in that case what is the central idea being pointed at by the misnomer 'toxic masculinity' ? interesting to consider that prevailing framing as being an inherent critique of masculinity as a whole. personally I dislike the phrase 'toxic positivity' for similar reasons, it's like saying that a turd may be made palatable.
I think you have good intentions so I don't intend to attack you personally. just wanted to suggest that an individual being arrested for doing the right thing probably decreases the likelihood of them doing the right thing in future. so perhaps discretion is a good idea when doing the right thing, to increase chances of the right thing being done long term. there doesn't seem to exist a logical reason that corporations would avoid using the letter of the law to defend themselves, regardless as to how right that defense may be?
perhaps we could discuss socialization rates in the west over the past few decades, to illuminate the human social trajectory in an environment of technologization? or, perhaps we could talk about the ways that kids behave after exposure to short form content like tik tok during their nascent stages of development. the progression of community volunteering rates could potentially be another great point to discuss. i dont think my perspective is entirely relevant here, but i go to the park and it feels very empty nowadays.
rebelling against the social contract after decades of perceived neglect , a subset of the nerd class uprises and promptly stomps freedom out of existence. thus, a small amount of nerds act to cement the legacy of all nerds as dweebs. if only zuckerberg or thiel got the nerd kicked out of them. alas, bullying is considered a universal no no in contemporary western discourse, to protect those same nerds currently seeking to puppet the world to their lame ends. bring back bullying I say!
putting morality to the side in favor of legal pragmatism , certain jurisdictions classify the act of accessing data without prior authority as data espionage
personally i think its pretty cool to see that some books from thousands of years ago are applicable to a world the authors could never have imagined. it sure is a lot cooler than detonating earth to make peter thiel and other evil men of his ilk very briefly happy. from my angle, the absurdity is watching evolved monkeys toil to cease gigacenturies of evolution by permanently ruining their home.
things now make more sense, thank you for clarifying. in this new light, thiel's vision of transhumanism can be seen as the inverse of catholicism, where both meet at the concept of the soul from diametrically opposed angles (soul = undiscovered solution for some vs. soul = inherent mystery for all).
i like your ending quote, it is a great reframing of another quote, "beware of unearned wisdom".
kids have more fun with a SNES than they do with a PS5. office runs fine on 2010 era thinkpads. I get by with the cheapest possible nokia. a perceived need for modern tech conveniences is artificially engineered to program consumption behaviour into the uneducated or unwilling. I presume you fall into the latter camp and have your reasons, I don't believe such a decision could accurately be extrapolated to society at large.
im not sure what gives you the impression that wrongness (or an accusation thereof) was present here. may i ask why you felt the need to ask? personally i think it's interesting to be aware that many AI-isms originate in human english expression localized to certain regions.
openai has retracted many of their lean proofs for the big drop of supposed novel mathematical solns. if frontier ai screws it up , how does this inconsistency manifest in weaker models?
understanding of the unconscious would be entirely novel , yet such knowledge is overtly claimed here. if the author is human he may be showing signs of ai psycosis.
ive seen this quote posted many times and never understood it. thanks for linking the original (?) essay, things make sense now. i do disagree with the author though; his statement is plainly defensible.
do you suppose that the average tech worker is socially perceptive enough to determine the occurence of their manipulation? seems to me that most tech workers cease consideration of consequences after accepting their role.
your account has been here since 2011. unless the account got sold off, i take it that you're my elder and therefore are deserving of respect. so respectfully I ask, if you made a comment opening multiple avenues of discussion, and somebody shut them all down without acknowledgement, how you would react personally?
this thread discusses drugs of addiction that are prescribed en masse especially in north america. so a great imaginative starting point would be to imagine being told you must consume a hard drug to cure a condition that is inherently part of you. after a while you develop a tolerance to those drugs you have been taught are your savior. then you need more drugs to achieve the same feeling you were taught is 'normal'. could you begin to see how that might feel, and how the system could possibly be seen to push people to the brink due to systematic indifference in favor of systematic interests?
I don't intend to argue that your experience is invalid. if 99% of people don't use ai in your way then you must understand your argument is parallel to that of gun control. anyway the edge cases you are unexpectedly encountering through ai, may I ask on average how many of them would be career ruining (or life endangering) as a percentage?