So your entire complaint is based on vibes and feelings. Got it 👍

They’re both computers that can be used in helpful and harmful ways. Can you deliminate how exactly they are different, beyond scope?

Yes, but that means they’re using the tool incorrect. I can attempt to jam a wrench on the end of a soldering iron and use it to make a circuit board, that doesn’t mean I’m using the tool wrong, and should be justifiably mocked for doing so.

LLMs have their place. The fact they are being wildly abused and misused does not diminish that.

Better be afraid of them new-fangled digital calculators too! Real calculations should be done by people. Having them performed by computers will make us dumber.

It’s a tool. It can be used right and wrong. Being afraid of the tool because it is being used wrong doesn’t make it go away, and doesn’t make it less useful.

Why did you feel the need to make that comparison? Did anyone here mention supporting their actions? Is the strawman fighting back?

Wow… Badmouthing this person I’ve never met for things they actually did? I’m starting 15 instances just so I can ban you from all of them. Would you mind giving me your wife’s account so I can ban her too? Or making one if she doesn’t already have one? Appreciate it, and fuck you ♥️

I actually don’t agree with this. You can also do the prep the restaurant does. Stir-fry, I pre-cut veggies and make various stir fries all week. Pho, I make a huge batch of broth and eat pho every day for a week. Sushi, I pre-slice the veggies and pre-cool the rice then, you guessed it, I make it for about a week.

If you need to have wildly different meals every night then I agree with you. But I’m content to have the same meal 5 to 7 times before switching.

Several reasons. First, humans have already decided that intentionally causing harm is not something we condone as a society, even under the guise of cultural or religious exemption. Largely, because it assumes that every single person part of the religion is there voluntarily, which is demonstrably false.

Secondly, it DOES affect me. There is an active effort to erode the separation of church and state, meaning Christian values are being actively imposed on those who do not claim any affiliation with Christianity. Southern Baptist, being the largest denomination in the south, is increasingly active in politics.

And lastly, I 100% agree that people within a religion should make absolutely no attempt to control the lives of those NOT within their religion. But that is not what we see.

My religion says that I am morally obligated to beat you up and steal your car, so how dare you argue that I shouldn’t.

You’re a religious bigot if you try to tell me that following the tenets of my faith are wrong.

Just because a book says a thing doesn’t make it right or justified, and crying about being a victim while actively supporting oppression doesn’t make you a champion of good.

You might want to read up on the “No true Scotsman” fallacy too.

You’re talking past each other, using “better” in different ways. Correct, my cooking is technically inferior to restaurant cooking for exactly the reasons you described. However, the recipes themselves are designed by an individual with preferences. Even if my cooking is technically inferior, it will be ‘better’ simply because I am cooking for my own palate and preferences. Same word, completely different meaning.

You’re perceived intention should be irrelevant during an argument. Either expose the belief directly so it can be engaged with honestly, or focus on the logic of the argument being made. It is entirely possible to be both correct in your argument and incorrect in the foundational belief. But engaging with a factually correct argument with the assumption that it was borne from a place of ignorance just makes YOU less capable of being reasonable.

The first poster made a claim, and assigned faulty logic as justification.

The second poster pointed out the flaw in this logic.

The third poster ignored the logic argument entirely and resorted to an appeal to outrage rather than the structure of the argument itself.

Personal experience, beliefs, gender, identity. All of these points are entirely irrelevant to the argument at hand. The title of this post was about logic. The second commenter pointed out a legitimate logical error, and the third commenter exposed themselves at appealing to indignation and dressing it up as an argument. You (royal you) shouldn’t support bad reasoning just because it agrees with you.

If you weight 500lbs, it’s becuase you eat more than you need. Biology is pure math. Calories in, calories out. There is no opinion or empathy in that calculation.

Medication and living situations can definitely effect it though, and those who struggle with weight absolutely deserve support and kindness.

But society needs both sides of the friction to genuinely encourage change. The condemnation side to prevent normalization, and the support side to welcome those who wish to change.

I support and encourage those who need it. But I will continue to condemn and mock those who refuse.

I actually fully agree with you, and the point about the alcoholics is quite pertinent. We don’t tell alcoholics they don’t need to change, and we also mock them for being self destructive.

I also fully agree that mocking does not lead to change, encouragement and support does. However, LACK of mocking leads to normalization. I think support and condemnation are 2 sides of the same coin. We should be supporting those who need it, and condemning those who arrogantly refuse.

And I may be conflating the 2, but I am quite confident that most of these obese ICE racists have no desire to better themselves.

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I don’t think we should be telling people it’s “Okay” to be morbidly obese. It isn’t okay. It’s extremely dangerous, and a massive resource drain. I don’t see a problem with openly mocking and insulting people who have tattooed swastikas on their foreheads, nor do I see a problem with openly mocking and insulting people who weight a full x3 - x4 what their healthy weight is.

Obviously swastikas and obesity are not the same thing. But the point is, I don’t think it’s a universal taboo to mock people’s appearances.

Body positivity should be “It’s okay if you’re not a super model, there are many body shapes and sizes.” Not “It’s okay to eat nothing but fast food and twinkies. Your doctor is fat-phobic if they tell you to lose weight.”

It made me laugh that the easiest thing on this to make, is the one thing you didn’t make.

I understand your justifiable concern, however I disagree with the blanket statement.

First off, if I remember the video correctly, it is not hidden that Waymo was the video sponser. It may not have been in the spotlight, but I don’t think that’s automatically a bad thing.

Secondly, it is very possible for some one to hold different opinions to yours, even with identical evidence. It was clear to me that he really did like the technology and made his best case for it. If new information has come to light, then that’s worth re-examining the opinion. Personally, I have always been in fabour of replacing human drivers with AI, for a wide variety of reasons. I agree with his sentiment that the sooner we replace human drivers, the safer we’ll all be. That being said, there is obviously a conflict of interest in the industry between making the technology safe, and profitable. And we all know what happens the larger an organization gets.

Third, the majority of the videos are not opinion pieces. They explain physics, chemistry, mechanics, etc. I’m not sure how some one can misrepresent physics, without being objectively wrong. And they seem to be pretty universally correct in their rigor. There has been more than one instance where the channel has come under scrutiny for being accused of manipulating experiments, and each time he comes back to re-explain the experiment and show that it had been misunderstood, not misrepresented.

https://www.iflscience.com/youtuber-derek-muller-won-a-10000-physics-bet-against-professor-60235

Hard to find a direct like but the “How electricity works” controversy also seems to fit this theme.

I am not saying the channel is above skepticism or is the poster child of perfection by any means. But I don’t think it’s fair to boycott on the grounds of a single opinion you happen to disagree with, especially when that opinion is genuinely based on available research and evidence. I think this is actually a disservice to progress as a whole. If you find an enemy in everyone that does share your exact values, it leaves progressives divided.

This is the first I’m hearing of this, usually it’s the opposite. Care to provide justification and evidence?

Yeah, I figured that was probably the case when I asked what evidence might change their mind, and the question was just ignored. Still, I was mildly entertained by pointing out their logical errors, so it wasn’t a complete waste of my time lol.

Actually, that’s materially incorrect. You are making the universal claim that a technology has literally no uses, and every single person that claims otherwise is either ignorant, or has been grifted.

I am making the counter-argument that, while I agree with the overall concerns with misuse, and misrepresentation, claiming it has literally no use is objectively false.

Anecdotal would be “I’ve heard people have found uses for it.” Or “My cousin says it helps him do XYZ.”

I have given you a specific example of my own use. That is not anecdotal, that is a definitive, replicateable, counter point.

You have decided to dismiss it, because making a universal sweeping claim inherently requires the dismissal of all counter points in order to remain intact.

I’m sorry that you’re so angry, and have convinced yourself the world is trying to gaslight you, that doesn’t seem like a healthy belief. I won’t be responding further.

You’re contradicting yourself and not seeing it. You’re universally saying it has absolutely no uses, and using your own experiences and others, as evidence. When counter-evidence is provided, you dismiss it because you can only speak from your own experiences.

Either other peoples experiences are valid, and you must accept that some people have found genuine uses for the technology, despite your hatred for the industry and the false marketing around it.

Or other peoples experiences are not valid, in which case there’s no point in talking about anything, because you will not consider it valid unless you personally experience it.