541–550 of 725 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's real and people were confused and didn't get it either. the authors of the website are some of them.
You could illuminate us and elucidate the correct understanding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any idea why a bipedal fleshlight makes them insecure? My head jumps to "could it because they fear that without sex, they have no value?" but that sounds so ridiculous to me. All human life matters, has value, and should be treated with kindness, respect, and dignity. I've met plenty of women who add value to the world in a bajillion other ways. Can someone help me understand this one?
> All human life matters, has value, and should be treated with kindness, respect, and dignity This is reasoning. However people don't always act based on reasoning. And even if you act based on reasoning, you can't trust others to act based on the same kind of reasoning. --- If a more serious response, (some) feminists see sex robots as objectification of women and that's why they're against them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't say government doesn't have the power to represent the people, now did I?
You wrote: > Government no longer has the power or authority to constrain private enterprise; especially in highly technical sectors. Perhaps you meant only this: "Government no longer has the power ..."? It is clear government still has the authority based on the will of the people.
But I'd argue the legal framework necessary to carry this out doesn't exist.
The strength of private lobbists, keeps power in the hands of private enterprise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Government no longer has the power or authority to constrain private enterprise; especially in highly technical sectors.
Of course it does. Do you think the elites actually WANT massive tariffs putting a brake on GDP growth? Why are tech companies suddenly reversing course on content moderation and/or DEI, after years of pushing in the opposite directions? Private enterprise will always have some level of corrupting influence over government. And perhaps it sees current leadership as the lesser of two evils in the grand scheme. But mak…
There's a theatrical push-pull negotiation narrative that's replayed to us, but do you honestly feel that government could push back strongly on _any issue_ it deemed necessary to?
Public enterprise is so firmly embedded in every corner of Government.
Everything in life involves compromise.
Authority requires the possibility of edict above compromise; which in my mind is no longer possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
look it's a straw man!
But it's not, really. Machines doing stuff instead of humans is great as long as it serves some kind of human purpose . If it lets humans do more human things as a result and have purpose, great. If it supplants things humans value, in the name of some kind of efficiency that isn't serving very many of us at all, that's not so great.
I think this is clever satire, but slightly blunted by the fact that the tech CEO's haven't been that far off from actually saying this stuff. I'm especially disgusted with Sam Altman and Darius Amodei, who for a long time were hyping up the "fear" they felt for their own creations. Of course, they weren't doing this to slow down or approach things in a more responsible way, they were talking like that because they k…
That’s what makes it good satire.
[flagged]
It's actually an extremely good analogy (but in the opposite way of what you imply), as you don't own your job or your wife. Banning AI for job security is like banning dildos because they make men feel insecure.