You’re definitely correct that most people are ignorant on these models work. I think most people understand these models aren’t sentient, but even among those who do, they don’t become emotionally attached to these models. I’m just saying that the people who end up developing feelings for chatbots go beyond ignorance. They have issues that require years of therapy.
Good call, I can’t in good conscience allow my kids to date robots that give them 30 second unskippable ads
My point is that those people are a very small minority, and they suffer from issues that go beyond their ignorance of these how these models work.
I like how every generation has the same issue just rebranded:
Should inter tribal marriage be a thing?
Should be people from different classes be able to marry?
Should people from different religious sects be able to marry?
Should people from different religions be able to marry?
Should interracial marriage be a thing?
Should people of the same sex be able to marry?
And soon, we’re about to have
Should people be able to marry robots?
The world is inherently unequal and unfair. We’re all born in different bodies with varying abilities and in different circumstances. The world we’re born into is one with scarce resources that cannot ever match our infinite desires. What this means is that there is no end state to social progress. There will always be inequality in the world. A world without inequality is a utopia, and utopias will never exist because they’re just fantasies.
But perhaps that’s not a bad thing. One of the hallmarks that define civilization is inequality. Inequality creates hierarchies, and hierarchies create order. It is through this order that we have been able to organize and mobilize to build the world we live in today. It is because people aren’t entirely equal that we have different people specializing in different things to give us our complex modern economies.
In a way, inequality could be seen as a law of nature just like death. It will be something that we can never defeat, but it will always be an issue that we try to solve, or at least avoid making worse. Our disdain for inequality could be an evolutionary trait that helps keeps our primate societies healthier and stronger. If this is the case then inequality is a never ending problem, and social progress will never cease to be. Sometime it’ll advance, sometimes it’ll regress, but the issue will never be resolved.
If you were to go a time machine and travel another 1000 years into the future. You won’t be stepping into a utopia, instead, you’ll be stepping into a much more complex and advanced society that will still be facing the same types of challenges we face now. These are also the same challenges that we have faced for thousands of years, throughout all of human history. Perhaps this struggle is just a part of human nature.
I think most people understand that these LLM cannot think or reason, they’re just really good tools that can analyze data, recognize patterns, and generate relevant responses based on parameters and context. The people who treat LLM chatbot like they’re people have much deeper issues than just ignorance.
The issue with this take is that you assume that there is a direct correlation between kindness and civic engagement, which is not true. Someone can be genuinely kind but disengaged from civic duties due to a bunch of reasons ranging from personal to societal. Your take also equates passivity with malice, suggesting that if someone isn’t politically active, they’re morally flawed, which again isn’t true. The people who are the most politically obsessive, engaged, and vocal in the country are MAGA Republicans, and they are clearly not people who are kind… especially when you compare them to someone who’s apolitical but spends a lot of their time volunteering in their community.
But that’s the issue, your take is inherently flawed because you draw your moral superiority from two assumption. The first is that you assume that your views are objectively correct and are superior to others, and the second is that you assume people who are politically zealous or choose to be as such will end up having your views… Both of which are absurdly arrogant assumptions to have. Your views are neither objectively moral or superior, nor do politically active people share your views. In fact the vast, vast majority of people do not see things the way that you do.
There’s really no way you can justify your take because your digesting the world in absolutist terms. To you people are either politically active and share your views, thus are morally correct, or they’re inactive and are intentionally because evil or hostile. It’s such a polarizing and out of touch way to look at people and the world. If you are an example of the chronically online person who obsesses about politics 24/7, fine, but you have to acknowledge that the vast, vast majority of people do not think about politics 24/7, and that’s perfectly okay. Not only that, but just because most people aren’t zealots that does not mean they’re morally flawed or inferior. This holier than thou attitude is shows that your worldview is quite myopic.
I think that’s a contributing factor, but I don’t think it’s the only one. We live in the age of social media where anybody anywhere can post anything at any time. Anybody can be a journalist and post pictures, videos, or give live updates as events are happening. In fact we have a lot of people like this from just about every conflict in the world who give us updates just about everyday. Despite this, things like wars are still treated as trends by people. When the fad gets old, people get bored and move on to the next new thing.
You are entirely correct. People like to think the war is over, but it’s still very much on going.
Who will be ignored next?
These aren’t next, these are already forgotten even though they’re catastrophes. Hell, even Ukraine is being forgotten even though it’s one the biggest wars in 21st century. When India and Pakistan looked like they were about to go to war, this Israel/Palestine war was also pushed to the back of people’s minds.
I think this is the just the nature of humans. People want to think they’re noble and righteous, but they won’t actually do anything, and the moment a new war starts they’ll move on to that because it’s new and we have short attention spands.
I think people are obsessing over this case because a bunch of rich and powerful people got publicly exposed as a part of the same ring, but there’s certainly way more out there. I’m sure a bunch other politicians, billionaires, clergymen, celebrities, and a whole host of other people with influence has their own rings all over the world.
There’s no way the election was rigged, this is 2020 election denial bullshit. The election results were in line with what the polls were showing, and it also shows in his approval ratings. The reality is that the people really wanted Trump again for some reason.
He’s the richest man in the world, he doesn’t need to be involved with Epstein at all, he’s rich enough to fund his own pedo ring
But you’re conflating two different things. Someone who doesn’t think about politics 24/7 isn’t necessarily politically unaware or politically inactive. It just means that they understand there’s more to life than politics. You can recognize that politics has more influence on your life than other things, but it’s not the only influence on your life nor is it everything in life. I mean you lived through it, you should know as well as I do that even during blackouts and war, people still find ways to do things life that isn’t politics.
Something this basic seems to be beyond comprehension for Lemmy users for some reason.
The only difference is that people are actually honest about all of these conflicts. They acknowledge who is a fault and what has actually happened. You lack that honesty, hence why you’re using the whataboutism fallacy here to keep dismissing criticism and distracting from the arguments being made instead of addressing them directly. You know you can’t defend the evils that Russia is committing on their own merits, and so you resort to fallacies. If you were able to then would’ve just owned up to the fact that you’re piece of shit who supports the evils that Russia is committing, but you’re not arguing in good faith.
You’re so dishonest it’s unbelievable. Nobody is arguing with you on your political opinions, that’s not the point of contention. You can think whatever you want, that’s your problem and right. What I was saying is that normal people don’t think about politics 24/7 like terminally online Lemmy users. People treat politics like they do any other subject. There are times when they think about, talk about it, and take action on it, and times where they don’t. It’s really simple as that.
This idea that people you deem as non privileged think about politics all day everyday is not reality. That’s an out of touch assumption that you made up to justify an inaccurate worldview you have. People not thinking about politics 24/7 doesn’t mean they don’t care about politics or that they ignore politics, it means that there’s more to life than politics. People who do spend all their time talking and thinking about politics aren’t normal, those are zealots, they’re fanatics. This is not a new or controversial, this was literally always the case.
No, fuck off moron. Russia started this war, they’re committing a genocide, and they’re 100% responsible for ALL of it. Trying to “both sides” the most obviously one sided conflict in the world by blaming the victims for defending themselves puts you and your shitty ideology in the same tier as nazis, which sounds about right for Marxism. You support and defend Russia’s imperialist genocide, you’re morally reprehensible.
You will never find anybody as morally reprehensible as Marxists who support and defend Russia’s genocide in Ukraine. Go fuck yourself Russian shill
They’re so desperate they literally buying shit from North Korea at a premium
It’s a very real thing. So much so that OpenAI actually came out and publicly complained about how it’s apparently costing the company millions.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/telling-chatgpt-please-and-thank-you-costs-openai-millions-ceo-claims/