HopeOfTheGunblade

I would love to see research data pointing either way re #1, although it would be incredibly difficult to do so ethically, verging on impossible. For #2, people have extracted originals or near-originals of inputs to the algorithms. AI generated stuff - plagiarism machine generated stuff, runs the risk of effectively revictimizing people who were already abused to get said inputs.

It’s an ugly situation all around, and unfortunately I don’t know that much can be done about it beyond not demonizing people who have such drives, who have not offended, so that seeking therapy for the condition doesn’t screw them over. Ensuring that people are damned if they do and damned if they don’t seems to pretty reliably produce worse outcomes.

You’re missing 1.5: Make it impossible for people who every professional medical association of good repute says said medication help, get the medication by prescription.

You don’t think nearly 1/6th is statistically significant? What’s the lower bound on significance as you see things?

To be clear, it’s obviously dumb for their generative system to be overrepresenting turbans like this, although it’s likely to be a bias in the inputs rather than something the system came up with itself, I just think that 5% is generally enough to be considered significant and calling three times that not significant confuses me.

“This is entirely out of our control, and if you want an apology, here are the contact details for the person who has the authority to give you one.”

It’s not an apology if you keep trucking right the fuck on along. You apologize, in part, by fixing the problem. Absent that, it’s just empty words. Meaningless.

I don’t see what the problem is. I’ve definitely heard that with god, all things are possible, are we acknowledging that that’s not the case here? Can god only do spells with specific ingredients? Kinda sounds like witchcraft.

Thanks, I hate it.

So for the 99% there is an abolishment of private property, leaving only personal property and public property, everyone has an equal share, and the state has been dissolved?

Because if not, at least one of us doesn’t understand communism. It’s entirely possible we both don’t. Would you be willing to clarify the term as you understand it?

Yeah, read through this thinking that from my perspective, NTs have some talents I don’t, but since they’re common people think of them as baseline rather than talents. Shit sucks.

My mom introduced me to Napster. So at this point, it would be a family tradition.

Yeah, unfortunately I couldn’t find revenue numbers. It seems unlikely to be costing that much to host. I’d be really surprised to learn it isn’t cash positive at this point.

Not made -31.5 billion. Lost -31.5 billion. As in they brought in that much, not cost it.

Yeah, sorry, sometimes I can’t help my need to play with language, when given the slightest chance.

YouTube lost google -31.5 billion in 2023, approximately 10% of all of alphabet’s revenue.

Sorry, can you back the part of that about Biden? Because it’s a pretty common trope of how unaware white people will say someone “seems so articulate”, I think it showed up in the first episode of The Boondocks?

pays a subscription

Subscriptions don’t work

Little confused by this one, but yeah. I can’t afford subscriptions, and I also can’t afford the products and services the ads are for. Ads are just pollution in my consciousness, so why should I reduce my QoL for no benefit to anyone? If a creator says that if you use adblock, don’t watch me, I won’t. Site blocks adblockers, I don’t use it. What else am I supposed to do, when I make less than a living and don’t really have better options?

I know for a fact he meant “legible”. I’ve read a lot of his work and talked a great deal with people in the rationality community, and legible makes perfect sense there.

My partners bring a lot to our relationships. I find it a lot harder to understand what they see in me.

My sense is that he is talking about the modal relationship in our society, that is mono, and in which my understanding is that people often (I would say at least 10% of the time?) do in fact have the “trading up” nature. That being the case, I think it’s better for the participants in a relationship to be aware of that, and at what threshold to expect it? Having a moderately awkward discussion early on seems better than the heartbreak later.

This is coming from a very ask / tell culture perspective. I’m autistic enough (diagnosed, not slang / common use) that guess culture / relationships as imperfect information games is a distinctly negative experience. I don’t find any “magic” in not considering bad outcomes or pretending that potential futures don’t exist (the “happily ever after” expectation) or in leaving things unsaid.

Ah, the last section. Not incredibly relevant to my post?

On the whole I don’t really model an average of the polycule as a general thing. If dating someone I’m not currently would make me happier I talk to my partners about the possibility of a relationship. Thus far this has never gone in an either / or direction; it doing so would be a significant reduction in expected happiness.

Unrelatedly, that paragraph drove my autocorrect / suggester absolutely stupid. It kept trying to shove “def” into the last sentence, and suggesting other nonsense.

Why are you the voice of my insecurities? :p

Clearly it’s because I’m another dedicated player for the polycule tabletop game.

Not sure where that 75% number is coming from?