𝕷𝖎𝖇𝖊𝖗𝖙𝖆𝖘

This takes me back. #RobinHood #Disney

@MischievousCur Predated ≠ dated, Cur.

I am why you can't afford ram. You're welcome.

I had AI transform that into an MS Paint style doodle.

I took a photograph.

If you don't already love Zeppelin, have a tangerine and chill.

Midwittery is a plague destroying our society. Let's start from a hypothetical single subjective perspective. You look at any given circumstance, and you generally feel one of three ways about it: this is good, this is bad, or this is neither good nor bad. Over time and with exposure to enough distinct circumstances, you begin to stitch together a pattern that correlates particular elements of action, response, externality, limitation, ability, etc., to the three general categories of good, bad, or neither good nor bad. You can start to short-hand those elements as good, bad, or neither good nor bad. You want to have there be more good than bad, because you like good and dislike bad, so you try to do more good things. But then you start seeing bad-assigned consequences come from good-assigned actions, and you have to consider the possibility of hidden elements or unforseen emergent rules that you didn't expect to come from a simple yes/no/null set of options. How do you solve for that? Is there a deeper good and a deeper bad? Is there a difference between my good and bad as compared to that stranger over there's good and bad? What about when you get hundreds?, thousands?, millions?, even billions of different goods and bads? That's bound to be a level of complexity that's just impossible to solve for in discering what kind of actions lead to what kind of results! But wait, here's an idea: what if there was another hypothetical perspective outside of all other perspectives, and this 3rd person objective perspective was the good/bad/null arbiter, and everyone else's perspective was testable against this outside paradigm? Good and bad wouldn't be a guessing game, it would be a straightforward comparison guide with a bunch of the confusion resolved outright. If billions of people more or less line up with the objective paradigm, then you pretty much know how to do good and get good as consequence.

@SnepOfTheWest @MischievousCur You're all children. Children!🫠

@MischievousCur How the fuck are you like a year older than me

Do this if you want a broken neck. Otherwise, put one foot in front of the other like a human fncking being.

@MischievousCur @FoppishFops My wife thinks it's an attempt to frame choosing to risk dying as a sympathetic choice. Might be a check to see what the numbers are on the conscriptability of the populace.

@MischievousCur Kinda demeaning, if you think about it. Might be more ethical to hand that generative element over to the LLMs. 🤔

Let's start from a hypothetical single subjective perspective. You look at any given circumstance, and you generally feel one of three ways about it: this is good, this is bad, or this is neither good nor bad. Over time and with exposure to enough distinct circumstances, you begin to stitch together a pattern that correlates particular elements of action, response, externality, limitation, ability, etc., to the three general categories of good, bad, or neither good nor bad. You can start to short-hand those elements as good, bad, or neither good nor bad. You want to have there be more good than bad, because you like good and dislike bad, so you try to do more good things. But then you start seeing bad-assigned consequences come from good-assigned actions, and you have to consider the possibility of hidden elements or unforseen emergent rules that you didn't expect to come from a simple yes/no/null set of options. How do you solve for that? Is there a deeper good and a deeper bad? Is there a difference between my good and bad as compared to that stranger over there's good and bad? What about when you get hundreds?, thousands?, millions?, even billions of different goods and bads? That's bound to be a level of complexity that's just impossible to solve for in discering what kind of actions lead to what kind of results! But wait, here's an idea: what if there was another hypothetical perspective outside of all other perspectives, and this 3rd person objective perspective was the good/bad/null arbiter, and everyone else's perspective was testable against this outside paradigm? Good and bad wouldn't be a guessing game, it would be a straightforward comparison guide with a bunch of the confusion resolved outright. If billions of people more or less line up with the objective paradigm, then you pretty much know how to do good and get good as consequence.

Morality is not based solely on empathy, however, and I do not get this rationale that it is.

This pouch was requested by some rando, and has nothing to do with dragons.

The boring way to do this is the "you're just Homelander with extra steps" bs. The best way to do it would be to make the entirety of the environment able to take damage and be destroyed, while you as Superman never do, then your success or failure in a fight isn't whether or not you survive (of course you will). Instead, it's how much of the city do you save? How many civilians do you keep alive? Did you apprehend/contain/banish the villain(s)? How many of your allies survived the fight? You can 100% set up a game like this without it getting boring and devolving into evil superman territory.