I think having that kind of validation at your fingertips, whenever you want, is worse. At least people, even people deep in the claws of a conspiracy, can disagree with each other. At least they know what they are saying. The AI always says what the user wants to hear and expects to hear. Though I can see how that distinction may matter little to some, I just think ChatGPT has advantages that are worse than what a forum could do.
I read the article. This is exactly what happened when my best friend got schizophrenia. I think the people affected by this were probably already prone to psychosis/on the verge of becoming schizophrenic, and that ChatGPT is merely the mechanism by which their psychosis manifested. If AI didn’t exist, it would’ve probably been Astrology or Conspiracy Theories or QAnon or whatever that ended up triggering this within people who were already prone to psychosis. But the problem with ChatGPT in particular is that is validates the psychosis… that is very bad.
ChatGPT actively screwing with mentally ill people is a huge problem you can’t just blame on stupidity like some people in these comments are. This is exploitation of a vulnerable group of people whose brains lack the mechanisms to defend against this stuff. They can’t help it. That’s what psychosis is. This is awful.
There is no biological reason because weddings are a social construct we made up in the first place. Not every human society even has weddings/marriage as a concept. It’s just purely societal conditioning that teaches little girls that marriage and having kids is the only future they can expect. I was never interested in marriage as a young child (duh), but my mother always talked as if that future was inevitable for me. It’s hard not to think about something everyone treats like fate.
Are you arguing that toe sucking is not porn / not meant to be sexual in nature? Because I disagree. Honestly I think you’re being pedantic. I also disagree that “we all know what porn is when we see it” because I think the definition of what counts as porn is more nuanced than you think. And clearly since we disagree, it must be. Of course you can just argue that I don’t know what I’m talking about. But I don’t really care. I think it counts as a non-consensual sexual depiction of two people: porn. You don’t.
So. Whatever, honestly?
Thank you for your thoughtful and considered comment, which definitely did not strawman my rather mild position or blow it out of proportion at all.
Also this wasn’t meant to be a “save the children” argument. Screw that. Can’t I just be uncomfortable with something and express it without people acting like I’m a puritan wanting to ban porn?
Assuming you’re asking out of genuine curiosity, for me personally, I’d draw the line somewhere along “could this, or any frame of this, be mistaken for a real depiction of these people?” and “if this were a depiction of real children, how hard would the FBI come down on you?”
I understand that that’s not a practical way of creating law or moderating content, but I don’t care because I’m talking about my personal preference/comfort level. Not what I think should be policy. And frankly, I don’t know what should be policy or how to word it all in anti-loopholes lawyer-speak. I just know that this sucking toes thing crosses an ethical line for me and personally I hate it.
Putting it more idealistically: when I imagine living in utopia, non-consensual AI porn of people doesn’t exist in it. So in an effort to get closer to utopia, I disapprove of things that would not exist in an utopia.
I seem to be in the minority here, but I am extremely uncomfortable the idea of non-consensual AI porn of anyone. Even people I despise. It’s so unethical that it just disgusts me. I understand why there are exceptions for those in positions of power, but I’d be more than happy to live in a world where there weren’t.
Out of curiosity, who would you buy from?
Bro… Russia arrests protesters from the streets for committing the crime of holding up blank sheets of paper… Russia throws people in jail for political reasons all the time. How are those the actions of the free country? I have a trans friend living in Russia right now who is literally unable to speak about being trans online because she might be accused of “spreading lgbtq+ propaganda”.
The funniest story about this is that time AST (Russian book publisher) literally redacted the text of a biography about an openly-gay Italian director called Pier Paolo Pasolini in order to comply with Russian anti-gay “propaganda” laws… and then published it with the redactions clearly visible:
Literally redacted lmao. Does this scream “free country” to you?
deleted by creator
This comment is pure Whataboutism. You asked what was wrong with the F150’s and you got answered. And your response is, “well, the european ones are probably gonna do it too!”
C’mon man.
Regardless of who’s doing it, it still sucks and is bad.
False dichotomy.
They shouldn’t have generated it in the first place. How would you feel if people did that to your mom, or you, or your sisters, or your kids?
I don’t think just keeping it to yourself is enough.
Idk why communists defend China’s every move. Communism can be defended without excusing China’s authoritarian practices. I have Chinese friends living in China who tell me all kinds of horrific stories that they’ve had to deal with because of China’s mass surveillance (and more). That isn’t western propaganda, that’s people’s lived experiences. There is literally a “Great Firewall of China” lmao. China IS bad when it comes to their mass surveillance and suppression of speech. USA IS bad when it comes to their letting giant corporations have such free rein that it makes us all into serfs. Why compare to China? Because China is a great comparison.
Ironically, cars are stopping me. Roads used to be for walking, and now they’re for cars. They gave us sidewalks and now some places don’t have them, and are unwalkable. The bike lanes either don’t exist or are too dangerous to use. It’s all roads and stroads now, with speed limits dangerous to pedestrians, and large SUVs meaning that car crashes with a pedestrian are more likely to end in death.
The amount of people in cars has also crippled public transportation. Buses aren’t quick, and there are so few of them in general. Not to mention the lack of high speed trains, and the inefficiency of our subways.
Giant parking lots with no cars took our parks. Took our public spaces. Took our nature. And they’re everywhere. Everywhere I look is dull, grey asphalt.
It’s depressing to be outside. And where would I walk to? Everything is too far away to walk to. It used to be a 5-15 minute walk away. Now it’s more like 40 minutes to hours…
I’m tired of human interests and public transportation being overlooked so that people can drive a couple minutes faster to their destination. When people in Europe, Japan, and China can just… get on a train.
Sorry for the rant but I hate this bs
I know you meant this as a funny reply, and I’m sure your cat is very well taken care of.
…but I want to point out that the argument against pet ownership is more about the millions of animals in puppy mills, or on the streets, or abused by breeders, or bred with genetic issues for the sake of purity of breed. Your cat was extremely lucky to be adopted by you. But so many other cats are not. So many other cats die in shelters, or on the streets, or from euthanization, or in breeding mills. We create and fund the system that brings the unlucky cats into existence, for our own benefit.
The argument is that all those millions of cats and dogs that suffer and die so we can choose a few of them to pamper as pets, is not worth it.
Your cat isn’t an abuse victim. But all the other cats who weren’t so lucky, are.
Plus animal abuse is incredibly hard to discover: because animals cannot go to the police and report their owners. Lol. They don’t have voices. That makes them incredibly easy victims to exploit. Humans as a whole are really a hard group of people to trust with such vulnerable creatures, ngl.
I’m very fun at parties, I know.
My most charitable interpretation of you bringing up that spiders have frog pets is that, because pet-ownership is a thing that other animals do, it’s okay/natural for humans to do them too. And if we argue that it’s not okay for humans to do it, it must be because we think humans are inherently superior or something. Hopefully it’s accurate because that’s how I understood you.
This leads me to say:
The difference between us and other species that develop ownership/shepherding/symbiotic/whatever relationships with other creatures, is that humans can conceptualize morality. (inb4 the “morality is subjective” line: yeah, it is. But if you agree that suffering, torture, etc is a bad thing then we’re on the same page here axiomatically.) Unlike spiders, or farmer ants, we understand that causing other creatures to suffer is wrong. Because we are smart enough to understand, we have the responsibility to act in accordance with that understanding.
Another point is: male lions kill the cubs of other lions. Dolphins rape each other. Rats eat their own babies sometimes. Cats play with the mice they catch before killing them. The natural world is full of animals doing horrific things to each other. If you are going to say that it’s okay for humans to keep pets (or whatever) because animals do it/it’s natural… why can’t humans kill and eat their own babies? It’s because we know causing others to suffer is wrong, and therefore hold ourselves to a higher standard. We ARE superior: in the sense that we’ve invented philosophy and morality. That’s not a weird take. And it’s not a take that’s incompatible with this argument.
Similarly, we don’t hold our own children accountable for their crimes to the same degree we hold adults. If a kid steals money, or beats someone up, our society doesn’t punish them the same way as an adult. Because we understand that their brains have not yet developed the capacity to fully understand empathy. To truly be responsible for the suffering they cause.
Animals are, a lot like human children in that sense.
Therefore, we totally can “exist in a category of responsibility distinct from all other organisms.” We literally already do when it comes to things like murder, rape, and torture. Why not add distressing and frightening animals to take photos with them, or keeping them in cages, or what have you; to the list of things we should take responsibility for?
I hope that helps clear up the confusion for you.
Ok doomer.
I say the above not as an insult, but because I want to make a point.
Look up doomism. It’s a tool of climate change deniers. We are not dead yet. Nothing going on now is truly impossible to fix. It’s certainly not easy. It’s hard af. But just because it’s hard, doesn’t mean we should let ourselves give up. We shouldn’t let ourselves fall into a doomer mindset. Because the very moment we do, the moment we accept the doom, then the doom becomes our fate.
Don’t give up. Don’t encourage other people to give up. Don’t say it’s over when we’re still fighting. It’s only over when it’s over.
I bet World War II must have been psychologically devastating to witness. It must have felt like the whole world was falling apart. Like it would never bring itself back together. Can you imagine? Watching Hitler take over country after country. Watching the bombs fall in London. And the Cold War. Where people were so sure it was the end of humanity, because we were going to kill ourselves dropping nukes on each other.
There are so many moments it was horrible. So horrible that we couldn’t even imagine there would be a way out. A good future.
But there was. Things got better. Countries rebuilt. The Cold War ended. No one dropped any nukes.
See, climate change, and companies taking our data, and AI, and the rich getting richer… all that? That’s our WWII. That’s our thing causing hopelessness and devastation and fear in everyone.
The doomism is a plague we’ve been dealing with since probably the dawn of humanity.
We can get through this. Maybe we won’t. But the chance we will isn’t even that small. As long as there’s a chance: fight for it.
Genuinely curious how you came to that conclusion? Whether you vote democrat or republican, both would have continued to support the genocide against the Palestinian people. That’s undeniable.
But how is pointing out that the Democratic Party at least wouldn’t actively try to destroy LGBT/women/minories’ rights mean that OP doesn’t care about the genocide?
Choosing a lesser evil means there is less evil. What other choice to we have besides continuing to protest and using our meager wages to help fund aid for Palestine? Wtf else is the OP supposed to do to prove they care about Palestinians in your eyes?
I have so many queer friends, and I am dating a trans person. I know so many immigrants — I am one. Wtf are we supposed to do? Why shouldn’t I be mad people chose to do nothing and keep their honor over the lives of my friends and family, and minorities?
Option A: “this button will kill people.” Option B: “this button will kill people, and also your friends and family.”
Like. How does being mad that people picked Option B mean you are fine with people dying?
I am doing the best I can in this flawed world, if you have better options, I beg you to say them instead of just saying OP doesn’t view Palestinians as human.