LoveRainbow

For me: it’s the total loss of faith in humanity.

Even the political views I used to associate with “the good people” - now I see their proponents as maniputive, self-serving, bullies.

So there’s no cause to support anymore: no good or evil. No point supporting the needy: because they’re terrible people just like everyone else - I’ll only be supporting their selfishness and the suffering they will create.

So all I’m left with is: getting from this moment of time until the time of my death as easily as possible.

The lawyer should just be able to give this meme to the judge and have the case closed.

The post did not state that men no longer had penises and were incapable of inseminating others.

In as much as (there is some evidence to suggest that) sociopaths lack the capacity for empathy on a neurological level, given that empathy is a recent evolutionary capacity unique to mammals, it could be argued that sociopaths are less mammalian in a crucial sense than typical humans.

Moreover, as I understand it, some of our neurological systems were inherited or developed from pre-mammalian evolutionary ancestors.

So…from a certain point of view…this crazy conspiracy shit can be made to seem slightly more plausible. In a mundane kind of way.

Presumably, people whose brains lack these later distinctively mammalian neurological systems perceive the world, social interactions, and ethics very differently.

We would just have hysterectomies. Why the fuck would we want such a disadvantage?

The Riker split depended on a plant on that one particular planet. Maybe it cannot be replicated.

Fully embracing that technology would have loads of chaotic outcomes…maybe they forbade it or something? Ripe for abuse…the ability to make infinite free clones or people…

No.

Being a persuasive communicator and recruiting people to one’s political agenda has never been a matter of pure logic and reason: going around insulting “the other side” will not work.

Not that anything would: I judge the value of X by X. X could have been made by a sandstorm: if it’s beautiful it’s beautiful.

A piece of music, for example, is either enjoyable or it isn’t. Admittedly AI music has a way to go yet - but it’s clearly already superior to a percentage of human made music.

Is that something you know or something you choose to believe?

What do you hope to achieve with the personal attacks? You’ll only make me dislike “your side” even more. It only reveals how unpersuasive your position is…if you resort to shaming and insult to bully people into your position.

You care so much about water waste and the environment…but do you eat meat?

If so…all of a sudden your “rational justifications for an ethical position you have taken without bias” cease to be coherent with your other lifestyle choices.

As for “AI Slop” [an obvious propaganda term, designed to be reductionist] and its lack of X, Y and Z: it’s literally drawing on an ocean of X,Y and Z in the first place - the sum total of all X, Y and Z driven human artistic and creative endeavour.

As with so many political discussions: I suspect this one is pointless. Two sides, both alien to the other. I’m as unlikely to bring you round as you are to bring me around.

It processes information to generate new (often very beautiful) works: just like human artists.

OP is baffled by the pro-AI people.

I’m baffled by the anti-AI people.

Fundamentally it seems bizarre to judge the quality of, for example, an image or a piece of music, by the process that created it: the proof is in the pudding.

I’m amazed at what AI is generating…it seems kind of fake to pretend a beautiful image isn’t beautiful when you discover it’s made by AI.

The arguments against AI are annoyingly reductionist or biased: e.g. focusing on occasional “hallucinations” as if the majority of AI productions aren’t, basically, impressive (or, at least, what was asked for by the user).