eudamoniac

Politicians don't convict people. It's not a political issue; the person was convicted by a jury of their peers, which philosophically should indicate something important: the body politic unanimously believes he is guilty of heinous crimes. They believe beyond a reasonable doubt that this man, for example, raped and killed a dozen infants. Then in the court of appeals it was upheld. I believe that it is better for society* in that case for that man to then be swiftly executed.

* In the sense that society needs to feel that the state executes justice and that such people are not being kept alive on their own dime. That breeds contempt for the system and for the state.

1. Cultural homogeneity; 2. When heinous criminals get to live out their days, people feel that justice is not being done, breeding vigilantes and unrest. Especially when they get released early, but even if they are never released.

The philosophy of a state should be that which engenders the greatest wellbeing among its citizens. People largely feel a greater trust in the state and a greater sense of justice and peace of mind when heinous criminals are killed. Ivory tower philosophizing at the cost of social unity is not so great. Some innocents will die; we accept worse consequences for smaller gains. There have only been ~140 people in the history of the death penalty who have been exonerated from appeal. 140 people die in war every day for less worthy ends.

Leftists who pretend not to understand things as a form of argumentation, also

You are just proxying the quoted argument indirectly to make it sound less coercive, but the end result is the same: I should do something, and not be "stubborn", because it reduces risk of suicides, which is "sufficient reason". Whether the suicider is in the first or third person, or whether they are an individual or an aggregate statistic, is irrelevant.

- Society should do something because it reduces risk of suicide in this group

- I should do something because it reduces risk of suicide in this group <-- you are here

- I should do something because it reduces risk of suicide to this person

- I should do something because if I don't there's a high risk this person will kill themselves

- I should do something because if I don't this person credibly says they will kill themselves <-- my post

- I should do something because this person is truly mentally ill and if I don't they definitely will kill themselves

These are all the same argument. You are being disingenuous. Your post says that "'Suicide prevention' is a sufficient reason [to call a female a man]." What exactly were you implying then if not that I should do something because otherwise someone might kill themselves? You are uncomfortable with me clarifying your position in more direct verbiage; that is the insidiousness of your position: it only sounds nice when you ignore its implications.

Well I reject your framing of it being impossible. If it is cheaper to house and feed a man for sixty years than it is to kill him, that is a policy decision, not a law of the universe. Other respectable countries manage to achieve this.

Society does not have an obligation to house and feed such people for decades on end. I'd rather they be killed because it should be much cheaper; whether it actually is or not by some aberration of dumb policy is not relevant to the philosophy. They are the enemy of society and are owed absolutely nothing but swift death, not room and board.

Adult men have high suicide risk, due in large part to loneliness and low self esteem, but no one would suggest that women have an obligation to pretend all men they meet are sexy and desirable. Broadly, culture should not be manipulated by a small cohort holding themselves hostage. Coercive threats like "if you don't give me this job I will shoot myself" or "if you don't affirm Christ is our Savior I have a high chance of suicide btw" (or the third party proxied version like you posted) are not compatible with liberal society.

I simply don't consider "if you don't do this I will kill myself" to be an appropriate argument to make me do something. I don't accept moral culpability for that outcome. It is unfortunate for them that they cannot be what they want to be, but that does not put the onus on me to pretend they are that thing.

Society does not have an obligation to say falsehoods under duress. I think you'll probably agree with me for most other thought experiment examples I could come up with where people would need to collectively say what they don't believe lest the aggrieved party hurt themselves.

> And it's other people's opinion that the word "bigot" refers to people who call transgender women men.

That's fine, people can call me that if they want to

> History is full of backwards thinking that seems insane in retrospect.

Sure, and I'm not saying historicity makes me right, just that I didn't pull the opinion out of thin air like it's a crackpot theory; most people in the world today and throughout history agreed with me. I have essentially 0 Agreeableness in the big 5 so any argument about social pressure in present decade USA doesn't sway my opinion.

Not really in this case because the label given to these people is socially constructed. It's not 'reality' that they are or are not their proclaimed gender, just as it's not reality that they are or are not pretty. Saying that there is some objective reality of their prettiness or ugliness doesn't make much sense either way, in the same way.

It's my opinion that the words man and woman should refer to the biological sex, not the person's desired sex/gender, so I use the words in that way. Obviously some people feel strongly about using the words in the opposite way. That's okay, but I'm just not going to use them that way. Neither of us have a stronger claim to "observable reality", but I think I at least have a stronger claim to historical/traditional normalcy.

Everyone is aware that that is what the left "really means". You have not elucidated anything for anyone. A lot of people just disagree with your premise that the pregnant person should be, for any reason, called a man.

Thank you. Very tired of the financially illiterate option dogma I see constantly here.

Literally every time this is posted you see a few or more people jump out and say "no actually Bleak House is impossible to understand and it's written terribly and it's a dumb study!" Which I think means that while literacy levels are declining, people's perception of their own level is not. We have forgotten what high literacy is meant to look like. The original HN thread was depressing.

The topic is "the author could be a professional writer." I'm not allowed to say no, she couldn't? I wouldn't have mentioned AI if not for that.

And these calories are in the water supply? No, the fat people choose to buy and eat that food. I'm on a 700C deficit right now, it's not very fun, but it works because I have the discipline to not order a pizza.

We've entered the "AI is good and inevitable and only pretentious people would write their own words" phase of the forum.

That seems completely sane and I am happy for the people of Japan that they get to enjoy such a law.

Also, almost everything comes to PC now except Nintendo, so there's even less incentive.

I remember when the Democrats were for the working man and they had my vote. Now... they aren't and don't. How did this happen...?

I listened to this album about a dozen times trying to like it over the years, but it's just so repetitive I could not like it. I think you could probably cut the runtime in half and not lose any discrete musical parts.

Gatekeeping is required in any group that wishes to maintain any kind of quality. I run a book club; if I let in any random r/books poster (as an example) the discussions would become shit and the good members would leave. Ask me how I know. Now I aggressively gatekeep things when I can. It angers people, but it's worth it.

The Overton window of companies selling products that the user is manually buying while intentionally bypassing all existing safety measures? I don't understand how you can blame Google here.

They are not supposed to be "on par" with average employees, the visa is supposed to be for exceptional talent that cannot be hired in America. There is no shortage of domestic average devs, so these average h1b devs ought to be leaving.

As soon as I saw that ad I knew Nike was not going to be "cool" for much longer. I switched to Brooks after that.

Violence works, and it's increasingly coming to be understood that voting no longer does...

This is like the "Now everyone can just 3D print little widgets they need!" sentiment. Approximately no one is going to do this.

No, they don't. But to the layman they do. Most people are unaware that you can get what is to them an impressive 3d game scaffold from the Unity asset store in like one hour. You can literally have a 3d man running around an open world with camera, lighting, shadows, run animations, in like 5 minutes. This is a very impressive feat if you have no idea about modern game engines, which 99.99999% of people do not.

As an amateur game dev who knows some amount of things, honestly, not coping, I have not seen anything come out of AI game dev that would have been more than like one month of human dev work. And obviously, games take a lot more than one month to make...

It is because English is an ambiguous input unlike a high level programming language. The output cannot help but be wrong sometimes when the input is ambiguous. See my comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49491797

Determinism isn't the issue; it's that the prompt does not contain enough information to know the correct way to do the thing, even if it did the thing the same way with the same inputs every time.

I don't like this inevitability framing. It's not true of other actually dangerous things. "There is no sane world where we can stop drugs/nukes/guns/CP, even if every single chemist/physicist/metallurgist/pedo were to vanish tomorrow, it would only be a stopgap [thus we should just let everyone have those things]." Yes, those things will exist in some highly restricted or illegal contexts, but that doesn't mean any of them need to be in the workplace or accessible to every citizen. Usage and access and development could be heavily restricted in just the same way. You don't think AI is dangerous enough for this comparison to be sensible, but I'm not so sure.

Likewise, arguments that other countries will have it therefore we must have it, are specious. Some countries have nukes, we don't let every country have them, we certainly don't let citizens have them; some countries produce CP, we don't let citizens access it; some countries have millions of guns among citizens, we don't let the guns cross the border. All this is to say that it would not be infeasible to broadly ban AI in most contexts. Obviously this won't happen in the current political climate, but it's not a law of the universe that AI pervading daily life is inevitable.