It’s the Mechanical Turk automaton all over again

Sounds like you had fun

I knew someone who voluntarily went to work for Facebook a few years ago. I don’t talk to them anymore. Last I heard from a mutual is that they got laid off, and it couldn’t have happened to a more deserving schmuck.

That’s good to know. I sincerely appreciate you sharing your experience

At which point, the only option left is to leave or enjoy rapid enshittification.

It’s decentralized, not federated I thought…? Are there other services that use the Matrix protocol?

Don’t even have to go that far. Just stop paying for Nitro. They’ll get the picture when their revenue stream dries up.

Ah, but I do not believe it is universally wrong to enforce a subjective paradigm.

Then you’re doing the exact same thing as the people you claim are unjustly enforcing objective reality, undercutting the very reason for rejecting it in the first place. That’s why I said the belief is internally inconsistent.

Stoat seems to, though I’ve not actually tested it. But my system audio devices showed up in the browser client as inputs, so that’s a good sign that something is there.

Until it’s just as bad. Just move to Stoat (formerly Revolt) or Fermi.chat and save yourself the headache of another centralized platform going to shit.

The joke is stronger without the “shitake” ending, since that particular pun depends on pronouncing the word entirely wrong. “Morel” is awesome, however!

But I do think they work forwards from the conclusions of those who came before.

You’re really missing some key information here. When people go to school to become scientists, they retest old experiments as part of their training as a way to demonstrate:

• How we know what we know
• That science is repeatable. Results and behaviors fall within the models of our understanding.

However, these are not hard and fast models that must never be questioned. Science is constantly changing as new objective facts are uncovered, experiments are reviewed and retested, and new ones are scrutinized by expert peers.

Science cannot create axioms, so the foundation of scientific knowledge is always nonscientific reasoning and observation.

No, the foundation of scientific knowledge is facts. That’s why we can unilaterally say that trans women are women. That’s why we know that evolution is true. That’s why we don’t say that people with extra melanin in their skin are a different species from people with less.

It’s true that the interpretation of those facts comes from our subjective understanding in an effort to get as close to an objective model as possible. We necessarily experience the objective universe subjectively. But the fact that experiments are repeatable and certain facts remain the same no matter how many times we observe them is a key indicator that reality has objectivity.

And I think it’s perfectly appropriate to use violence on those whose worldview is violent.

I don’t know that I personally agree (maybe if we agree what “violence” means), but I’m aware of the tolerance paradox. I was pointing out that the philosophy to which you hold does not seem to be internally consistent. I think it’s excellent that you do not hold space for bigots, but if you believe in a universally subjective reality, and it is universally wrong under your philosophy to enforce a subjective paradigm upon someone else, that notion must apply universally. It cuts both ways, as it were.

In other words, it seems that the Tolerance Paradox is baked into the notion that reality is wholly subjective.

Discord age-verification bot: “Your account is nine years old, and nine-year-olds are too young to use Discord. Terminating account.”

The thing that frustrates me about these studies is that they all continue to come to the same conclusions. AI has already been studied in mental health settings, and it’s always performed horribly (except for very specific uses with professional oversight and intervention).

I agree that the studies are necessary to inform policy, but at what point are lawmakers going to actually lay down the law and say, “AI clearly doesn’t belong here until you can prove otherwise”? It feels like they’re hemming and hawwing in the vain hope that it will live up to the hype.

Companies are rushing to install age verification in everything “to protect children,” and yet here we have a prime example of a company failing the most basic of tests, clearly demonstrating that they can’t be trusted to handle any data, much less PII.

It’s a garbage philosophy based on the ignorant premise that science starts with a conclusion and uses evidence to justify it.

From their manifesto:

When you apply empirical evidence-gathering to a construction that is racist, you will find racism. You will find a scientific basis for racism so long as you believe in racism. Should you believe in empathy, tolerance, and kindess, you will find a scientific basis for those instead.

…which is not at all how science works today. Bigots will still work backwards from their conclusion to try to justify their bigotry, but good science is emergent and draws no conclusions until sufficient evidence has been gathered. They’re trying to say that (bad) science has been used to justify harm, but rather than saying maliciousness or ignorance are the problems, they’re lazily gesturing around and saying that it’s all of reality that’s the problem.

Meanwhile, everybody getting their own subjective reality absolves the bigots of responsibility, because under the anarcho-antirealist paradigm, it is wrong/harmful to enforce your reality upon others.

Good job listening to those inner warnings, BTW!

The US is busy violating people’s rights and executing civil dissidents. They’ll get to it when they grow bored of terrorizing everyone.

I usually just roll my eyes when I see that corpospeak, but now I’m going to translate it as “payday.” Thanks!

Not a clue. Care to eli5?

Yes, I know. I’m not looking back at the entire timeline of history. I’m looking at the most recent example, because while the idea is not new, it is not an idea that lasts on its own; people wise up over time, which is why the idea gets rehashed by different figures at different points in history.