bad stuff he's now doing in office
@NomadicTerra@hecubian_devil You can't just make demands involving specific things for a particular group and call them "rights". They have to be based in some actual theory of rights. From where do you derive the right of the state to mandate your preferred exclusions in public accommodations?
I am unaware of any conception of human rights under which those are "rights" that exist. Could you refer please to the theory of rights that states there is a right to not be socially ostracized for being intentionally interpersonally cruel? You have a first amendment right to call a trans woman a man. You also have the first amendment right to say the N word. I have the first amendment right to call you a prick and walk away.
@elaifresh I am so happy that proper prompting has moved on from "As a creek flood plain expert..." and converged on stream of consciousness with oversharing characteristics that you dump on your indefatigable assistant
@vividgrim@Staroxvia@hecubian_devil "I believe Caitlyn Jenner to be male, but I still support her rights and respect her as a person and will refer to her as what she wants to be referred to" is a TOTALLY different thing from "Caitlyn Jenner is a MAN and HE is lying to people" (which is harassment)
If someone says "I don't think trans people are *really* their identified gender in a metaphysical sense, but I'll call them by their pronouns and support their rights to use the correct bathrooms and their rights to medical care and to not be discriminated against" that person is not doing harassment in any way shape or form except under an extremely expansive definition of "harassment"
my spiciest take is that "there must be an anthropic explanation" is a fun way to sidestep the fact that everyone on rationalist twitter is way too confident on their atheism prior
my contribution is that it's very weird that the sun and the moon are the same apparent size in the sky, the consensus appears to be that this is just a coincidence but that strikes me as wildly unsatisfying. seems to me there ought to be an anthropic explanation and my schizo theory is that eclipses are somehow necessary for the creation of civilization, like they provide some kind of crucial stimulus to insight or creativity or something. here's sol riffing off of this
if the quality of your work outputs drives real business value then no one fucking cares if it's claude, and even people who are unhappy about this will quickly be forced to come around by economic realities. if models are consistently *unable* to perform at levels that provide real business value without significant human input, guidance, editing, etc, then it will be quite clear when u as an employee are providing that vs when it's slop whether or not there's watermarks. if what you're really doing is trying to automate out trust previously built via human connections, then.... fuck you man, hope you crash and burn!
I like that all AI commentators now need to pretend they have always had a careful nuanced grasp of the difference between a bunch of unsolved mathematical problems that only specialized experts had heard of: “The Gromlach Conjecture is false for r-dimensional matrices, wow, that is more impressive than last weeks solution to Erdos Problem 444 for restricted splines!”
@inaglasstunnel@SashaGusevPosts Because you see people who DO hate minorities say X, and you conclude anyone who says X must hate minorities and WANT THEM DEAD! It's literally Actual Violence. Not ever just this guy's opinion is kinda silly and downplays a historical atrocity and that's bad and I don't like it
@inaglasstunnel@SashaGusevPosts Well there's also a broader theory of the world in play where anything that could possibly indicate implicit bias against a minority group is Literal Violence in bad faith and means you want all members of that group dead and any debate is JAQing off