[-] [email protected] 5 points 17 hours ago

One of the key features of capitalism is that it keeps the masses in service. When we're working to make the CEOs rich we don't have time to rally against them. They make us complicit in the system. It's why they try and pay talent as little as possible. Sometimes the same amount as someone who slacks off all day. Because the longer it takes us to retire the longer we'll be in service to them. Once there's nothing for us to do anymore, my hope is that people will realize that the rich and powerful don't deserve to hold the keys to society. My fear is that corps will slowly transition everyone into mindless drones hitting a "Do my job, AI" button all day and nothing will change.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 18 hours ago

Wholeheartedly agree! I would love for us to seamlessly transition into a society with automated surplus where people never have to worry about how they'll feed themselves. But I have a feeling that the transition will be a lot more rough than that unfortunately. And we're starting to see that now.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 19 hours ago

This is sort of where I get confused about people pissed at Taylor Swift for having a private jet. Like I totally understand that some of the trips have been shown to be unnecessary and I agree. But how many sports teams and equipment do we transport for greater carbon emissions to bring joy to a fraction as many people? Like think about an American football game, world cup game, Olympics, F1 race, Golf tournament... hell even Burning Man? I feel like it's just low hanging fruit for her critics to stir up shit.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 19 hours ago

So AI is invalidating capitalism because it's showing that people's value shouldn't be tied to what they can produce... And you're mad at that too? It's so weird to me to see people mad that AI is not allowing them to participate in capitalism when they themselves have a dislike for capitalism. Like... I understand the immediate problem is because of AI... but it's highlighting so beautifully the main problem of capitalism. Which is the real problem.

AI is like the climate change of the economy. We all knew automation was coming and would be the death knell for capitalism. But now that it's one or the other, people are choosing capitalism because it's what they know. Even people that are still outspoken anti-capitalist! What we should be fighting for is more open sourced models and AI projects.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yeah, same respect. I get it. But do you think you are the first person to tell them the earth is round? What are you actually attempting to accomplish when you speak to this person?

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Right and that should be the target of our efforts. Not fighting over scientific research they've already decided to reject. Encourage them to think more critically. You can only encourage someone when you have their ear. You only have someone's ear when they're comfortable around you. Demeaning someone's intelligence and telling them their world view is a toxic lie, is a quick way to convince them they'll only ever be at odds with you.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

It's often that they think those people know but aren't telling the truth. Then more and more people start agreeing. So they're not the one person who figured it out, it's a revolution!

[-] [email protected] -2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Just because they set the bar low, doesn't mean it's not still intellectual superiority to step over it. The fact of the matter, as you pointed out, is that they were taught everything you're about to say in elementary school. The fact that they didn't learn the earth is round implies there's more going on in their head than a lack of information.

I'm inferring from your tone that you're not planning to compassionately listen to their perspective to provide constructive criticism. So yeah, it sounds like you're going to spend a few minutes calling them stupid. Which has no benefit other than stroking the intellectual part of your ego. It actually will likely make the world a worse place, because you'll present yourself to them as someone they don't want to be like. Further entrenching them in their views.

[-] [email protected] -5 points 3 days ago

Where I think she has a point (whoever she is) is that most people don't repetitively prove science's principles themselves. So for the vast majority of people that believe in science, they take their world view on faith from a book written by someone they don't know.

They grow up with the understanding that it's the truth, so they accept it. They have no idea how to actually follow the scientific process and test the theories themselves, they just trust the authority of the institution distributing the knowledge.

You might think this is a false equivalency. But with religion collapsing more and more each day, they've mapped their bullshit quite nicely on to science. Generating plenty of pseudoscience for anyone who believes in science but is made uncomfortable by its findings. Religion lives on in how the masses actually perceive science. Because the mechanism is no different:

I don't understand the universe, but I have faith that someone does. I'll put them in charge so they can give me the bullet points of how I should live.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago

I've used Blender for years. Recently I was looking for a video editor. Somebody suggested use Blender. I thought, okay this will be funny, let's try it. Don't get me wrong Premier (best IMO) is better if you can get it for free. But damn... it was actually comparable!!

[-] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago

Too late. Biden made himself SCOTUS and changed back the rule, effective next term. Then replaced SCOTUS with the cast of Arrested Development.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

It's still ideas the group agrees with. The idea is: that we all disagree with this idea. It's subtle, until you look at the same story on CNN vs Fox. Two bubbles discussing the same issue with two VERY different emotional valences.

To put it another way: the discussion of these ideas that are oppositional to the community, is not with the intention of seriously considering them. It's with the intention of dismissing them in a group act of catharsis. It maintains the bubble and safely dispatches an idea that threatened to burst it.

view more: next ›

Drewelite

joined 1 year ago