Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber

decodingvibes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 113 posts

Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber

#41

Post by mc32 »

mwillis wrote: post #37

This 3 minute song creates a fleeting portrait of a man, not necessarily Bieber, who we cannot know. The song captures the mindset of a character who, one might infer, cynically knows what he’s trying to do. It’s possible he has no interest in a heartfelt, meaningful apology. In fact, this character - who lives only within the song and the liminal world it creates - may be operating exactly to his own moral preferenc…

Of course one cannot in all sincerity know. Today, and even yesteryear, are composed to entertain others, not oneself. They are seldom personal or about the singer, with exceptions like the well known songs by Carly Simon and others. In any event songs today are often written by others, passed around till they find a “home.”

Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber

#42

Post by andrewflnr »

aeve890 wrote: post #32
neogodless wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry we're getting so off topic here but... I suppose it helps to focus on the core of someone's strength, and the core of the content they are sharing. You could be a great engineer and a great blogger, but have no skill in making graphics. If you made the artistic choice to add AI-generated art to an excellent engineering blog post, I would forgive it -- assuming it wasn't detracting in some important way. Ove…

You're absolutely right! jk. I hate this situation of "everything is slop until proven otherwise" and the author doesn't have to be good at writing and drawing just to share their thoughts. But generally you don't expect a Michelin star level meal after having a turd sandwich entrée. It's just a natural pavlovian response at this point to see slop and expect slop. Totally unfair, I agree, but really hard to get rid o…

It's not even unfair. It's just a heuristic that occasionally gives incorrect results. We and the author would have both been better off skipping the illustration.

The real problem is that "serious content creators" believe (as far as I can tell anyway) that they must have a cover image to make the article appealing or set the mood or whatever. They might even be right as far as the actually reader is concerned, but either way this is the real disease, and it's decades older than LLMs.

Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber

#43

Post by assumed_throwaw »

droidjj wrote: post #38
xena wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is AI generated.

Is it? I couldn’t tell and I’m pretty sensitive to machine generated text. Also, the author claims: > No AI was used to generate the text for this article. The cover image and the voiceover in the audio version of the article is AI-generated. The cover image is made using Google Gemini’s latest image model while the voiceover uses OpenAI’s tts models.

Pangram reports "100% AI" with "high" confidence...

Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber

#44

Post by xrd »

BubbleRings wrote: post #5

Funny. Take a simple pop song about apology and make an academic treatise on what a heartfelt apology looks like. On the other end of the spectrum would be to summarize it in the shortest form with the simplest words, instead of with many and multi-syllable words. How about this (not mine, I’ve heard this in addiction recovery rooms, where apologies and amends are often discussed): In the sentence “I’m sorry I did x,…

Bieber was clearly trying to use the word "butt" here; it just does not come across in a vocal and was obviously transcribed incorrectly.

Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber

#46

Post by srveale »

henrydark wrote: post #9

Song also proves Bieber is a dualist "cause I'm missing more than just your body" What else does she have that he misses?

Bieber in this case refers to body as in "corps", the subject's collective professional or military associations. He laments the loss of power he enjoyed stemming from the subject's erstwhile allegiance.

Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber

#47

Post by hliyan »

Surprised this article didn't explain the categorical imperative before appealing to it. Here's my interpretation of it, although some would say that (4) is a utilitarian interpretation(even though it's globally utilitarian) and therefore it is not truly categorical.

(1) We all know that doing what's best for oneself does not count as doing something "good" or "right". Even the worst psychopath or monster will do what is best for themselves. "What benefits me" is not a principle on which to decide how to act morally.

(2) The most basic moral principle might be "do no harm", i.e. you are free to do whatever you want as long as you do not cause others harm. This is something that most normal human beings instinctively recognize as a valid way to decide between good and bad actions. This is the absolute minimum moral compass you must possess in order to participate in civilized society.

(3) One level up is the golden rule, or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or treating others the same way you would want to be treated. This is generally recognized by many religions as the gold standard for what it means to be a good human being.

(4) Kant goes one level further. He says, basically: "before you do something, ask yourself: if everyone else in the world did what you're about to do as a matter of course, will it make the world better or worse? If it makes the world worse, then don't do it". This is a very basic formulation of Kant's Categorical Imperative.

Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber

#48

Post by daymanstep »

hliyan wrote: post #47

Surprised this article didn't explain the categorical imperative before appealing to it. Here's my interpretation of it, although some would say that (4) is a utilitarian interpretation(even though it's globally utilitarian) and therefore it is not truly categorical. (1) We all know that doing what's best for oneself does not count as doing something "good" or "right". Even the worst psychopath or monster will do wha…

> Kant goes one level further. He says, basically: "before you do something, ask yourself: if everyone else in the world did what you're about to do as a matter of course, will it make the world better or worse? If it makes the world worse, then don't do it".

This is not the Categorical Imperative. What you're describing is more like Rule Utilitarianism. Kantian ethics is deontological, not consequentialist.

Re: A Kantian Critique of "Sorry" by Justin Bieber

#49

Post by galangalalgol »

hmokiguess wrote: post #23
Waterluvian wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the sentiment. But, Whenever I catch myself reaching for “but” I recognize it is because I need to feel heard. What I did was unacceptable. But I didn’t do it in a vacuum and I need my grievances to be recognized. My belief is that omitting the “but” phrase is an act of faith. You need to trust that the other party cares about your feelings and side of the issue, too. Accepting an apology is just as deli…

I find you can almost always replace “but” with “and” in situations like those and end up more heard by the other side. I understand the urge to feel heard AND whenever we bring something that may contrast we risk the disagreement connotation that “but” carries to trigger the recipient’s defensive reaction (even if unconsciously)

Depending on the relationship involved, asking the person why they think I behaved as I did often helps. Sometimes the reason they think I did what I did is more correct than what I would have put after but or and. And sometimes the answer they give shows they are modeling my motivations completely incorrectly.
Post reply on HN