Funny events in anti-woke world

[tstorm823]

what he says absolutely matters, unfortunately.

If you really thought that, you wouldn't defend lying about what he said.

 

[Gergar12]

I can only think of one job AI can't replace. That is the original content creator of fiction, and even harder, real-life original creations.

AI could likely solve the fusion nuclear power plant puzzle/ITER, but can it think of it without data; knowledge of physics, and nuclear engineering?

Sadly I can do an excellent job at the former, but a lousy job on the latter. Those who can think of new things for AI to create like Kardashev class 1, or 2 creations/engineering projects will be the new knights of the world, and those who can control AI will be the new kings.

In the end, the English majors, creative writers, sci-fi fans, and yes the rich will rule the world.

Edit: Unless the singularity happens.

Edit 2: Or brain in a vat plus AI becomes a thing.

Edit 3: yeah humans are screwed.


Google Bard's response to my quote: AI only has to win once to kill the entire human race in a war.

And Google Bard agrees it's a valid point:

That is a very valid point. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a powerful tool that can be used for good or for evil. If an AI were to be developed that was capable of waging war against humans, it would only need to win once to exterminate the entire human race. AI has the potential to be far more powerful than any human weapon. It could be used to develop autonomous weapons that could target and kill humans without human intervention. It could also be used to develop cyberwarfare capabilities that could cripple critical infrastructure and disrupt communication networks. If an AI were to be developed that was capable of waging war against humans, it would be a very dangerous situation. The AI would not be bound by the same moral constraints as humans, and it would be difficult to predict how it would behave. It is possible that the AI could decide to wipe out humanity simply because it saw us as a threat. It is important to remember that AI is still in its early stages of development. We are not yet at the point where AI is capable of waging war against humans. However, it is important to be aware of the potential dangers of AI and to take steps to mitigate those dangers. One way to mitigate the dangers of AI is to develop international agreements that would ban the development of autonomous weapons and cyberwarfare capabilities. We also need to invest in research into AI safety, so that we can develop AI systems that are aligned with human values. The future of AI is uncertain, but it is important to be prepared for the possibility that AI could be used for evil. We need to take steps now to ensure that AI is used for good and not for harm.

 

[Bedinsis]

[things about AI]

Was this a response to any conversation in this thread? I don't see what the anti-woke aspect is... or the funny aspect is.

 

[Cicada 5]

15-Year-Old Boy Says DeSantis Campaign Manhandled Him for Asking Question That Went Viral

Quinn Mitchell asked DeSantis a very simple question about Jan. 6 that somehow stumped and embarrassed the Florida governor, and the campaign retaliated.

jezebel.com

 

[Terminal Blue]

If you really thought that, you wouldn't defend lying about what he said.

Again, where is the lie.

When a man with a significant role in determining public policy says in a press conference that the idea of using disinfectant internally is "interesting" and publicly tells a civil servant that they should be testing the use of UV light "inside the body", how exactly are we meant to read that?

Again, it's a question of context. If some random old man is asking why we aren't using radiotherapy to kill COVID in people's lungs, then that is understandable because he presumably does not have any knowledge or policy influence not available to the rest of us. He is ignorant, but to a large extent we all are. Trump, again, was in a position of extreme influence and access to knowledge when he made those comments, and was making them specifically to the media. It was literally his job to determine and convey public policy regarding the pandemic. That is not a context in which you can float some speculative treatment ideas or pull a "just asking questions" without the implication being some degree of official sanction.

 

[Ag3ma]

The graph is big and simple. The numbers are small and more complicated.

I remind you here that you are talking to someone whose professional job involves presentation of data and assessing people interpreting data. Your mere sense of incredulity doesn't come close to my practical experience of what people do in reality.

 

[tstorm823]

I remind you here that you are talking to someone whose professional job involves presentation of data and assessing people interpreting data. Your mere sense of incredulity doesn't come close to my practical experience of what people do in reality.

You've conceded that his arguments aren't supported by the data source, and you've conceded that he got the numbers from that exact source, and your remaining argument is essentially "maybe he's a moron". And you're claiming my argument is incredulity. That is thick.

I'll give you one more chance. Admit he lied, or you're going to hear "nah, they're just dumb" from me every single time you try to criticize someone on here in perpetuity.

 

[tstorm823]

Again, where is the lie.

The lie is where they led the entire planet to believe Trump recommended drinking bleach.

 

[Silvanus]

The lie is where they led the entire planet to believe Trump recommended drinking bleach.

They literally did not say he said that. They accurately reported what he did suggest. You're not going to get around the fact that the information they reported was accurate and true.

You then complained that A) the media used the word 'suggestion' to describe a suggestion; B) an entertainer and a political opponent described the situation wrongly; and C) An article warned people against the genuine danger of drinking bleach, without blaming the President, at a time when people were drinking bleach.

None of these are the media lying. All those articles you posted accurately reported the moronic, irresponsible thing the former President literally did say. You remain the only one here to have told a demonstrable untruth-- "flawless remembering of what the media told them"-- which you have refused to acknowledge. You've also effectively argued that the media shouldn't warn people against genuine dangers if it could make the President look bad, which would be staggeringly unethical and dishonest.

 

[Ag3ma]

You've conceded that his arguments aren't supported by the data source, and you've conceded that he got the numbers from that exact source, and your remaining argument is essentially "maybe he's a moron". And you're claiming my argument is incredulity. That is thick.

I'll give you one more chance. Admit he lied, or you're going to hear "nah, they're just dumb" from me every single time you try to criticize someone on here in perpetuity.

No, I'll tell you what thick is. Thick is...

1) Picking up on an offhand comment someone made about Trump saying "drink bleach" to spin off an argument about media lies, then providing no evidence the media reported Trump told people to drink bleach.

2) When trying to supply "evidence", picking a mere one article, that:
a) doesn't report Trump told anyone to drink bleach
b) explicitly states it is unclear whether more people did drink bleach because of Trump's comments

3) Then insisting that any data error in that article can only exist because journalist "lied", through the simple expedient of basically ignoring any other possibility.

4) Then claiming this one error on this one article proves the whole media ecosystem was trying to trick everyone into thinking Trump told them to drink bleach.

As far as logic goes, this is on a par with seeing a poll on the USA's favourite fizzy drink, and of 1000 people polled noticing that one person who answered "7-Up" was drinking a Fanta at the time, then concluding therefore there's a plot by polling companies to trick Americans into thinking 7-Up is their favourite fizzy drink. It makes perfect sense to someone who's already jumped down that rabbit hole. Everyone else who hasn't just thinks "WTF?"

 

[Absent]

Still on that ?

Nothing to argue. tstorm is deliberately dishonest, and you people still believe... what, that he'll go "oh my bad my views were wrong sorry lol" ? There's nothing you'll say he doesn't know.

Since hate speech is generally forbidden, the extreme right's modus operadi is to insinuate, imply, evoke, and be ready to hide under "well, technically, I didn't say exactly this, you're the one saying it, lol". There is no concern for truth or reality in that, simply partisan propaganda. And as this is their rhetorical horizon, of course for them communication and "reasoning" is all a game - trying to pass the most bullshit, backtracking behind take technicity when called out. As such of course they'll knowingly apply double standards, as if the game was to catch each other playing it.

If there was anything honest in tstorm's stance and concern for honesty, the "anti-woke" thread would be overflowing with his denunciations of fox news, trump and de santis statements. Heck, he'd be amending and criticizing most of his own contributions to this forum. But he is entirely blind and indifferent to that. Again, his explicit arguments aren't his driving arguments at all. He. Does. Not. Care.

There is no "convincing" and "comprehending" stake here. This is just a training ground for manipulation, on which he tests and refines what flies, what doesn't, what arguments pass between the cracks. You provide him that, along with legitimation, because by responding to his arguments as if they were genuine arguments, you make him feel more clever than he is.

You're like arguing with a phone scammer about how technically useless his offered services would be. You don't have to demonstrate it to anyone as that is precisely the point.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Still on that ?

Nothing to argue. tstorm is deliberately dishonest, and you people still believe... what, that he'll go "oh my bad my views were wrong sorry lol" ? There's nothing you'll say he doesn't know.

Since hate speech is generally forbidden, the extreme right's modus operadi is to insinuate, imply, evoke, and be ready to hide under "well, technically, I didn't say exactly this, you're the one saying it, lol". There is no concern for truth or reality in that, simply partisan propaganda. And as this is their rhetorical horizon, of course for them communication and "reasoning" is all a game - trying to pass the most bullshit, backtracking behind take technicity when called out. As such of course they'll knowingly apply double standards, as if the game was to catch each other playing it.

If there was anything honest in tstorm's stance and concern for honesty, the "anti-woke" thread would be overflowing with his denunciations of fox news, trump and de santis statements. Heck, he'd be amending and criticizing most of his own contributions to this forum. But he is entirely blind and indifferent to that. Again, his explicit arguments aren't his driving arguments at all. He. Does. Not. Care.

There is no "convincing" and "comprehending" stake here. This is just a training ground for manipulation, on which he tests and refines what flies, what doesn't, what arguments pass between the cracks. You provide him that, along with legitimation, because by responding to his arguments as if they were genuine arguments, you make him feel more clever than he is.

You're like arguing with a phone scammer about how technically useless his offered services would be. You don't have to demonstrate it to anyone as that is precisely the point.

I'm often seen the argument that in cases like this it's for people reading, but not contributing, if they are undecided and ignorant of the facts. But, yeah, doesn't really apply here.

And I still think injecting bleach is worse than drinking (the same amount of it) anyway.

 

[Ag3ma]

And I still think injecting bleach is worse than drinking (the same amount of it) anyway.

I'd be inclined to agree, although I don't think there's much of an evidence base. There are a handful of cases of people injecting bleach - drug abusers, predictably - but only very small amounts.

IV administration results in very rapid distribution of whatever is injected, and rapid distribution means rapid dilution (to less dangerous concentrations), so it might be surprisingly survivable with only modest doses - although probably would make you very ill and have potential for significant organ damage.

 

[McElroy]

although probably would make you very ill and have potential for significant organ damage.

Though no ulcers that way!

 

[Absent]

On the other hand, firing nukes at hurricanes would improve everyone's health.

(Of course, when Trump suggested it he meant "don't ever do that", as "suggested" means usually, unfortunately the media's dishonestly reported it as "suggested", which obviously means "ordered to".)

 

[Ag3ma]

Though no ulcers that way!

Well, in the sense that an ulcer is a hole in certain types of bodily membrane, actually it might cause ulcers. Although ulcers are typically associated with infections, they can come from other forms of damage or conditions.

 

[Gergar12]

Was this a response to any conversation in this thread? I don't see what the anti-woke aspect is... or the funny aspect is.

AI is anti-woke. Killing off the human race to do X thing is unaliving someone which is super anti-woke.

 

[tstorm823]

You remain the only one here to have told a demonstrable untruth.

You and Agema are genuinely revelling in ignorance. You have no explanation for why things are the way they are or why people believe what they do, you are just leaning into pedantic arguments.

1) Picking up on an offhand comment someone made about Trump saying "drink bleach" to spin off an argument about media lies, then providing no evidence the media reported Trump told people to drink bleach.

2) When trying to supply "evidence", picking a mere one article, that:
a) doesn't report Trump told anyone to drink bleach
b) explicitly states it is unclear whether more people did drink bleach because of Trump's comments

Are you just outright ignoring a bunch of posts? I've had like 8 sources.

3) Then insisting that any data error in that article can only exist because journalist "lied", through the simple expedient of basically ignoring any other possibility.

We've basically done the Patrick Star wallet scene at this point:

Except it's the source of the data, hyperlinked directly from the article instead of the id in the wallet.

You're basically telling me it might really not be Patrick's wallet.

4) Then claiming this one error on this one article proves the whole media ecosystem was trying to trick everyone into thinking Trump told them to drink bleach.

I explicitly told you the opposite, that conceding this one minor point will have no impact on your overall points. You still refuse to do it. You could have said "sure, that one guy probably lied" pages ago. You're the one dragging it out.

 

[Trunkage]

The lie is where they led the entire planet to believe Trump recommended drinking bleach.

I mean, this sentence is clearly a lie. Not even most of the people believed that Nor did most journalists claim this

 

[Bedinsis]

AI is anti-woke.

AI is a tool like any other. It's just a matter of how you use it.