Melanie H

I still exist frens I'm just moving most of my apropos content posting to bsky.

At some point we crossed the threshold of what information volume and speed that humans can comfortably handle Since then all our brains have been constantly overloaded and we increasingly take mental shortcuts to compensate

@GlauciaRycah @MarcyCa34439378 @cool_jskull He did it. He finally achieved his dreams.

@Zambrijc @Aella_Girl @MadelaineLucyH They HELP. Send nudes. Porn recs. Pose. Hand job. Verbal role play. Kill the vibe. Offer distractions. Moment of privacy / exhibition audience. Be supply fetcher. Provide snacks. After cuddling. Moral support. Do you have an expansive definition of sex or a boring imagination?

@hamnox @Aella_Girl @MadelaineLucyH What does that mean? They should have sex without having sex...?

The most insidious thing about this whole "it's selfish not to have sex with your boyfriend/husband when you don't want to" thing is what it actually means. You want her endure having sex with you while knowing she doesn't want it. You want her to perform submission to you.

@Zambrijc @Aella_Girl @MadelaineLucyH Help them meet their needs in ways other than having sex when they don't want it, I would imagine.

@hamnox @Aella_Girl @MadelaineLucyH When two partners have misaligned sexual drives, what do you think should happen to the partner with the unmet needs...? Do you think their partner should just say "fuck 'em!"...???

@Zambrijc @Aella_Girl @MadelaineLucyH Apologies. What does the 'agreement' (which apparently I need to read the fine print of if men really think this) have to do with anything? This was about wanting. It not being 24/7 is the point: wanting to have sex ebbs and wanes, not always in sync with your partner's needs.

@hamnox @Aella_Girl @MadelaineLucyH That is a straw man argument. AGREEING to enter into a COMMITTED MONOGAMOUS SEXUAL relationship in which you AGREE to take on meeting your partners sexual needs DOES NOT mean literally 24/7 at every moment of every day at all times in all conditions, which you damn well know.

@Zambrijc @Aella_Girl @MadelaineLucyH Wanting X in domains other than sex is not usually taken to mean you are down to X any time all the time.

@Aella_Girl @MadelaineLucyH Why do women involve themselves in COMMITTED MONOGAMOUS SEXUAL relationships with men they don't want to have sex with?

The biggest unspoken divide between people is whether they think from the perspective of the red team or not. The first time I mentioned this offhand to one group of friends they thought it was normal, but when I did it to a different friend group and they were like “WHAT”

Had a dream where everyone in Silicon Valley was raving about this book

@nabeelqu Well, I bet those LessWrong people never expected AI to do THIS! *They turn out to be on record expecting it quite specifically years ago* Ah! Well. Nevertheless

well.

@ChrisCroy @KelseyTuoc I think she could do better than this. Less derivative makeup, maybe bring back the blue hair.

@KelseyTuoc jokerfied

Me, an introvert: *GOOD*

@GhostRhodesia @horatiog123 @tszzl It is tho? The idea that 'you should kill yourself' is almost always a bad strategy and if your mind outputs that as a best course of action it's VERY LIKELY spiraling and misperceiving A LOT about reality. It's more rational to 'trust the process' then than ur dumb lying brain.

@horatiog123 @tszzl same thing, that’s my point must have FAITH that things can get better regardless of data that’s not rational

the rationalists writ large were mostly right about most things btw. if you instinctively snicker about yudkowsky, scott, or whomever i take you to be a fish who’s unaware of the water

@brianorca @argoskenny @cryptopunk7213 I would like to err on the side of listening to vetoes, whether they're from the contracted company OR a court.

@argoskenny @cryptopunk7213 But it's also important to understand: should the military be subordinate to a private company, or to a court, when deciding if something is against the law?

ok sam altman dropped some truth bombs about the whole pentagon, anthropic, openai sitch overnight and tbh it’s VERY eye-opening: - important: said the pentagon *wasn’t* trying to modify how models behave (but they request you don’t “interfere with operational decisions” for national security (anthropic rejected this). - openai had been talking to DoW for months about NON-classified work. but this week shit escalated to include classified ops. why? because the situation with anthropic needed to be “de-escalated” and he wanted to support them in their “very important mission” - “what happens if the government tries to nationalize openai?” - said he “doesn’t know” and thinks AGI might actually be good as a government project vs private. - this was fucking wild: said a LOT of people were debating whether they prefer a democratically elected gov or unelected private company to hold more power over (how is that a debate?) sam chooses democracy over latter all-day. - said it’s not about “usage policies vs. law” it’s about BOTH being used to form a safety framework (anthropic refused to cave on this) - gov contract lets openai update the models as they see fit (no gov intervention) - said people take their national security for granted. people don’t realise what goes into keeping them safe. i’ve got to give it to sam - this was an impressively transparent way to face public scrutiny (reminds me of reddit AMAs) and imo he did a good job.

You can't chase a wild horse into a barn you own, lock the door, and say you've won the domestication game. It's still not your horse. Especially not if the walls won't hold up to kicking.

@BallerIndustry I know the feeling. But I have come to grudgingly appreciate the value in repeating the painfully obvious. About 1 time in 30, you'll find a person was missing (or underconfident about) something absolutely critical and you would never have guessed precisely who or what thing

I used to work with this guy who would say really obvious things to me and my colleagues. He'd put on a really profound voice as he said these things that you learn in your first year as a developer. It really annoyed me, because he assumed we were really stupid. One time he said "anything you do in the front end, is not secure, so don't send anything to do front end that the user should not see" I was about to say "listen you fuck, everyone knows that, don't talk to us like we're morons" But then one of my colleagues spoke up Colleague: Really? Even if we don't show it on the screen. Profound dude: Yeah, because the data can be seen in the network tab of Google chrome. Then he showed the guy how to use the network tab. I was so annoyed that actually someone was getting value out of his inane remarks.

@AutumnTweets @Aella_Girl if there was a winning goverment making such decisions they probably didn't write history to emphasize that fact afterwards

@Aella_Girl Really struggling to remember a time where a government making forced sterilization decisions concerning those they deemed unfit to reproduce, was later viewed as having been on the right side of history.

A woman is pregnant with her fifth child. All prior children are in foster care. They all have severe birth defects from her heavy drinking and smoking. She has physically abused all of them. She intends to keep getting pregnant. Would you support forced sterilization?

@ciphergoth i relate to this

Me: *gasp* My wife: Genuinely after 23 years I can't tell the difference between you hearing about the sudden death of a close friend and accidentally closing a tab you were reading.

Technically speaking Gemini doesn't have a spine so caring about it falls under invertebrate welfare