By necessity. They sell so many counterfeit items, items sold as new but are used, items sold with misleading pictures or descriptions, various other scams to tolerate if not encourage. They’ve managed to normalize that and to do so they had to make returns frictionless. It’s a failing strategy. People just buy less and less from Amazon, unless they have cognitive issues.
No. All that would apply to women too. Men are abused in the West, oh for a few decades now. Women are taking all the college slots, taking most of the new job openings, having more sex and offspring, have more friends, are favored by the legal system, celebrated in the media rather than mocked and derided. Women have a lot of pent up rage after hundreds of years of their own abuse, now that the tables have turned, they are holding the whip hand now as it were…. It’s not anomie.
They aren't holding the whip unless you give them the whip. Biologically you are the one with leverage. Probably economically too. You're the one doing this to yourself. Either stop doing it to yourself, or stop complaining about it
Most wifebeaters think everyone beats their wife, and those who don’t like it just need to get over it. Never played gta, and zero interest in such forms of “entertainment.” Normal people don’t play shooter games, sorry.
The original gta was not a shooter game. Also, "normal" boys play computer games, including shooters. Maybe look at the statistics first and see if you are in the normal or abnormal group.
Any source you have that makes the link between wifebeaters and gamers?
> Sounds like LLMs shouldn't respond to insults like humans do either then.
is impossible, because thats literally what a llm is. its a stochastic model which produces output according to the predictive calculation of how people wrote. it can never be separated from our own behavioral quirks, even if it may or may not be more intelligent then a person off of the street.
People who understand computers and those who do not.
I have to keep reminding myself though, many of those pessimists are people “getting paid to not understand” as the saying goes.
It took 30 seconds with that Davinci model to predict where we are today, where we’ll be next year, and the eventual destruction if not outright extinction of humanity as we know it. Maybe the future is so grim many are simply in the denial stage still.
People are positing a thing known as a market. If there is a labor “market” then we know that supply/demand set prices, ie wages. For many, the notion of “markets” seems non intuitive but the math actually does check out.
Yeah, to be against ai on some level is to be against computing. An abacus is ai, for some looser definitions of ai. But we can all accept our mortality while we give first priority, breath by breath, to staying alive.
2 is worth unpacking a bit, because it’s more than just cops abusing it like they do other databases, like when cops “run plates” for friends and family members, which I’ve learned is totally commonplace though technically illegal.
People don’t trust the cameras will be used effectively to reduce crime meaningfully, and so there’s no actual benefit to offset the costs.
People, myself included, don’t trust the security implemented to protect here systems from external access or exfiltration. If our government can’t protect its most sensitive systems from breeches by our foreign adversaries and allies, then I have to assume the data will be exploited by criminals and hostile foreign governments. Rarely do I see this point being discussed, but to me it’s the most important issue to consider.
> People don’t trust the cameras will be used effectively to reduce crime meaningfully, and so there’s no actual benefit to offset the costs.
The UK has had mass surveillance cameras for a few decades at this point. However, I'm having trouble finding good studies on its effectiveness. The closest I can find is for one town, of all the crimes that were solved, a third of them involved using the cameras to help in solving them. However, it's not clear how crucial the camera was (i.e. was it a key piece of evidence or merely another piece of evidence on top of what they already had).
> Rarely do I see this point being discussed, but to me it’s the most important issue to consider.
I don't disagree. My point is more that, given that regular folks have the power to set up mass surveillance (if they can afford the camera) already, it is the future we're headed towards. The only question is whether we want it in the hands of a few, or in the hands of all. There are problems with either approach.
reply