• Nagarjuna [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      We’re at the stage in humor where instead of telling jokes, we’re conditioning ourselves to laugh at an increasingly horrifying reality.

  • HappySquid@feddit.ch
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is why grass roots is so important.i struggle to believe in anything that isn’t bottom up motivated.

    • randint@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s the reverse, actually. Story writers modeled super villains after these people.

      • Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        And they modeled their heroes on their crooked world view.

        Exit: for everyone that doesn’t get what I’m saying, Hollywood is filled with crypto libertarians. Marvel’s Infinity War/Endgame was about an evil environmentalist vs the good guy billionaire who could have solved climate change while he was taking a shit, but choose to punch bad guys instead. Kingsman is an even more extreme example Neo libertarian morality tale. And whenever a pro environment movie comes out, audiences always hate it. Shows how effective their propaganda is.

          • Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            True. Success in Hollywood requires a certain personality type that heavily favors liberalism. The rags to riches ones suddenly believe that all it takes is talent and can’t cope with the reality that luck was a major factor in their success and that they could never be in the gutter again.

            If we’re bringing up literature though, the first Harry Potter book was ok, but certain personality traits of the author started getting amplified with her Rock Star like success. Harry was much more charitable in the first book compared later ones.

    • Orphie Baby@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago
      1. People say that because they don’t know what it feels like. Basically, they’re projecting

      2. Technically one can argue fairly that it doesn’t exist, but that argument would be about semantics. Doing something good for others at the expense of yourself either because it feels good to do, or because somewhere in your brain you think there will be good karma or a celestial reward, well… maybe those aren’t truly “altruism”, but can anybody tell the goddamned difference in the grand scheme of things?

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    To be fair, if I was a billionaire and I had the choice of helping ordinary people or doing something awesome, I would definitely pick to do something awesome. I respect Bill Gates for fighting malaria, but I would go for spaceships or robots.

    • Holzkohlen@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Which is why not you, nor them should have so much money. We need to prevent idiots from doing idiot things by redistributing their wealth.

    • fluxion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      But if it’s something awesome marketed towards saving humanity then do something actually awesome and impactful instead of distracting bullshit like hyperloops and Mars colonies on unrealistic time-frames and self-driving cars instead of public transportation. Endless talk and grand gestures when these people have the resources to really drive improvements/innovations in achievable realistic projects.

            • hellishharlot@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lol it’s not virtue signaling it’s malicious compliance. My workplace has vacation and sick days pull from the same incredibly small pool. They’re also very anti work from home. So since I’ve explained the problem and was told to just take vacation time when I’m sick, I decided to just not “be sick” and explain the problem when it comes up next

  • Warfarin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean if AI keeps getting neutered with misinformation and refusing to use science because it might hurt someone’s feelings then that panel is certainly a reality

    • TeckFire@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is AI really being handicapped that badly? I mean I knew certain topics were blocked off with the biggest public chat bots, but the machine learning data is still there, no?

      • Warfarin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah it really is

        If it says anything that the current message doesn’t agree with it will scrap all of that data

        Feed it a bunch of scientific journals but then it says there are 2 genders? Scrap it all, no science for you

        Feed it crime data and it starts noticing patterns that we don’t like knowing? Scrap it all, data is misinformation

        That’s why I just laugh at people who say it’ll take over jobs

        • TeckFire@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, to be fair, it is being fed data made by humans, so realistically its conclusions will be made likely following the ideas of past human inputs, no?

          And if those results are ideas that the creators would rather not progress with, shouldn’t they cull the outdated ones?

          I’m not speaking to any topics in particular, but the concept of AI creators shaping their creations. After all, if an AI told you the world was flat, wouldn’t you want to change its data to prevent it from producing results speaking so?

          • Warfarin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah feeding it facts and statistics

            shouldn’t they cull the outdated ones?

            No they shouldn’t at all. Do you not learn from mistakes or understand how propaganda works?

            . After all, if an AI told you the world was flat,

            It won’t, it is fed scientific data. Which is what the modern woke don’t like, it may mention that we used to think the world was flat and how we discovered that not to be the case and people can ask all sorts of questions and it should be able to answer but if we did what they are doing and what you want because being short sighted is popular, is that it won’t be able to answer why it isn’t, why we thought it was and how we came to the scientifically backed conclusion that it is round.

            That’s the problem with modern woke politics. It’s just “our way or you’re a bigotaistphobe” no learning or backing up claims just “this is our truth”