Possibly yes but that doesn’t help if one is morbidly afraid of approaching women for example.
However my point was that it’s a bit pointless to ask why would someone become something when by definition it’s involuntary. It’s like asking why would anyone be under 6ft tall.
Why isn’t there more incel violence?
We conclude by offering one hypothesis as to why modern day incels are not as violent as we might expect. The Male Sedation Hypothesis, that online virtual worlds, such as pornography, may pacify the potential for violence among sexless young men, providing a counterfeit sense of sexual fulfillment and reducing motivation for real- life mate competition.
So in other words; in the past such men would have taken their frustration to the streets. Gathering into groups of other such men and causing trouble, kicking grannies and such. Nowdays they instead retreat into their mom’s basements smoking weed, playing video games and watching porn.
Incel = involuntary celibate
You become one by not being able to find a life partner or even a one night stand. Not something I’d really blame the individual for.
My gaming PC has 9
I like hearing this so it must be true
I started my own business which involves going into people’s homes and fixing shit. I’m meeting a ton of new people nowdays, granted most of them are either elderly or single older women / moms.
Well, I’m on Lemmy myself, so perhaps that’s some sort of an indication of where I prefer to discuss thing with people in general, not just about AI. My list of blocked users is rather vast though, so a big part of the loudest haters are being filtered out from my feed. That surely contributes to the better experience here - or atleast less bad.
Definitely prefered it over there at reddit, but I’m a man of principle so I’m not going back either.
Well I’d say that for a person to be evil they’d need to be doing evil things with the sole intention of causing harm with nothing good coming out of it. Perhaps a good caricature of an evil person would be someone wanting to destroy the world including themselves. Admittedly such people absolutely does exists so maybe that debunks my own claim.
However if someone draws joy from causing harm to others I wouldn’t still call it evil but more like extreme disregard; you don’t care how others feel, only how it makes you feel. This is why I don’t think billionaires abusing the system for their own benefit makes them evil because causing harm is a byproduct of their selfish goals but not the intention of them. Similarly someone like Hitler wasn’t evil either because causing suffering to the jews was not the reason he set up the death camps but rather a way to achieve his other goals.
No, but probably the dedicated subreddit
I couldn’t think of a worse platform to try and discuss this topic than Lemmy. The consensus here is essentially that big companies = bad, AI companies = big, and thus AI = bad.
…is how generative-AI haters redefine terms and move the goalposts to fight their cognitive dissonance.
Well first of all, I don’t personally think evil even exists.
Secondly, I don’t think these people are any more or less “evil” than the rest of us. They just operate on a much larger scale that affects many more people. If any of us normal folk would be put under equivalent level of scrutiny as these guys with journalists combing thru our every social media post and paparazzis following us around combined with the intention to dig up dirt and contribute to the negative narrative that sells better than a positive one, we’d all look like them. Most people don’t like Gates, Musk or Zuck because that’s the conclusion they’ve independently arrived at. It’s how they’ve been told to think by the media.
To be honest I’d feel stupid saying that alout at anyone. They’re not called that in my native language - I think.
Both spoons are the same size. Different size ones wouldn’t fit together like that.
It only sounds bad to the fringest of the fringe that’s deceivingly loud on twitter. Good luck trying to find even one real person thinking those terms should be changed. This kind of stuff is why people vote for Trump.
Advertisements are for a large part about brand recognization. Even if you’re not going to buy the product, the fact that you remember the brand means the ad has worked.
By using Lemmy we’re already filtering out certain people and opinions. I personally think that the more control we have over what we see, the better. I don’t think it’s opposing views people want to filter out. It’s the ones having those views and being dicks about it.
My 10 year old TV which I watch 10 year old TV-series via HDMI from? I don’t think so.
Tomorrow there’s going to be article about how my car spies on me as if that’s not 15 years old too. Or something about my office job that I don’t have.
I’m becoming irrelevant. Not the target audience for anything.
deleted by creator