Bob Shields (he/him)

Talking with people who love ChatGPT feels like I’m at a party where boring people play Cards Against Humanity and convince themselves they’re funny.

I can't help but think that the AI grift has only been working so far because executives think they're good at describing what they want. However having worked in IT I can attest that getting them to ask for things that even make sense is at least 50% of a lot of people's jobs.

Barb & Star Have Tea with the Czar!

Would there be no way to do that locally by referencing GPS?

I’ve only ever seen it in the movie Parenthood but that place seems like a house of nightmares.

A guardian review headline that says: “Melania review - Trump film is a gilded trash remake of The Zone of Interest” and shows a rating of 1 star.

Most savage movie review title ever?

Guillotines?

"Slopagandist" is such a perfect term for these assholes.

Please Don’t Say Mean Things about the AI That I Just Invested a Billion Dollars In “[Nvidia CEO] Jensen Huang Is Begging You to Stop Being So Negative About AI” — Headline from Gizmodo - - — Guys, enough is enough. Bullying is a s...

www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/ple...

Prosecute those inner demons!

Yes I think it’s like the Hobbs & Shaw of the 28 Units of Time cinematic universe.

I hope he picked the right religion!

Well that’s very kind of you. I’m sure I’ll incorporate your perspective into any future conversations I have about this. Sorry it was so arduous for you!

I’m sorry to hear that. Why do you keep coming back?

I’m considering what you’re saying and highlighting the parts where my perspective contradicts yours. But I understand that I’m outgunned by the rest of your life’s influences, so I don’t expect to have an effect I just enjoy the conversation.

But that would be impossible because our perspectives are formed throughout our entire lives and this is just a few seconds a day with a faceless stranger.

No I’m not, we’re just talking about what we think aren’t we? We’re surely not trying to change each others minds here.
Some political ideologies *are* definitely scams, but politics comes from a desire for collective action. While not tangible, it’s certainly real. Likewise for philosophy, etc.

I just think it’s ok for those of us on the outside to be honest about why it’s unconvincing to us. And I don’t sympathize with people who get defensive of it like it’s a house of cards that can’t stand a little poking.

Those other things aren’t trying to convince people that supernatural things are real though.
And I’m not saying there’s no good things about religion, things like AA really do help people using religious principles and community so it’s not like I think it should be abolished.

My point is that I think that had to have happened very early in the chain. I do think that every witchdoctor was a charlatan. And I don't think any of the non-scam reasons are unique to supernatural belief. There's comfort in understanding real things. There's community and identity in philosophy.

Yeah but as soon as I know anything definitive I'll drop my current assumptions.

I think my point still stands that you don't need to be knowing to scam someone. Especially these days, it's impossible for there to have been an unbroken chain of ignorance throughout the entire idea's history.

Exactly, I don't know why people get defensive about that. It just seems to me that things like the origins of life should be casual beliefs until actual data is discovered. Even flat-earthers today might not believe current information, but they have no counter data so I don't know why they're mad.

That's exactly the part that I want to be able to sympathize with because I don't feel it for either religion or sport for some reason. I do feel it for art and philosophy and I have found myself wanting to mount creative defenses for those in the past. The nature of the universe seems so droppable.

Maybe, but they were also capable of trial and error and using that to develop tools and skills, which would surely work for determining what to believe too. What's interesting to me is that some people seem to seek out things to believe, while others don't. And those that do protect their beliefs.

Either that's impossible because they had to have made it up. Or it's an assumption based on the kind of magical thinking you were describing before, in which case they should be willing to disregard it when it doesn't pan out. If they're not I think it qualifies as a scam.

I would say the threshhold for being a scam is as soon as someone convinces someone else of something that's not real, and that person the uses that belief to make any kind of decision.
I'd separate that from trial and error which can be collaborative but ultimately results in replacing poor data.

I think we're considering different points to the be inception. I don't think the idle daydreaming of individuals wondering about the unknowable counts as religion. The organized structure supporting, maintaining and preaching the unknowable is, at least to me.

They look AI as fuck. Weird artifacts and inconsistencies everywhere.

Because it’s creative and structured. It has internal logic to protect foundational assumptions that aren’t supported by new info rather than replace them.
I don’t think the starting ideas were made fully formed with the structure to defend them, but the system is the religion not the daydream.

I mention that because while it obviously doesn't work for every evil person, I will admit that every potential Hitler it diverts is a win. So I guess that would make it a good thing, but it's still scamming those potentially evil people. It's just that their exploitation benefits the rest of us.