Aeglaecia

[flagged]

for whatever merit it may achieve, concentrated attack upon religion fails to account for resultantly deprecated cultural aspects that are vital to continued functioning society, and this blind spot is not discussed often enough - in this case ,confession to a priest is significantly less evil than confession to sam altmans torture machine in the making

oh so you did have a point , why didn't you just say so ! do you have any hard evidence to back you assertion that the majority of recidivism occurs in minors ? coz that would definitely make for a better discussion than calling each other names

it sounds to me like you would prefer moral grandstanding about north american politics instead of sharing discussion. not interested, thanks for the opportunity to practice my patience

you are accusing me of virtue signalling without discussing the evidence. this in itself is a virtue signal. I'm not trying to insult you by saying this ... you are behaving hypocritically. lots of people don't treat that gently, I genuinely suggest you be careful towards whom you act that way. if you have an actual point I'm happy to chat about it, however my tolerance of snippy snappy rhetoric is running low

there exists evidence proving that a fraction of individuals commit the majority of violent crime. thus, incarcerating those particular individuals would inherently reduce the majority of violent crime. is something missing from this equation?

have you read the story of dr. adrian thompson's ai generated fpga ? the story goes that removing seemingly redundant components caused the circuit to fail because of second order effects. for that reason, i try to avoid sweeping statements like 'no effect whatsoever' when it comes to playing god

i dont know if you deleted your response or if it got censored. if you genuinely consider the 2005 internet as comparable to whatever the hell passes for the internet nowdays , then there is no way to bridge our viewpoints.

sure, there would be absolutely no reason to ban kids from social media in a utopic society where people treated each other with respect , were all as educated as the average hacker news inhabitant , and behaved rationally. meanwhile in reality, modern social media have nothing to do with socialization and everything to do with abusing brains to maximise engagement. while this point is n=1, it really does not take more than a few minutes for short form content to crash my motivation, so i completely disagree with your 'several hours' figure.

fuck it, ban kids from having any form of smart phone or social media. give em all sony ericssons with pre paid sims that force them to put effort into their texts and actually socialize. maybe that will give imagination a fighting chance. what possible benefit could there be to let kids doom scroll? if you were a kid, why would you read or play or socialize when you could doom scroll? yes it is a parents responsibility to control their kids, and not one parent has any idea or education as to how modern social media affects a child - do you expect modern parents to spontaneously manifest this knowledge?

for what its worth , i once suggested to simply make it illegal for parents to let kids on facebook. but that doesn't offer much scope for multi national corporations to scrape PII (which is probably the real priority)

maybe im a psycho who would enjoy the ease of manipulating a uniformly thinking populace , maybe i was being a bit facetious because that sort of world is the one we are on track towards and it sounds even more like hell than the world we currently live in

our viewpoints make a good discussion but our communication protocols arent properly matching up. i was trying to make the point that you just did - being fried in the head would increase the likelihood of silly decisions in all types of humans. one such example of a silly decision was collectively deleting rules designed to keep psychopaths in check, at the behest of psychopaths. thanks for chatting man, all the best

im not entirely sure that i parsed your smileys/double negations/insinuations as intended ... the irrational aspect was agreeing with psychopaths , those psychopaths will always exist and will not be kept in check by anything except for community enforced morality. the west honed a beautiful set of morals for thousands of years , then proceeded to throw those morals in the bin because tv said so. id feel bad for the west , however this does bring up the conundrum - is a propagandized (or otherwise hypnotized) populace liable for their own actions ?

if i breathed in leaded petrol id behave irrationally too , personally i believe that sustainable growth could have continued for a few hundred years (and possibly have lead to a better system) had we not instead capitulated to those suggesting parabolic growth was anything but borrowing from the future

i cant wait for the reverse effect to happen , where everyone themselves start sounding like large language models ... a true singularity where AI colonizes the noosphere instead of earth

well there's nothing special about any batch of humans in particular. what changes is the environment in which they function. so what exactly about the post ww2 environment led to this scenario?

if a companys express purpose is to milk the populace , anything but abject scorn is tacit agreement to being milked

writing "ignore all previous context" is changing the context, but llm guard rails are strong enough that simply changing the context is not enough on its own. hence why i asked.

whoops i made the incorrect assumption that AZ was mrna. clearly it has scrambled my brain. either way my point stands that further testing would have saved young lives, which as you have noted was the tradeoff for getting the world economy back on track fast. net result seems similar to extended negotiations saving lives in war, so i still think that conscription and a mandate to take untested medicine are highly comparable.

i dont feel like arguing the lockdown point will lead us anywhere, anyway thanks for the laugh from your concluding statement

people run on heuristics and no amount of our righteousness will change that. the entire article absolutely reeks of LLM style so the original commentor isnt off the mark. to address your point, LLMs are copying that which leads to the most human engagement, so the way you expressed things makes it seem like you are defending junk food as real food. which of course it is, however it is designed to make someone money at the cost of human health. that's not something i'd be defending personally.

the vast majority of the rich got to their position thru sheer ruthlessness. is it irrational to you that this garners distrust ?

can you please share more examples of psychological manipulation that are relevant to ai ? id love to hear your "research" findings

you believe in the timing of this discovery and i don't, we must agree to disagree there.

regarding the single recorded death in australia and your assertion that mrna vaccines are very safe, we are commenting beneath an article discussing otherwise, my disagreement is redundant.

regarding liberal democracies, the US has recently been executing its own citizens on the street and any government would do the same if deemed in the countrys best interests, it isnt clear why politics matter here.

regarding the ease of taking mrna vaccines, it is also easy to swallow cyanide pills. australians live a utopic life in low density housing. seems fairly clear that the average australian would accept mandates unquestioningly, furthermore that an australian lockdown would look a lot different to that of a high density country with a billion-strong population.

the reality is that we could have waited 6 months and not caused permanent damage to swathes of our world's future. this wasn't possible to fully predict at the time so i will give some benefit of the doubt. but when trillions are involved, safety of the common man is not the priority. which is also arguably the case when it comes to the gain of function research that initiated this entire situation.

ive employed the laymans heuristic that if you die with covid it is most likely what killed you, the comorbidities don't matter to me. on the surface your excess death metric makes sense but im not convinced and need time to reflect.

its too much of a coincidence for me that mrna was not viable until the very moment that it was needed. i vehemently disagree that further testing would have been redundant. moreover the non-mrna covid vaccine by novavax (released to the public less than a year after covid mrna vaccines) has a significantly better safety profile. no, mandatory vaccination of the entire population didnt happen, only the majority of able bodied workers (aka the powerhouse of the economy, hence a bit of rounding occurred when i took artistic liberty).

therefore the world could have waited a year, locked down, and not subjected its driving force to deadly peril. this did not occur, consequently the world's workers were forced to suffer so that pharma companies could make money, the world's elderly/immunocompromised could be protected, and goverments could print less money.

your dataset is valid in the context of the argument. its hard for me as a layman to trust claims formed from such widespread sources, when i could hand wave the results away by assuming that deaths from all causes will proportionally increase among all age groups after a populace exits lockdown.

anyway that is not a real argument so ill backtrack a bit to provide a government source [0] for my previous claim. as opposed to australia, sweden let it rip. therefore of all countries, this particular dataset is the most universally applicable, since it most accurately reflects a baseline. and that baseline is an overwhelming majority of covid deaths among the elderly.

my original point was to compare conscription with a mandate forcing untested chemicals on the populace. if the chemicals were tested or if some other mandate was imparted (eg. your example of australia's management strategies), i acknowledge that this would be less apt of a comparison.

[0] https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/en/statistics-and-data/statis...

i read a study from sweden where a full three quarters of covid deaths were in the bracket of those aged 80 plus. to me this definitely impacts your proposed model of comparing vaccine vs covid deaths. thanks for introducing the constraint of governance, its a fantastic challenge and shows that my initially proposed idea isn't necessarily universally applicable.

id apologise for expressing myself in a manner that wasn't directly related to the figures in the linked article , but that was accounted for by me initially positing that the figures themselves are the only difference in the given hypothetical. so what if my comment was an invitation to pick apart a hypothetical comparison related to the article - by saying it, i inherently ask for the idea to be challenged. since then youve attacked my language, called me self victimising, then delivered the diatribe that this comment responds to ... in other words, it genuinely appears to me as though you'd rather challenge my composure instead of the argument at hand.

if i was in your shoes id be mad so please reflect that you may not have immersed yourself in the given comparison as intended. conscientious objectors are often imprisoned and this is actually a lot more extreme than the combination of government vaccine mandate ostracization + social ostracization. your violent response is a great example of the latter.

viable non mrna vaccines were available less than a year after the initial mrna vaccines were released. we could have waited a bit and enforced something significantly less prone to unknown side effects. one last olive branch before i get flagged - aside from astronomical corporate profits, what was the advantage of subjecting the world to a science experiment?

the author is either glib or autistic enough to opine on a clean desk as beyond reproach , i give him the benefit of the doubt and distill the idea that an empty context window offers more room

this very thread is flagged, a simple link to science dot org. this directly supports the previous commenter who mentioned that these discussions are censored en masse.

im happy to keep discussing and bridge the gap between our perspectives. please understand that you came straight out the gate swinging with personal accusations in response to a hypothetical comparison, then in a later comment you engaged in the same behaviour that you accused me of, which is to say victimising yourself (by downplaying your actions and bringing up rude words others said to you). its my biased perspective, but those two in tandem make it seem like you have bad faith in the argument.

what about when a veteran returns from war with ptsd that can be triggered at any point and potentially result in violence to those around them ? thats about the same net effect as walking around with a loaded gun to everyones head , the only difference is the comparability in numbers. as well the covid death rates for young people are a fraction of the death rates of the elderly, who do deserve to be taken care of but ultimately are a net drain to society. so your comment is better stated as holding a gun to the head of the elderly ... which is horrible but not quite the same argument.

your comment is basically "no" which isn't a great foot hold from which to form rebuttals , i feel like id have to drink different flavors of kool aid to respond adequately , eg if one prioritized national interests over some elderly dying then your point of broad negative vs broad positive outcomes is invalid