> can you explain your reasoning as to why a language model would never be able to match a human's ability to explain its reasoning?
It’s a language model, not a reasoning model. A lot of its training data happens to be logical, so it sounds logical, but it’s still just acting on probability. Thinking it’s “explaining” anything it produces is a mistake.
That the people in your life have led you to believe that a man’s romantic value comes from his appearance or relative income is only evidence that you need to meet better people. The reality is that women who feel that way are never going to be happy with anyone. You should check out the first chapter of Don’t Trust Your Gut if you want to know what really matters in a successful long term relationship.
The parent comment was arguing that women choose to be with men who earn more than them. This was in no way a data point for wage inequality, which you seem to be implying.
Nothing about this article indicates that anyone thinks apes are “less evolved” than humans. Finding similarities between branches of the evolutionary tree is a common way to build knowledge about shared ancestors. We do the same within our species as well.
But if you want to be precise, I wouldn’t say our evolutionary pressures are the “exact same” at this point. There are indications that human evolution has accelerated as a consequence of our spread and technology, while other apes have remained relatively undisturbed in their EEAs up until the last few centuries.
From the article: “‘when we told participants a bit about what the apes were doing before, it did improve their understanding significantly but only by about 5 percent,’ she noted. ‘So it seems like the gestures themselves are really meaningful to people.’”
But her husband is short! She’s just shorter. Most women are shorter than most men. No one is being gas lit. This article isn’t asking women to find men who are shorter than them. It’s just saying that height offers no real advantages in the present day.
Not sure where you’re going with this. The author is a woman. It’s sort of missing the point of an article claiming heightism is culturally based to ask products of that culture what they think as though it’s a rebuttal.
Since you're asking if scale should influence our attitude, consider the following sentence: "I could have called an ambulance for my severely injured neighbor, but I gave up when I checked the numbers and saw that 70 million people would die this year regardless." I'm not saying these scenarios are equivalent, but I do think there are scenarios where considering absolute numbers is irrelevant or absurd. Going for the low hanging fruit can be better than doing nothing.
I don't understand the pushback this article is getting. If someone is murdered it's news, even though there might be war or genocide going on somewhere else in the world. I don't think anyone in the comment section has said that this is the most important issue of our time, but it's something that is happening. Maybe laws are being broken. Maybe this news encourages new laws to be made. Since when did we start resenting greater awareness?
They aren't dismissing the argument. They're saying pretty plainly that both things can be bad, and therefore both can be addressed simultaneously. Taking the stance that animal welfare activists can't care about anything else until the insanely divisive issue of factory farming is solved, on the other hand, is being dismissive of the issue at hand. It's whataboutism. Moreover, someone might take issue with animals being sacrificed for Neuralink while being okay with animals suffering for human consumption. Such a take would be nuanced, not hypocritical.
Suggesting we calibrate our reaction based off other examples of animal suffering isn’t an objective take. Some people don’t want any animals to suffer by human hands. Some people are opposed to animal trials in their entirety. Some people might oppose their use in this particular instance. Some people might just have a hard cut off at three dead mice. Whether or not this number is industry standard can be beside the point for someone else, and it doesn’t mean they’re being “preyed upon” or manipulated for reading and responding to a fact using a different moral framework.
There’s nothing natural about a domesticated species being spread around the world and allowed to roam free while simultaneously receiving care and protection from humans.
Since you didn’t name the species, it’s hard to say whether they’re common or not, or verify that their populations remain stable while an ever increasing number of cats are given an unrestricted license to kill anything that moves if it happens to be small enough.
Relevant: “Cat owners failed to perceive the magnitude of their cats' impacts on wildlife and were not influenced by ecological information“
That is not my experience at any mechanic's shop ever! And even without all the fancy tools, my neighbor was banging on their engine for hours just last weekend. Maybe they don't know what they're doing, and therefore it doesn't count as work, but it sure was loud.
Is it really fair and just, though? Is it fair, for example, for a business financed with Silicon Valley money, leveraging Californian infrastructure, enjoying US legal protections, to offer Americans a wage that only meets the needs of developers in Nigeria or Bosnia? If my money doesn't go as far in the US as it would in India, I'm being penalized for simply being born in the wrong place. Who do you think will take these jobs? In my opinion this is woke-washed outsourcing, and US-based developers should be boycotting any business that does this.
My personal opinion of The Verge writers is that they are mostly liberal arts majors LARPing as tech experts to make ends meet. The general resentment for the ascendancy of tech is palpable. Maybe someone in their 18th Century English lit class called them a geek at some point, so they honestly think they know what they’re talking about relative to the general public, but the average commenter on HN has greater context on almost anything The Verge churns out. I’m okay with non-technical people in journalism roles, but I do take issue with presenting these people as authoritative sources that can express their subjective opinions as unchallenged fact, and that’s what The Verge is all about as of late.
A big source of my frustration with Spotify has been that the setting is per device, defaults to being on, and is often re-enabled during updates. I wish my account settings could be universal and permanent, considering it’s a cloud-based app.
Parent doesn’t have a point because they’re rejecting the reality of height discrimination and the language that perpetuates it. Pretending like this isn’t a thing isn’t constructive, and reinforces the original point that this wouldn’t be tolerated with respect to race.
And no one claimed this was representative of the world at large, although I must be cheeky and note there’s currently more evidence in favor than against since you haven’t provided anything to the contrary.
If you’re short you have bigger issues than finding a life partner (as I agree height is not the ultimate reason one can’t find love). Studies have shown height affects career advancement and is more significant than race for earnings. One of these forms of discrimination is illegal, but the other is not.