Andrew Parker

I’d almost respect a dude who explicitly included the “without men having to change anything about themselves” that’s usually left unsaid when dudes whine about not getting dates.

Not for nothing, but replace some adjectives and you’d be justifying the similar existence of widespread opposition at various points in history to equal rights for every minority group

I assure you the opposition to equal rights for black people was not because black people “failed to explain” it

I can accept the idea of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I can’t accept that one can pass the bar to be “good” while also treating bigots’ supposed concerns as legitimate or valid.

If anyone is sincerely confused about what “equal rights for trans people” entails, it’s treating them the same way you would without the adjective “trans”

If anyone is unconvinced why treating [adjective] women and men the same as [any other adjective] women and men is a good thing, they’re bigots

I’m able to wake up every morning and not take seriously any bigoted “concerns” about how treating a minority group equally is ackshually unfair and bad.

I am far from perfect, I’m not even sure I’d always claim to be good.

That bar is so low you’d have to excavate to get below it.

What’s funny is the chatbots are good at what humans find easy (googling and plagiarizing the results without any factchecking or reasoning), bad at what humans find hard (sophisticated, well-sourced, writing) and incredibly bad at what humans find bewilderingly easy (counting).

That would be a perfectly fair defense if the sales pitch were similarly restrained.

Instead the sales pitch is “it’s like multiple Ph.Ds in your pocket” while tech fetishists defend its honor because ackshually who even said someone with a Ph.D can count.

I’d hire a contract lawyer who can count the number of times the letter B occurs in a word over an experienced prosecutor who couldn’t.

Expertise is a step beyond “basic cognition” not lateral to it.

Aside from it being deeply ironic that your “I’ll just leave this here” link is broken, Moravec’s Paradox is about how motor control and spacial perception require more computing power than “reasoning”

It in no way defends “chatbot being sold as having Ph.D levels of expertise can’t count for shit”

Oh… it fucks up simple questions because of how it operates?

Neat!

At a certain point (personally I’d say it was from the moment the tech companies called their product “AI”) extremely simple mistakes are proof of a product failing not user error.

When the snake oil salesmen claim it’s like having “Ph.D level experts in your pocket” it doesn’t get to fuck up.

The fact that they don’t give where the sources work tells me a more honest accounting would be “according to Trump’s lawyers, when Trump’s lawyers talked to a purported Trump accomplice the accomplice said Trump never did anything bad”

In the legal field, and in the US all of us lawyers do have a doctorate, multiple lawyers have been sanctioned for submitting chatbot-generated briefs which included “hallucinated” citations.

I am once again asking tech writers (and I’m denying y’all the respect of being called journalists or reporters until you earn it back) to stop running “tech CEO says” stories.

If you’re going to advertise for Sam “OMG my chatbot is so scary smart” Altman, at least make him pay you for it.

It can still absolutely be irresponsible management and the choice of what expenses to cut is absolutely worth criticizing.

But “why do they need to cut expenses when revenue is up” is a silly question we’ve all experienced. A 5% raise doesn’t mean your spending didn’t go up 10% and need to be cut.

You can’t bring bigots together with their victims and arrive at anything better than “halfway bigoted”.

You cannot take the “concerns” of bigots seriously without simply ceding ground to them.

Legalized gay marriage was not secured by taking “concerns” about sex with ducks seriously.

I’m always down for bashing a corporation, but the answer to “why were people laid off when revenue was up” is answered two bullet points down from where you found revenue.

Net income being down means expenses grew faster than revenue.

The coffee was so hot it fused her labia to her leg.

It literally melted her skin.

One of the most disconcerting parts of the infamous Harper’s letter was how many people bought into the idea that being told you’re a piece of shit on Twitter was akin to government repression.

You might want to consider why your objection to calling something antisemitic isn’t that it doesn’t show anti-Jewish sentiment, but that it’s somehow deserved.

ISIS claimed to be acting on behalf of all of Islam, that doesn’t make it hard to say vandalizing a mosque in the US to criticize ISIS was bigotry.

Anytime you act against a group of people based on what other members of their group in another country have done it’s fucked up.

2016 should have put every single nail in the coffin of the idea that elections are won based on rhetoric and policies and party allegiance (particularly on the right) is secondary and mutable.

Turns out there either aren’t many “moderate” voters, or the moderates are more into party than principle

I’m just a simple country hyperchicken, but it seems like the least effective way to express your outrage at anything any organization has done is “I support what you’re doing right now but because of past events you irrevocably suck”

I do think the use of “being a jackass” as shorthand for genius (the same way showing a character solving a Rubik’s cube or playing chess is shorthand for genius) rather than “this person who was already shown as a genius is also a jerk” was a shift in that era.

I feel like if you accept a job in this administration you have to assume any senior official can and will order you “do this awful racist shit or you’re fired”.

Which, in a perverse “cheating off the guy who copied his homework from you” way was itself inspired by how House (a Sherlock derivative) was depicted.

So we wind up with “high-functioning sociopath” Sherlock too.

3/3

But many more people watched House (and particularly resonated with his “he’s an asshole because he’s smart enough to realize societal conventions are stupid and made up” framing) than read Sherlock Holmes

I’d guess more people’s first experience with Holmes was BBC Sherlock than the books

2/

It absolutely did. Sherlock Holmes was, in a lot of ways, also written as “genius means not caring about people” at least until the later books.

Doyle’s family even argued that while dickhead Sherlock books are public domain, the later books and less-shithead characterization was still copyrighted.

I don’t believe an Elon sycophant would be on the side of a woman being harassed.

I also absolutely don’t believe it’d take a dozen people to beat the stuffing out of one eugenicist dork.

There’s an obvious joke about how right-wing misogynists always claimed women would be too emotional to lead.

The more telling thing is to realize they think of men being pissy as righteous anger, it’s only women’s feelings that are the result of hormones rather than real outrage.