https://youtu.be/rDLlMlKUsyI?t=129

probably my favorite post for the month:)

Holy shit, this guy managed to have 3 of the first 10 papers listed on google scholar about his shenanigans.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.4337

Transformative became an AI era buzzword, similar to “meticulous” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chatbots-have-thoroughly-infiltrated-scientific-publishing/

“Transformative”.

I remember trying it with Skyrim making me so nauseous I was wiped out the whole day:D

I sold it at a profit.

Could make a great stripper stage name too 😅

I had the original devkit. The FB sale killed Oculus for me for life.

People using the word “intellect” in the same sentence as rogan makes the first part quite unbelievable too. Also, in my experience, people also refer to themselves as PhDs or physicians, because saying “doctor” outside of formally addressing one doesn’t reveal anything about what the person actually does other than their ““intellect””.

yup. story’s total bullshit.

To be clear, I don’t know you, and there’s nothing personal intended in my remark. I do know this learned helplessness, however. It’s just weird that the same Americans who shockingly often expect me to cure death (literally) suddenly behave like NPC’s bouncing off a wall when it comes to lowering gun deaths.

Please let me reassure you, thats inaccurate…

What’s inaccurate? I made like 5 statements.

1. Guns kill more school-aged kids than motor vehicle accidents and cancer (i had to recreate the stats from the CDC wonder database myself excluding anybody over 18 because schmucks kept on complaining about the NEJM article including 19-year-olds, which apparently invalidated the data, except that it didn’t)

2. Gun suicides are mostly committed using firearms from friends and relatives.

3. If you look at UK’s homicide stats and the US’s (BJS) homicide stats you can tell that actually the homicide rate difference is driven by firearms.

4. It’s a fact that it is much harder to kill someone including oneself without a gun.

5. States that have gun storage laws have lower firearm mortality in kids.

6. Blablabla on your trust me because I did some research. I’m in academia and published half a dozen (non-gun) epidemiology papers to date as a side hustle so I do know how to use the CDC databases. I’ve been forced to dive into the gun violence data because I’m really fed up with all the disinformation.

7. What I have seen no supportive evidence for to date is “that training professionals to identify perpetrators” (“hardening schools?”) has any effect on school shootings.

-

Now let’s see your papers.

^OP, here’s the answer to your question

(Intellectual laziness and uncritical acceptance of propaganda).

School shootings are often carried out by juveniles who can’t lawfully get a gun.

Cut this crap, this isn’t reddit. Most kids them get the guns from a relative or friend who obtained it legally and adequate storage laws reduce both suicides and homicides in kids. BTW, guns kill more kids now than cancer or car accidents, but only in the US. Your take is the best example of americans being unconcerned about preventable deaths.

This reads like arguing for sake of arguing because calling out nazis as liars about their interest in free speech has got to mean abandoning freedom of speech.

application of ethical principles may change

We could go on and on, but this is a nice summary statement here. Thank you.

Guess what you’re the next iteration of? Technologies change, yet good principles don’t change with them.

Technologies and ethics continuously change and adapt to new technologies, and I’m not interested in discussing the analogies of going from codexes to printed books vs. going from printed hard copies to human-human interactions being hijacked by human-passing bots, because to me these are evidently not comparable.

No one has a monopoly on LLM, bots, or algorithms.

The fact that this discussion is taking place on Lemmy and not Xitter tells plenty about the actual complexities of this story.

no. it’s a “don’t believe them because they are lying” thing.

Free speech is still right: everyone should fervently defend it. Whether they’re sincere about it or not, free speech is indispensable to a liberal democracy.

If you fall into the trap of abandoning basic values from the enlightenment when they make it inconvenient, then you play into their game & help them set back society.

Look, statements like this are very easy to make but nearly impossible to implement in the era of LLM-powered bots riding the Algorithm. Unless you simply give free rein to the bots, which is often the goal and ultimately eliminates actual humans’ free speech. I don’t pretend that I have a perfect solution, but there is sufficient historical evidence to point out the threads’ original statement on absolutistic terms. For the rest, I’ve used the word “some” because not everybody has ulterior motives, but the most motivated ones in the present era tend to.

Fascism is slightly more diverse and thus adds more opportunities for apologists to relativize. Hence the specific choice.

yeah it’s a philosophical question the answer to which changes with the times (like, does free speech/expression even mean the same thing in the 1700s as in the present era where “speech” is delivered and amplified by machines without even the necessity of direct human involvement).

I would have reported the pic for gore, but I think hiding it under spoiler is fair game. What humanity should have learned from this story is that just because ideologies that consider fairness or empathy a weakness might appear viable and effective to grab power quickly, we have plenty of gory evidence that they do lead to the annihilation of millions, including those initially benefiting from them.