Find this episode of the daily show if you can. It’s the April 1st episode. It’s a fantastic double whammy of the reality of AI pushing workers out their jobs and how companies control the conversation on monopolies.
Good stuff, that this article only covers a small slice of.
deleted by creator
As an American:
I do try to avoid spaces with an over abundance of other Americans. Largely because I get way more than my share of American news pushed at me on all fronts every day and those people just tend to echo what CNN/Fox has to say about something over and over.
But to other nationalities, any space with a US presence is regarded as “CIA controlled propaganda and those Americans are all slaves of their rich overlords and their capitalism is the singular reason the world is shit”
Believe it or not, American media exists on a spectrum too, just like anywhere. Ironically, the people who spout this uninformed nonsense remind me of the lowest-common-denominator types of Americans who are afraid of Chinese immigrants and healthcare because “communism”.
Unpopular opinion incoming:
I don’t think we should ignore AI diagnosis just because they are wrong sometimes. The whole point of AI diagnosis is to catch things physicians don’t. No AI diagnosis comes without a physician double checking anyway.
For that reason, I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing that an AI got it wrong. Suspicion was still there and physicians double checked. To me, that means this tool is working as intended.
If the patient was insistent enough that something was wrong, they would have had them double check or would have gotten a second opinion anyway.
Flaming the AI for not being correct is missing the point of using it in the first place.
Again, philosophy is only tangentially related to proof. You can’t examine a theory like the ship of theseus with any of those methods and come out with a conclusive answer. If you could, it wouldn’t be a philosophical topic.
You don’t understand that, and I’m not going to attempt the impossible to prove it to you. That’s why this conversation is meaningless and I don’t really wish to continue it.
Have a good night
Evidenced-based discussion is only tangentially related to philosophy. There’s no point in sharing my thoughts if the crux of your counterpoint essentially boils down to “prove it or go home”
In the meantime, if I can present three separate, historical philosophical ideas to you and you can shoot them all down with one phrase demanding proof and a supposition that everyone else is just mistaken, you may want to reexamine your idea of an open mind.
You have engaged a philosophical topic with evidence-based expectations. I recognize the futility of continuing this conversation, and so I won’t. Making a point and being countered with “maybe you’re just wrong” is literally a waste of my time.
I did more than enough to clarify the original person’s point. I don’t owe you a scientific explanation for that which you refuse to consider.
Later.
In this case, I guess I’d treat it as any other fantastical statement: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Ah, so this conversation doesn’t matter. You made up your mind even before you even asked for explanation.
By design, philosophical concepts neither require nor can produce proof. If they could, they literally wouldn’t be philosophy. If your idea of arguing how “you” exists includes the line of reasoning that you need proof, then the truth to you is that “you” don’t exist, because you cannot prove your consciousness to someone else either. Just the same as I cannot empirically prove my consciousness to you. You are an amalgamation of chemicals and genetics, as you said.
So really, one taking your stance doesn’t have the conversational authority to even ask what proof is there. The hard evidence is just chemical reactions and genetics all the way down.
In any case, all three of the concepts I listed are not my ideas. They are debated topics, some for literally centuries, in the philosophical world. If you suppose yourself better than the likes of Plato or Socrates because you think you can label a fundamental aspect of the universe as a “mistake” people make when they think about it, then there’s really no honest way you can even approach theories like those without immediately discrediting them.
I guess have fun with that. But for me, there’s no point in contemplating with someone who supposes that proof precedes basic concepts of philosophy in a question inherently about philosophy.
I read this 15 years ago in highschool. It was probably the single most defining piece of literature that shaped how I view life.
Every time I look at something or someone and ponder their perspective, I can’t help but get the itchy feeling that “I” (not myself of course, but my little point of consciousness) might be them one day and have to deal with their problems.
It usually makes me a lot more charitable in conflicts and it gives me a compelling reason to randomly make someone’s day better.
So thanks for changing my life that way, Andy Weir
Yes, we can on many levels. I am not sure who says these things
Never heard of the “universe started Thursday” theory?
Essentially, there is no proof that the universe didn’t start last Thursday. All of your memories, your experiences, your tangible progress, could be planted and you would never know.
So how do you know you are “you” as you think you are, or if you’re just a week old construct that believes you are “you”?
Also, I think that the whole “we can’t be certain we are the same person who wakes up every morning” is based on the ship of theseus concept they were building on.
You wouldn’t consider yourself the exact same person you were when you were 5 for obvious reasons. So it stands to reason that that change happened at some point. How would you know that you did not change over night? And if you did, are you the same person as yesterday? And if you answer yes, where’s the line? Are you the same person as last year? 5 years ago? Obviously not, so how can you know that that caliber of change hasn’t happened to you in a night, or that any amount of change makes you someone else?
Also, they could be referring to the broken consciousness theory, where consciousness is destroyed when you fall asleep, created when you wake, and dreams are an illusion.
In that scenario, if your stream of consciousness actually is broken, can you say you are the same person as yesterday? If the breaking of consciousness doesn’t matter in that question, would a perfect copy of you with all of your memories also be you? Or not, because you can’t experience their perspective?
I think the break here is whether or not you can define consciousness as “you”. For your supposition to be true, the answer would necessarily have to be no, as you said you can prove that you are yourself in many other ways.
But without a point of perspective experiencing the universe, what are we?
Guarantee that the line of reasoning here is
We can stop the inevitable fact that people aren’t going to buy our shares by pushing them on the most chronically addicted users of our platform and disguising it as a premium exclusive offer
I mean, who else is susceptible enough to the sunken cost fallacy that they would pour actual money into reddit? The answer is the demographic that’s already put in a substantial amount of investment in the form of time spent on content creation.
To those people, they might very well bite because it means their useless, time consuming hobby finally might become a source of income.
It’s honestly an intelligent business move by reddit, even if it’s scummy as fuck and ultimately setting up their own best content creators to spectacularly fail and lose a ton of money when the shares tank.
Reddit still goes public. Reddit still pays their CEOs obscenely before they jump ship. Only the creators lose.
I’ve seen this illusion on paper and it still works. Not that printed paper is functionally different from pixels.
This… Might not be as dumb as it sounds.
Goddammit you son of a bitch I’m gonna try it
IRS would like to know your location
That addiction sucks. Two cups of coffee still makes my skin crawl, but the difference is that one cup doesn’t help me anymore and now I also have blood pressure problems.
Conservative media has been boiling the frog on culture wars since Nixon, and by design.
No one who listens to right wing drivel realizes the absurdity because their version of politics is like football to them: a game to win with the only real consequence being their ability to shove it in people’s faces, or shoved in back in theirs.
Conservative media is designed to be that so it is trivially easy to hide actual unfavorable news from their viewers, like $14 billion disappearing over night into Isreal or their god king standing trial on actual, provable charges.
Ok, and I’m saying that a platform can make money without causing a privacy crisis that requires a government to step in. Plenty do.
I’m saying that the thing that makes sites more bloated and unpleasant is when they get retooled to squeeze every last drop of profit from their users.
We don’t have to turn this disagreement into “sites need to make money” vs “everything should be free”. There’s a middle ground, in which my original point sits.
I suppose you’re going to argue that other video hosting sites that are an objectively better experience than youtube can’t last? Or that youtube is better now that it’s owned by someone else?
The point is that online sites that are around to make profit are actively sapping online communities. It’s what’s happening to reddit as well.
In the days before YouTube we were still working on a unified video player in browsers and internet speeds capable of handling videos. Also, think about how YouTube was before Google bought it. That was them making a modest amount of money to keep the lights on.
You know what has happened since then? Bought by a billion dollar company to make profit. That’s the point
Well we know mayor Lewis is a slut