mansaid

@the39guy @Cirnose @Neoncaffeine I can imagine, we can all imagine, but when does stop being an imagination exercise?

@mansaidkill @Cirnose @Neoncaffeine The fact that you can't imagine a collective without one guy on top deciding everything is dead af

we really need to stop fighting against automation and start fighting for a sane resource distribution system. manual labor is on its way out and that’s a good thing outside of the broken system we live under.

@the39guy @SpookytheBee @Cirnose @Neoncaffeine Not true, it was a genuine question..it’s the answers to it that has me now thinking that you’re not going to do shit.

@mansaidkill @SpookytheBee @Cirnose @Neoncaffeine So you weren't actually looking for a solution You're coming at this with the predisposition that we're not gonna do shit so there's no point in discussing anything about it with you

@PacmanTheKing_ @jdkay904 @Sksj002 …

@jdkay904 @Sksj002 Ok?

The thing is smaller than M'Baku

@NxtDeterio @Cirnose @Neoncaffeine You sure?

@mansaidkill @Cirnose @Neoncaffeine

@gilsmn @Cirnose @Neoncaffeine Has the communist party only ever made sane decisions?

@mansaidkill @Cirnose @Neoncaffeine The communist party

@Vx1ty @RedmondBarry7 @Cirnose That’s the belief, the hope. The religious aspect of rational thought.

@mansaidkill @RedmondBarry7 @Cirnose Hard/“slave” labor will go away in more advanced countries and overtime will in those less advanced. In the end development in one country usually ends up leading to development in others.

@RedmondBarry7 @Cirnose Slave labor doesn’t just go away. It just gets pushed further into countries you’ve never heard of, but maybe that is a small price to pay for lower prices.

@Cirnose It really is a great way to have low prices without having a slave labor class lol

@StrangeFaze @Cirnose That’ll require total adherence to the demands of government..which I guess many are ready and willing.

@Cirnose It’s time for ubi and universal healthcare let the machines do the work 🙏

@ThirstyyTiger @Cirnose How is that system built?

@Cirnose EXACTLY! build a system that doesn't require you to work for 60+ years just to live a normal life, humans aren't beasts of burden, and we've advanced to a point that we're no longer going to need human labor to make what humans need and want.

@realBrandonGill Does she know about your boyfriend?

I’m not “extreme” for wanting to preserve culture, protect my children, and want a better future for my family. If you’re proud of this country, this message is for you:

@GordonPlutsky @jesse210spurs @trouble_man90 If you knew what AI was you’d understand how bad a comparison you’re making.

About once or twice a year leftists pick a thing and then reorient their entire personality around it. Right now that thing is AIPAC; it's all they think about, it's all the talk about, it consumes them. Meanwhile people in the real world don't care about AIPAC at all.

@PanasheJoshua7 @kunoo How much are you in on crypto? Be honest.

@kunoo But this is an unfair analysis. The guy there tried to steal a phone and lost his bike in the process. People buying crypto aren't stealing anything

Crypto explained in 24 seconds.

@OfAthenry @marknorm You didn’t see it? Or you repeated it?

@EnchantedFarmX @Pontifex Why would you care what Elon has to say on this? He has proved over and over to say anything when his actions display otherwise.

I’d like Elon to weigh in on this one. I have Grok, and I use it for really good things. It’s been really amazing rediscovering the ancient Indian history of Illinois. Don’t we as humans have a moral responsibility when it comes to A.I? Isn’t that what the scriptures teach us about how we are to behave? What about self discipline?

We cannot consider #AI to be morally neutral. In reality, every technical tool embodies choices and priorities through what it measures, ignores, and optimizes, and how it classifies people and situations. Ethical discernment cannot be limited to asking whether we are using a system for good or bad purposes. It must also examine how that system is designed and what vision of the human person and society is embedded in the data and models that guide it. #MagnificaHumanitas

@Emma_UD_Adams @Pontifex If you don’t see the connection in AI and “religious things” you should probably take more time thinking about it.

@Pontifex So how do you prefer AI should operate, then? Maybe you should stick to religious things and avoid things that has to do with AI.

@normonics @Pontifex "writing is not morally neutral because writers always make choices and have priorities". Are you unable to differentiate the important differences between a human writer and AI output?

Holy Father, appreciate your note. However, you are making a category error here. "AI" is indeed morally neutral because it is an umbrella term that exists PRIOR to the design choices and priorities you mentioned. The design choices/priorities come at the level of specific instantiations of "AI", build by specific people and organizations. Your claim would be akin to saying something like "writing is not morally neutral because writers always make choices and have priorities". Again, a category error. It may be more uncomfortable to confront this with clarity because it will demand us calling out specific individuals and organizations, and the design choices THEY are making as not-morally-neutral and often BAD. But this discomfort should not cause us to have hazy reasoning about this issue.

@BLCKD_COM_PlLLD They’ll need millions or they’ll need to be trained to accept a form of UBI that will require the signing away of autonomy in totality via digital ID. I think it’ll be easier to train people.

@byersblake @alexandrosM Conceptually maybe true, but realistically untrue. The numbers of people that will “….have to interpret it correctly.” will be greatly outnumber by those that don’t, and by those financially incentivized to use that “more information” to monger the general public.

You'll see a lot of doctors come out "against" this kind of broad screening system. They can even get quite agitated about it. This resistance stems from a well-established clinical consensus: traditional population-level imaging fails to improve health outcomes because false positives and invasive follow-ups do more harm than good. But this view suffers from an obvious blind spot. Existing studies rely on static data and completely ignore time-series imaging. And time-series is ignored because we haven't been able to afford to do high frequency imaging at population scale. Clearly, time series is going to be immensely more valuable than a single image. If you drop costs, value can go from 0 -> 1. On a more fundamental level, the argument against screening rests on an obviously false precept "More information is bad" -- just clearly untrue. More information better, you just have to interpret it correctly.