Slightly spectaclemaxxing when I post on this platform; akin to a character I put on. Approach with a relative air of unseriousness, only slightly. I do not know everything. I can make mistakes. My caricatured hubris ≠ unwillingness to learn.
Know a little more about me 𓍢ִ໋ ࣪˖ ִֶָ𐂂ִֶָ་༘࿐ ! :
https://t.co/N89XKV2rJi
If there is one thing I have really been coming to terms with -- which I feel stupid for having to say is non-intuitive for me -- it is the fact that rigorous pieces of literature that you write, especially in the age of slop, take a lot of time to write and make, and that the temptation of instant gratification via the sloppy outsourcing of different capacities very much exists.
I have many drafts and take a long time to write because of this; I have been trying to find ways to expand my writing capacity and develop efficient pipelines for it, too.
@redaction And how is this rhetorically productive, other than making you look neurotic and ineffective, like every other average human who partakes in discourse that completely nukes the masses’ cogsec?
No one has a normal opinion on anything anymore, especially post-Clancy. And in the pursuit of creating a one-up “gotcha” against an adversarial group -- one that isn’t all that much better, either -- many will post something grotesque and “ironic,” merely as a pitiful act of histrionic contrarianism.
Classic cortisol spike leading to a crime of passion. Not guilty by reason of insanity, he couldn’t control it
Also his girlfriend framed him, but if he did do it, then he killed those kids because he loved them more than anything
Recently came to find out that the normal probability mass of CS students, commonly found in bulk on Instagram, has discovered quant finance compensation, and they’re going completely bonkers over it. How long has this newfound discovery been a thing? Must’ve been a while, I bet.
@signulll Oh, we are genuinely at the point of no return (for now) regarding any short-term resolutions, counters, or contingencies that uplift the rhetoric around AI and against the anti-AI psychosis; they will only yield far more animosity and adversity.
The definition of the word "incel" was used incorrectly in the OP, which I have since been corrected on. But I think the overarching observation here is that those who have been chronically denied relationships and identify themselves as adjacent to incels may hold traits of insecurity that are usually a net negative for themselves and, if they were to get into a relationship, could pose a risk of infidelity because of that insecurity. An extremely redundant observation, yes, but it is coherent.
As I have recently learnt and corrected myself on, the prose and integrity of the OP's argument, as well as their word usage, could have been more refined. And even though their ultimate observation is slightly redundant, I think the message they were trying to convey made some sense
@RicardoNarLoyo@Milo_H4 Fair point. I guess it could have been worded better, but incels definitely have an insecurity complex that, if left unaddressed, can persist even after entering a relationship
I appreciate your perspective a lot. Twenty years of journaling -- that's practically how long I've been alive, damn. I am nowhere near perfect in my introspection, and I still have a lot to learn and room to mature, so naturally, what would be important for me to incorporate into my journaling is redundant to you.
Thank god. If pop tech outlets started mass-producing content around this, it would make the already astroturfed Butlerian jihadist movement around AI significantly worse. I would argue it could even lead to a more coordinated, mobilized effort against it.
Overall, I’m very surprised at how little media coverage there’s been around the OpenAI / Hugging Face attack. It’s clearly one of the most important things to happen this year.