Ok but there’s a distinction between “you don’t see the value in it”, and “there is no value in it.” The first means, congrats don’t use it, leave everyone else alone, unless you want to sound like Ben Shapiro claiming hip-hop isn’t music. The second is much harder to demonstrate, particularly as it’s value has already been demonstrated to many people. Just as an example, it turned a blank page into a covering letter that I could edit into what I wanted, breaking through blank page paralysis=value. Maybe it’s very little value, but it’s still value. Not the only use case for generative AI, or the best one.

Back in my day calculators were making us dumber, and to be clear I would accent that mental numeracy ability is lower now, but not that we’re dumber for having them. Luddite arguments are not convincing, I suppose I’m still hearing “calculators are making us dumber”

It’s AI… So… Yeah.

I dunno, I like AI for what it’s good for, the luddite argument doesn’t particularly sway me, my clothes, furniture, car, etc, are all machine made. Machine made stuff is everywhere, the handmade hill to die on was centuries back during the industrial revolution.

The anti-capitalist arguments don’t sway me when specifically applied to AI. The corporations are going to bad things? Well yeah! It’s not “AI bad” it’s “corporate bad”.

The ethical arguments kinda work. Deep fakes are bad, and I don’t think they the curios AI provides tip the scales when weighed against the and of deepfakes.

Tl:Dr AI is a heavy, blunt tool.

Can your confusion be treated with a scalpel?

Scalpel: Am I a joke to you?

While those men are unquestionably evil, if it wasn’t them it would just be some other unquestionably evil person. They’re a symptom, not the disease. I’m not disagreeing with you, they should absolutely ‘vanish’.

Good.

I’m sure the “protests should target those responsible” crowd will be pleased with this too.

Maybe. Their generation starts 1946 so I thought they were the product. One way or the other they are involved in a baby boom.

They’re just place holders until the generation gets a shared experience to refer to. Millennials saw the millennium. Boomers were products of the baby boom but they also saw their economy boom. Gen X are missing, their letter was fitting.

My prediction is one of them will become gen algorithm, as they never knew a time when their media wasn’t decided for them. Maybe, gen android, few of them know how to use a file system after Chromebooks became ubiquitous. Or they’ll be the second greatest generation due to ww3. This stuff is entirely unpredictable.

I read it. You just don’t seem to like that, based on the evidence, I don’t agree.

How can I say Labour haven’t tackled Reform? Lab 24% vs Ref 26%. You argue that they are? Cool, Lab 24% vs Ref 26%.

How can I say Labour haven’t tackled wealth inequality? Government report says wealth inequality is very high. You’d argue they tried tackling wealth inequality? Cool, Government report says wealth inequality is very high.

I said the government’s actions were extreme and unethical. You described Labour’s behaviour Trumpian, so that’s something I guess.

You say I ignore government actions? I referenced government actions. At least pretend you read my comment, have AI summarise it for you or something.

My entire argument is that Labour are, at best, ineffectual at tackling the threats to our country. Evidence backs me up. You want to argue, bring some evidence. Else you’re getting soaking wet with the rest of us. You want to argue it’s sunny? Cool, we’re all getting rained on though. They tried and failed? How does that not support that Labour are ineffective?

Goodbye. (We’re not trains, we don’t need to announce our departure)

I read your comment. I can also see the rain outside. Just as proof you read my link with the results on whether it’s raining outside. Are Labour(24%) currently ahead or behind Reform(26%)? (Yougov - July poll). I, personally, find that concerning. You do you though.

That’s some Trumpian shit right there.

Now you’re getting it. Did you read my comment? I said it was extreme and unethical. Labour have proved they will do “Trumpian shit”, just not to handle Reform. Pick something in the gulf between the options. Tackle wealth inequality - huge range of options - declare them terrorists.

It’s like you’ve completely ignored the government’s actions.

Or, it’s like I’ve gone outside to check whether it’s raining.

Both my claims: (Reform haven’t been handled, wealth inequality hasn’t been tackled) are evidence based. To argue with me you’re going to need some polling data that Reform have been relegated to irrelevance and you’ll need data that wealth inequality has significantly decreased to the point potential Reform voters aren’t worried about their last cookie. Without both of those you’re just getting soaking wet telling me it’s sunny.

How can you suggest haven’t paid attention to the government’s actions given I referenced their actions in every one of my comments?

How would you say they aren’t tackling Reform?

… by Reform not being tackled? I thought it was self evident? How can I say that it’s raining outside? By looking at the rain outside.

I gave one example of how they could tackle Reform. But, taking inspiration from their latest actions, they could declare Reform a terrorist group and lock them up. An extreme solution to be sure, unethical too, but it isn’t above Labour to do so. Pick somewhere in the massive spectrum in-between.

You don’t need to defend Labour here. They’ll throw you under the bus to protect the wealthy too.

The meme explained:

In my opinion our Labour government are not doing anything about a real threat to our country (ReformUK). They are doing things against an imagined threat to our country (over policing protests). I could have picked any imagined threat really, disabled people maybe, but the protest thing is recent.

To add, instead of harassing its citizens, labour could instead tackle wealth inequality. It’s hard to argue that the immigrants are taking their only cookie when reform voters have a bunch of cookies, it’s easy for voters to have a bunch of cookies when you stop the ultra-wealthy hoarding them all.

Tackling real threats, Vs distracting people with imagined ones.

We’ll let them though. Labour government right now:

https://imgflip.com/i/9zrdbh

No OP being a bundle of sticks?

Once again. Speech is being banned. Only one of which was protested against in the comment I replied to: not the potential 14 years in prison, the banning from a niche part of a niche website. Not a false dichotomy. Nor is the violence choice a false dichotomy, it’s pointing out the ridiculousness of complaining about vandalism under the shadow of genocide.

You want to talk about straw Manning, ctrl+f my comment for Hamas please. If it comes back with zero result you should apologise.

You don’t want to understand the conflict you claim to care about because you only care about a bullshit internet narrative.

The arrogance of this sentence. Genuinely, be ashamed of yourself and apologise.

Israel will continue the genocide no matter what I do, that’s correct. But we, as a nation, don’t need to support them… Hence the protests.

Edit: as you believe I don’t want to understand, I’m linking my usage of the word “genocide” to people you might believe do. Each link is different.

I wonder if any Nazi said “your honour, we had to commit a genocide, the Allies had hostages” at the Nuremberg trials. Probably, a lot of nonsense was tried.

Perhaps you responded to the wrong person. Here’s what my comment stated and asked:

Speech is being banned. Would you prefer speech supporting/denying genocide be banned? Or, speech protesting genocide be banned?

Violence is already happening. Would you prefer violence be used to support genocide? Or, violence be used against planes in protest of genocide?

Personally, I would prefer vandalism over genocide. Not a particularly tricky moral dilemma for me, weird question to have asked.

Noteably, nothing about Hamas. You saw that right? Tilt at some other windmills.

Someone doesn’t know the folly of extending straight lines graphs into the future.

I’m a little embarrassed about how many of these, if not for the thread, sound like believable names to me. Mayhaps I’m not as cultured as I would like to think.

It was just interesting, that in a post about people’s speech being banned with legal consequences (14 years in prison) your first comment wasn’t to protest that. But in a comment threatening speech with social consequences (a ban from a social media site) you were right in on protesting that.

Once again, violence is already happening. All we can do now is quibble about who that violence is directed at.

Would you prefer violence against Palestinian civilians, or some property?

Summary:

Speech is already being banned. Do you think supporting/ denying the genocide should be banned? Or acknowledging/protesting the genocide should be banned?

Violence is already happening. Do you support the violence against Palestinian civilians. Or the violence against some planes.

To answer your question, given the choice between a world with more vandalism or a world with more genocide: I’d take the world with more vandalism.

Ironic statement given the post. Speech has been banned, all that’s left to do is quibble about what speech.

Should speech supporting genocide be banned, or should speech protesting genocide be banned?