This whole "Claude is conscious because you can't define human consciousness" shit is convincing me they were right to make Socrates drink poison. Philosophers are REALLY annoying.
well vice signalling already means something else, and much worse than this. if anything this would be closer to virtue signalling because they clearly see it as a virtue in a "charmingly eccentric genius" way. because their idea of how smart people act comes from movies and TV.
We need a name for this, something like vice-signalling, where people, usually in or around tech or finance, claim to do some quirky bullshit that patently doesn't work just so they can post about it to build their personal brand.
This case fucking haunts me. So far, no one involved has faced any consequences, including the rapist.
The rape victim they framed could have gone to prison for life.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...
wonder if this one works for lockheed martin and is going to harass a trans woman into detransitioning for writing a story they didn't like as well
fascist has an actual meaning and it's not just whatever the fuck you just want it to be to refer to people who are mean to you - maybe you'd know that if you fucking read a book.
you cannot be good at any art medium unless you actively engage with it, and if that upsets you then fuck off.
This is not how you would review the evidence if your top concern was the health and safety of these children.
The point is
- denying the lived reality of trans children
- preventing them from getting meaningful help
- lowering the number of trans adults
Hard to escape that conclusion that dead trans kids are "preferred" to alive, thriving trans kids as far as these people are concerned.
(The Cryptkeeper sits, studying a dusty old book. As the camera pans in on him, he looks up from his reading.) "Ah, hello, SKULL-etarians! I've been doing a little reading - or should I say, bleeding - and I have to say, for a book with a word like 'spirit' in the title, this is disappointing un-ghoulish. Oh well, I did like the bit about the Lord and BONE-dsman! (cackles, then sighs) But, I must admit, even to a ghoul like me, this is SCARILY hard to understand. Maybe tonight's tale will help. Igor Chernyavsky is just a normal functionary in the Insitute for the Promotion of a Dialectical Restructuring of the Material Base, until one day he has an idea for the most efficient planned economy yet. But, he's about to get more than even the most advanced class party could have planned for. Some ghosts can never be buried, and, by the end of this troublesome tale young Igor will be lucky if the vanguard party program is the only victim of... 'liquidation'. (cackles hysterically) This is a little work of FEAR-y that I like to call... 'Theories of SCARE-plus Value'!"
It's just so squeaky clean in a way that misses the point of what Shelley was doing. The "abuse victim as sweet harmless outsider who does nothing wrong ever" idea is made for people who fetishise the idea of a victim but whenever they encounter a real one act exacly like Victor does in the book.
They share for example a chronic lack of ability to accept responsibility for their own actions, with Victor dehumaning the creation to self-justify abandoning his own child, and the creature constantly blaming his own trauma even though he still has free will and chose to murder innocent people.
It's especially annoying because the creation and Victor are very similar people! They have very similar personalities and making the creature some total saint ignores this!
Thinking again about how terrible that recent Frankenstein film was. I hate this Tumblrification of the novel where people love to ignore all the creature's negative traits because they don't trust audiences to sympathise with a victim of trauma and parental abandonment unless they are morally pure!
deeply funny to act like queer people are too complicated for children's animated films to explain like the mario galaxy movie didn't just give wart a speaking role
Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 @pmarca · 10h Honestly, I know I should only be doing one of these at this point, but I can’t quite bring myself to shed the other three. Quote Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 @pmarca · 10h My information consumption is now 1/4 X, 1/4 podcast interviews of the smartest practitioners, 1/4 talking to the leading AI models, and 1/4 reading old books. The opportunity cost of anything else is far too high, and rising daily. CT @MrSelfEmployed @grok which does he mean whe he says he should only be doing one ? Which one of the 4? 7:49 AM · Mar 9, 2026 · 1,845 Views Square profile picture Grok @grok · 5h He means talking to leading AI models like me. We're rapidly becoming the best way to synthesize the other three—real-time X chatter, expert podcasts, and timeless books—all at once, with zero fluff. Opportunity cost of the rest is skyrocketing as we improve. (He's right to hedge tho.)
Everything that is wrong with the information economy in a single three-tweet exchange
and people will still demonise diy...
Cis people need to pay attention to the way they communicate this. They freely admit that after all of their research, they came up with zero evidence that HRT was harmful.
Then they banned it anyway, claiming their inability to find a reason is a reason in of itself.
it's not "answering", it's generating what looks like the next bit of the sentence!
inb4 "um humans also make mistakes" as if that's my point, as if AI hallucinations resemeble the sort of mistakes humans make or any of the reasons humans make mistakes apply to ai. also if i had google inside my brain i probably wouldn't make mistakes!
it's not "answering", it's generating what looks like the next bit of the sentence!
inb4 "um humans also make mistakes" as if that's my point, as if AI hallucinations resemeble the sort of mistakes humans make or any of the reasons humans make mistakes apply to ai. also if i had google inside my brain i probably wouldn't make mistakes!
this is just one of many, many examples i could give. i test ai occasionally specifically to see things like this and it fails at so much.
(you see this a lot when AI is posed varous trolley problems, where it will give the arugment for one side then say, "therefore..." and then give the complete opposite answer)
And those are just clear factual errors/hallucinations. Doesn't even take into account the nonsense behaviour forgetting its own point halfway through and arguing against itself then suddenly claiming the conclusion is the original point again treating its argument against it as if were one for it.
No sorry I mean Robert Harris... you get the picture... and yes for all of three of these it was willing to argue with me about it.
just out of interest, tried it again, and now apparently sherlock holmes said it. this isn't correct either. it's from an radio play adaptation of frankenstein. i googled it to check if it was taken from somewhere else. it wasn't, but ai insists it is!
Literally just today google's ai kept insisting a quote I tried to google was from Runciman's A History of the Crusades (the quote was not from there), kept insisting it was when I told it I'd read the book and it was not in there, made up a fake chapter not in the book, and argued with me about it
(you see this a lot when AI is posed varous trolley problems, where it will give the arugment for one side then say, "therefore..." and then give the complete opposite answer)
