36,493 karma · joined March 19, 2013
The primary difference is that it's much easier for the AI to figure out itself if it's wrong on the programming side. Knowledge workers don't have automated testing for example.
The end result is the knowledge worker needs to be more heavily involved in the process and be more mindful of mistakes which makes it a worse experience for the user and generally less productive than it is for programmers.
That's why it works as an analogy to mass surveillance. Surveillance was always possible, but now it is scaled up so a much higher percentage of our activity is surveilled. The commonality is that computers made these two things much easier to do. The purpose of my comment was to show that's not inherently good or bad by showing one example of when that's viewed as good and another when it's viewed as bad.
If we're doing the whole "the other team get to play lawyer too" thing, your logic can become dangerous when applied to other issues. For example, almost no one had the ability to protect their communication and personal files from warrants when the laws regarding that sort of thing were written and computers have now made that trivial. Would people here treat that as a valid argument against end-to-end encryption?
[1] - https://blog.bioware.com/2022/07/15/bioware-developer-story-...
Maybe you all have to see the movie to understand what I'm saying. In many ways, the image she presents in the movie is nearly diametrically opposed from the image you have of Holmes going in. That shows she's very likely aware of the image she had previously. She's appears to be trying to counteract the narrative in such a specific way that it can't be accidental. It's more complicated than just her continuing to claim innocence, she's practically a different person in this movie. Someone like Trump could never transform themselves like that. And it is that transformation which makes me think she's self-aware.
That's why I referenced that Fielder quote. Either she's innocent (unlikely) or she's an incredibly self-aware person with a remarkable degree of social intelligence. The image she's painting of herself is too expertly constructed for her to have gotten there accidentally, it's either the truth or a deftly orchestrated piece of fiction. You can't manipulate people to the level she has been accused of through nothing but dumb luck.
Isn't that a sign of her being self-aware? The image she presents in this movie being almost diametrically opposed to the image she had previously (and that goes beyond wardrobe) shows an awareness of that prior image.
No, my question was meant to imply that someone who hasn't seen the film is unqualified to discuss what's contained in that film. You weren't just making definitive statements about Holmes, you were making definitive statements about the movie itself without having seen it.
Have you actually seen the movie? You seem to be talking around that question in an almost Holmesian manner. Because this statement is incredibly definitive to a degree that is bordering on objectively wrong. I mean "absolutely nothing"?. At the very least, she's a lot weirder than your average conman. The simple act of selecting Nathan Fielder for this project is a bizarre choice that shows something unique about her.
No, because she doesn't sound "stupid" in the movie. The mountain of evidence against her is so extreme that being able to carve out any narrative in which her innocence has any plausibility requires such a calculated and well constructed plan that is shows a high level of social intelligence and self-control. Fielder literally lives with her 24/7 for weeks and her mask doesn't slip. You don't have to believe her story to recognize she's not a "stupid" person who "does not know when to shut her mouth".
People are just trying to thread the needle of how to handle discussing this movie in this short window so soon after release. We want others to watch the movie so we can both have more people to talk about it with and so we can eventually talk about it more openly. But as is, the movie just came out a few days ago so people are trying to not diminish anyone's experience of watching this movie for the first time without knowing what transpires. I realize this likely all sounds frustrating to someone with little interest in the movie, but it's all a good intentioned way of engaging with a very special piece of art.
>a former celebrity with little self-awareness, who is incapable of seeing how absurd and ridiculous she appears now that she is no longer powerful...
As someone who has seen it, there's simply no way both of these descriptions of her are true. If you believe that she's guilty of everything she's accused of doing, she's incredibly self-aware and her entire participation in this movie is a desperate Hail Mary attempt to save face in the court of public opinion. At one point in the movie Fielder is having a conversation with another person and says something along the lines of "She's either innocent or maybe the most manipulative person in human history". The movie isn't as concerned with a true journalistic investigation of her guilt or innocence, there are better accounts of that elsewhere and plenty of people who can tell that story better than Fielder. What he seems to be most interested in is the absurd commitment to she has to her claimed innocence and how effective that is or isn't.
To voice the audience's opinions in the movie itself so the movie can directly address some of them.
The honest answer is via politics not education, but this debate is often had in "apolitical" circles that try their best to ignore this.
And why is that past tense?
>Even jewish historian Toaff documented cases of infanticide and connection to religious rituals in his book “Pasque di sangue”. Its all corroborated with evidence
From your own link:
>Toaff withdrew the book from circulation a week after its publication and republished it the following year with an afterword stating that there was no relationship between the use of dried blood in Jewish ritual and the alleged ritual murders underlying the blood libel.
From Wikpedia[1]:
>Blood libel or ritual murder libel (also blood accusation) is an antisemitic trope which falsely accuses Jews of murdering Christians in order to use their blood in the performance of religious rituals... Blood libels often claim that Jews require human blood for the baking of matzos, an unleavened flatbread which is eaten during Passover. Earlier versions of the blood libel accused Jews of ritually re-enacting the crucifixion. The accusations often assert that the blood of Christian children is especially coveted, and historically, blood libel claims have been made in order to account for the otherwise unexplained deaths of children. In some cases, the alleged victims of human sacrifice have become venerated as Christian martyrs. Many of these – most prominently William of Norwich (1144), Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln (1255), and Simon of Trent (1475) – became objects of local cults and veneration
Yes it was. My comment was directly in response to someone saying "it's scary how much US media a foreign adversary now has direct editorial control over". I know that was not your argument, but it was someone's argument and I responded to refute it. I don't know what point you thought was being discussed, but it's now clear you misread the conversation.
>you can certainly say he's "extremely pro-Israel" but he himself is not "a foreign adversary" by any definition of those words.
All you're showing is that his family is pro-Israel, but that does not mean they are controlled by Israel. These conversations about Israel always seem to remove the agency on the American end which is where a lot of the historical antisemitic tropes live. Whether it's intentional or not, it's phrased in a way that evokes the trope of a shadowy cabal of Jews pulling the strings behind the scenes, and other countries rarely get talked about in this same way. For example, have you ever heard anyone suggest Google and Microsoft are controlled by India because their CEOs were born in India?