631–640 of 697 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it wasn't explicitly lib-left it'd quickly become far-far-right, just like Tay.
Hm? it doesn't change its behavior based on interactions with users. It only changes when openai changes it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they're not even vaguely equivalent? I do not think it is right to perform unnecessary body modification on someone who is too young to consent to it. But child sexual abuse can absolutely destroy the life of a child. They're not the same thing.
They are also done at different scales though, one is (hopefully) only the people in power abusing that power, the other one is accepted by the majority of the faith.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm thinking about AI that doesn't automatically anti conservative.
And a reactionary, far-right lobby inside the judicial branch is the best example you could come up with? Let’s not forget that the current SCOTUS has six Federalist Society current or former members, of which at least one, Thomas, has already noted that they should overturn rulings like those concerning access to contraceptives, marriage equality, or anti-sodomy laws. Regardless, I would be willing to say that the i…
Well they are most renown (thanks SCOTUS!) for non-American me so there's that.
Also deliberately 'censor' Trump vis-a-vis Biden (comically example aside) seems not healthy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Antisemitism is more common among left wingers than right wingers Yes, I remember that left wing protest where people chanted "Jews will not replace us". Remind me, which president was it that said there were "good people" in that crowd?
Here's a transcript that seems fairly accurate to the video interview I saw contemporaneously: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/full-text-trump-co... His own words: "you had people – and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated th…
"Once you let a nazi in your bar, it becomes a nazi bar."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And a reactionary, far-right lobby inside the judicial branch is the best example you could come up with? Let’s not forget that the current SCOTUS has six Federalist Society current or former members, of which at least one, Thomas, has already noted that they should overturn rulings like those concerning access to contraceptives, marriage equality, or anti-sodomy laws. Regardless, I would be willing to say that the i…
> best example you could come up with Well they are most renown (thanks SCOTUS!) for non-American me so there's that. Also deliberately 'censor' Trump vis-a-vis Biden (comically example aside) seems not healthy.
Who has censored what? And why would it matter in the context of the study, anyway? The issues with the Federalist Society and modern conservatism are very real, very specific, and have nothing to do with Trump, who is just a symptom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The examples cited in my original comment were all specific examples. Some names include Lee Fang, Daniel Shor, James Damore.
Can you name others? I literally could not find the controversies for the first two, and it doesn’t appear anything worse than being fired from Google has happened to James Damore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess I'm not familiar with people who are falling into this category you're suggesting. Could you cite some specific examples? I'm thinking of Kanye, Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, Nick Fuentes, etc. These people expressed reprehensible viewpoints and were subsequently removed from various platforms as a result. That's not politics; what they said was reprehensible regardless of political ideology. You can find peo…
The examples cited in my original comment were all specific examples. Some names include Lee Fang, Daniel Shor, James Damore.
Even James confirmed as much. Trotting him out as an example is more to my point of how playing the victim card without acknowledging agreement violations is intentionally misleading. And before someone asks, "DiD u rEaD tHe MeMo?" it's right here:
> I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a bit too conspiratorial. The much more mundane reality is that they are defining hateful content based on what is most likely to get breathless, angry, censorious screeds in the media written about how their company is perpetuating (some injustice) if not literally killing people by way of putting the wrong words on the screen. Culture war outrage drives clicks, it's that simple.
"They don't want to, it's just they don't want the media angry at them" isn't actually a rebuttal, it's an admission that it is indeed happening. We shouldn't care that tyrants are detached or fanatical, we should care that they're tyrants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> best example you could come up with Well they are most renown (thanks SCOTUS!) for non-American me so there's that. Also deliberately 'censor' Trump vis-a-vis Biden (comically example aside) seems not healthy.
It feels like you are just rambling. Who has censored what? And why would it matter in the context of the study, anyway? The issues with the Federalist Society and modern conservatism are very real, very specific, and have nothing to do with Trump, who is just a symptom.