UnpluggedFridge

Calling them out also will not work. Modern republicanism hinges on Democrats being the enemy. It is a belief that lacks any specific evidence, but the idea has been repeated so many times through accusations with no evidence, predictions that never come to fruition, and outright lies that never get corrected that from the perspective of a Republican, even if some single allegation is proven false, they are hearing so many bad things about their countrymen that some of it has to be true.

The Russians perfected this type of propaganda and it is based on a couple quirks in how our brains work. First, even a wacky lie pushes your beliefs in the direction of the lie. Second, if a lie is repeated it is more likely to be believed. Wrap this up in a major media ecosystem that says over and over "You can't trust other sources of information. Here are 10 reasons Democrats are pedophiles" and you have armed people storming into pizza shops searching for children locked in a basement that doesn't exist.

The final quirk of our brains that sort of seals the deal is that direct contradictory evidence to a belief does not weaken the belief, it makes it stronger. The believer rationalizes a defense of the belief in light of the contradictory evidence. Changing someone's beliefs requires an effort akin to cult deprogramming.

I am really disappointed with the discourse concerning Biden's handling of the most recent Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Everyone is acting like Biden invented our alliance with Israel and is somehow personally responsible for our support of Israel. Geopolitical alliances are complicated matters that touch everything from international reputation to national security. They are fostered over decades. We have obligations to Israel that precede Biden and the recent conflict.

I understand the moral positions people are taking, and I agree that a genocide is taking place. But with anything geopolitical, these issues must be approached without hard lines and moral absolutism, because those ideals are what both sides are using to justify the atrocities we are witnessing. They both feel morally justified, and that the other side has crossed some hard lines. That is how diplomacy breaks down.

Those of you that want to see an end to the conflict need to understand that the official US position at this moment is aligned with you. But so many of you are proposing "simple" solutions that will not achieve that outcome. If we end support for Israel, they will not stop the genocide. What we will lose is leverage in negotiating peace and we will weaken the alliance with Israel, and the genocide will continue unhindered by US calls for restraint. You may argue that Israel relies on this alliance for security, and that is true, but you assume that other super powers would not jump at the chance to replace the US as a close ally to a nuclear power in the middle east.

Let's not forget how rash reactionary approaches to geopolitics threatened the NATO alliance during the Trump presidency. Our allies are already doubting if the US will honor the treaty, and this doubt extends to Taiwan, too. Weakening these alliances gives power to our enemies, full stop. Do you want to see war break out in the Pacific? Russia to expand its empire eastward? The Israel-Palestine conflict to extend to other Arab nations? Damaging these alliances will cause more war, not less.

Outrage against Israel is justified. But look past your nose before you jeopardize our key alliances. Diplomacy is slow and frustrating, but it is better than more war.

These cases are interesting tests of our first amendment rights. "Real" CP requires abuse of a minor, and I think we can all agree that it should be illegal. But it gets pretty messy when we are talking about depictions of abuse.

Currently, we do not outlaw written depictions nor drawings of child sexual abuse. In my opinion, we do not ban these things partly because they are obvious fictions. But also I think we recognize that we should not be in the business of criminalizing expression, regardless of how disgusting it is. I can imagine instances where these fictional depictions could be used in a way that is criminal, such as using them to blackmail someone. In the absence of any harm, it is difficult to justify criminalizing fictional depictions of child abuse.

So how are AI-generated depictions different? First, they are not obvious fictions. Is this enough to cross the line into criminal behavior? I think reasonable minds could disagree. Second, is there harm from these depictions? If the AI models were trained on abusive content, then yes there is harm directly tied to the generation of these images. But what if the training data did not include any abusive content, and these images really are purely depictions of imagination? Then the discussion of harms becomes pretty vague and indirect. Will these images embolden child abusers or increase demand for "real" images of abuse. Is that enough to criminalize them, or should they be treated like other fictional depictions?

We will have some very interesting case law around AI generated content and the limits of free speech. One could argue that the AI is not a person and has no right of free speech, so any content generated by AI could be regulated in any manner. But this argument fails to acknowledge that AI is a tool for expression, similar to pen and paper.

A big problem with AI content is that we have become accustomed to viewing photos and videos as trusted forms of truth. As we re-learn what forms of media can be trusted as "real," we will likely change our opinions about fringe forms of AI-generated content and where it is appropriate to regulate them.

This is a pretty complicated topic that touches video games, gambling sites, social media algorithms, and marketing in general. It also touches fundamental philosophical questions like the existence of free will.

We have lots of established law on which sort of "mind tricks" are fair play and which aren't, but we have not advanced those laws to keep pace with the science. Currently, lying is really the only thing off limits and is covered by fraud statutes. We also have some limits on marketing to children. But one could argue that there are several "persuasion" tactics that can be just as effective as outright lies in manipulating the behavior of others. In fact, licensed therapists are ethically barred from using these tactics, yet we allow salesmen, marketers, etc to use them at will.

I don't really have an opinion on this lawsuit, nor do I feel qualified to offer a solution. But let me give you an example of how the human mind works which underpins addiction to gambling.

Dopamine is a signaling molecule that regulates a lot of our reward responses. If I find honey in a honeycomb, dopamine gets released and now I am more likely to seek out honeycombs in the future. You can see how this is evolutionarily beneficial. Dopamine release reinforces behavior that increases survival. But let's say that only about 1/3 of all honeycombs have honey. Now I have a lower chance at a reward, so does that mean the dopamine release is likewise diminished? No, the opposite is true. Dopamine release skyrockets. Evolutionarily this makes sense, we do not want to miss out on a reward simply because the probability is diminished, so the high dopamine release counterbalances the diminished probability such that reward seeking behavior is reinforced so long as the probability of reward is reasonable (it peaks at about 1/4). In fact, dopamine is released even when the honeycomb has no honey. You can draw a direct line between this physical phenomenon and gambling addiction. What people don't appreciate is that this physiological response is very similar to addictive drugs in effectiveness. It can be hard to acknowledge that one of the reasons you are not a gambling addict is simply that you didn't start gambling to begin with, not that you are somehow superior to those that are addicted.

We have lots of behavioral quirks like this that can be exploited. At what point does this manipulation cross the line? That is a hard question. For me, gacha games cross that line. But if we want to enact meaningful regulations we need to acknowledge that these mind exploits exist and confront the fact that free will may not be as free as we hope.

From someone who grew up with a racist father, it was likely a juxtaposition of the handshake with stereotypes of hypersexuality and uncleanliness among black men mixed with sexist ideals of young women and their purity.

So we should abandon diplomacy precisely when it is needed most? When we withdraw our support and Iran and Egypt join the conflict, will it be easier to stomach the killing of even more children in more nations? After we cede our influence in the middle east and China expands its influence to fill the vacuum, we will be able to honor our treaty with Taiwan after an emboldened China begins bombing and killing their children?

This is the macabre calculus of geopolitics. This is the risk of reactionary policy. All of this is a hypothetical worse case scenario, but one thing is certain: if we withdraw our support, Israel will lose any incentive to stop the killing. More will die. And that would be the best case scenario.

Now we just need to force DuPont and 3M to pay for this mess they made

The real problem with government housing in the US specifically stems from our worship of billionaires, which requires us to demonize the poor. If a rich man is selfmade due to his virtues then poor people must lack virtue. That worldview implies that no amount of help will redeem the poor. Thus safety net programs are half-assed at best, and cut to bare bones or cut entirely at the worst.

The narrative that government-run programs are useless just does not hold up to the evidence. Even the housing program you mentioned is an improvement over nothing. But take a look at some of our programs and imagine the horror of a private alternative: US Postal service (I can send a letter to the smallest town in Alaska with a single stamp), rural electricity, roads (my God could you imagine a private road system), public school. You need to remember that the alternative to any flawed government program is NOTHING.

The cause and effect may be reversed there.

My shower thoughts are always repeating cycles of "fuuuuuuuck this feels niiiiiiiiice" and "time to turn up the heat a smidge." Am I doing it wrong?

TikTok pushed a notifications to all US users with the phone numbers of their local congressmen to oppose the bill. So many calls came in that the phone lines were jammed.

Let me distill that for you: China attempted to directly influence legislation with a mass propaganda campaign targeted at its US user base.

Please explain to me why that isn't a threat and why the US should allow hostile foreign powers to directly influence internal politics?

This is a difficult issue to deal with, but I think the problem lies with our current acceptance of photographs as an objective truth. If a talented writer places someone in an erotic text, we immediately know that this is a product of imagination. If a talented artist sketches up a nude of someone, we can immediately recognize that this is a product of imagination. We have laws around commercial use of likenesses, but I don't think we would make those things illegal.

But now we have photographs that are products of imagination. I don't have a solution for this specific issue, but we all need to calibrate how we establish trust with persons and information now that photographs, video, speech, etc can be faked by AI. I can even imagine a scenario in the not-too-distant future where face-to-face conversation cannot be immediately trusted due to advances in robotics or other technologies.

Lying and deception are human nature, and we will always employ any new technologies for these purposes along with any good they may bring. We will always have to carefully adjust the line on what is criminal vs artistic vs non-criminal depravity.

You are getting downvotes because Tucker Carlson has weaponized the "I'm just asking questions" excuse to justify terrible takes on established science. People are finding you guilty by association. It is very hard to distinguish between actual curiosity and trolling, especially when bigots are constantly honing their messaging to appeal to wider audiences. Some people will get caught in the crossfire of our culture wars.

Avoiding advertising is the best way to avoid influence, but remember that pretty much everyone wants you to change your mind ina way that benefits them. Avoiding influence altogether is impossible, and that influence is necessary to stay informed and make good life choices.

My advice is twofold. First, learn the logical fallacies and how to identify them. Second, account for uncertainty in your decisions. The most practical application of this second point is to favor decisions that leave you with more options in the future. This uncertainty should include you. Account for the possibility that your goals and views may change in the future, because they will.

The dissenting opinion is unlikely to be heard. Here is another brain quirk for you: we hate seeing information that contradicts our beliefs. The attention-optimized algorithms of social media have made it possible to spend a whole day consuming information without seeing anything we disagree with. Traditional journalism is no longer the source of shared truth for our society, we have surrendered that to the algorithms with the net effect of fracturing society into groups with very different ideas of what the truth is.

IMO the recent rise of far-right political power can be directly attributed to the "post-truth" bubbles we have found ourselves in. I know I have overused the brain quirk gimmick, but these bubbles are creating a huge amount of fear and uncertainty. This over-stimulation of our amygdala reduces empathy and causes us to further constrict our in-groups. This makes it easier for power hungry politicians to push out-groups into "enemy" territory and leverage the fear of the enemy into raw political power.

I do acknowledge the irony, as I type this message, that I will be heard only by people that share my values. My hope is that you the reader see that empathy is the cure, and choose not to close off your in-group despite the feeds and the mod bans and the powerful men profiting from this mess.

They sell CBD oil with this little droppers for dosing, but when you read the studies the dosage is like a mouthful of oil. It's like the exact opposite problem of melatonin dosing.

We are not in a recession. The problems with wage stagnation are not some temporary hiccup in the economy. It is a systemic problem. Stop conflating the two, complaining that a macroeconomic term with a very specific meaning isn't defined the way you want it to be. Stop expecting the problem to heal itself if the fed lowers rates or taxes get nudged up or down or whatever. We know how to fix wage stagnation because we have done it before. Regulation. Labor protections. Minimum wage increases. Wage stagnation occurs in the absence of these things, and they can only be done by Congress.

Harvard has made Sandel's "Justice" course available online for free. Definitely worth a watch.

There are millions of things kids keep from their parents while growing up, and they do it for millions of different reasons, some good some bad and some goofy. Why do we need the government stepping in deciding which secrets, especially those that have nothing to do with the administration of education, are valid?

This is the real question. Is there a loophole that allows foreign governments to freely exercise mass surveillance and psyops if they allow US citizens to post on a blackboard outside their offices?

Go to pubmed. Type "social media mental health". Read the studies, or the reviews if you don't have the time.

The average American teenager spends 4.8 hours/day on social media. Increased use of social media is associated with increased rates of depression, eating disorders, body image dissatisfaction, and externalizing problems. These studies don't show causation, but guess what, we literally cannot show causation in most human studies because of ethics.

Social media drastically alters peer interactions, with negative interactions (bullying) associated with increased rates of self harm, suicide, internalizing and externalizing problems.

Mobile phone use alone is associated with sleep disruption and daytime sleepiness.

Looking forward to your peer-reviewed critiques of these studies claiming they are all "just vibes."

Trailer Park Boys

I live here. No one is driving across country to visit our hot springs because they saw it on social media, and even if they did, more power to them. These are locals that want to visit our public spaces. There are supposed to be 20+ parking spots at the trailhead. The people that live in the area eliminated over half of the spots with planters and rocks.

I sympathize with the notion that human activity can ruin an area, but I will not endorse the idea that public space is only for certain members of the public. We have trails and signage in this area. It is meant for public use. Whether or not it is popular is not the point. The point is that we all decide how to use it through our local government, not through the lawless actions of a few rich people.

For real, we've got the first openly pro-union president, we expanded NATO, student loan forgiveness, actual infrastructure funding, the first administration to openly push back against Israel during war time, all of that in only 4 years. He is the most effective president of my lifetime and I am happy to vote for him again.

X lost half a billion dollars in the first quarter of 2023. Odd that the financial expert didn't mention this even though it is literally in the same sentence as the "40% drop in revenue" statement in the article.

Who are you talking to, the founders?

The recent trend of transferring individual rights to the state en masse is alarming. Even worse, the states are working in direct contradiction to experts in the fields they are regulating. Skimming over some of these recent laws, we see legislatures working against medical associations (reproductive health care and gender affirming care), sports rules authorities (trans athlete participation), and education accreditation bodies (this article).

The result is a gigantic state power that sees fit to decide what health care you receive, what the rules of your sports should be, and what constitutes a good education. We have set up institutions to tackle these problems due to the (now less) common assumption that these decisions should be made by experts and/or local stakeholders, and that politics should have no place in our doctors' offices, football fields, and classrooms.

But let's assume that politics and state power should reach into these spaces. Why would the laws work in direct opposition to the most trusted authorities in these fields? What legitimate purpose could that serve?

Everything requires context. Sometimes kids hide things because their parents may react with violence or some other form of extreme punishment. But regardless of the reason, I would be concerned that these mandatory disclosure policies are stifling the 1st amendment rights of the children, and even worse they are doing so based on a specific viewpoint.

Lol these are grants. Guess what, we've been funding research into corona viruses ever since the first SARS outbreak...which came from a wet market in Wuhan.

What you need to link is physical evidence showing that COVID-19 was in the lab prior to the outbreak, or that the COVID-19 sequence is comprised of two or more sequences from viruses stockpiled in the lab (it is a surveillance lab).

You do not have that evidence. You do not understand how viral labs work. You do not even understand how science funding works. You are the kind of person that believes a highly controlled lab environment with trained personnel is more likely to spread disease than a dense market place where known viral reservoirs are slaughtered in open air by any moron with a blade.

I do not want my information filtered through an opaque algorithm. My worldview is much too important to surrender to some corporation. I want to understand and have some control over any feed I use. My media diet includes Lemmy, AP news, PubMed/science journals, and conversations with friends and coworkers.

I am very happy with Lemmy so far. Some have pointed out there is less content on Lemmy, but that is a bonus in my book. It is not healthy to spend hours scrolling.

I will not use this comment to weigh in on the fairness of the University's decision, I am just going to make the point that USC is a private university and is not held to the same free speech standards as the University of California school system.

People seem to think that a prior opinion about the dependent automatically means that a potential juror cannot be impartial. All that is required is that the juror can render a verdict based solely on the evidence presented at trial. Plenty of people with strong opinions about Trump himself can still be impartial jurors.

Chinese EVs subsidized with prison labor and CCP funds to undercut the market and stagnate long-term innovation, what a boon to humanity!

I remember hearing this argument before...about the Internet. Glad that fad went away.

As it has always been, these technologies are being used to push us forward by teams of underpaid unnamed researchers with no interest in profit. Meanwhile you focus on the scammers and capitalists and unload your wallets to them, all while complaining about the lack of progress as measured by the products you see in advertisements.

Luckily, when you get that cancer diagnosis or your child is born with some rare disease, that progress will attend to your needs despite your ignorance if it.

Requires a warrant or subpoena. That is the difference.

It is so strange to say that identity should take a back seat to humanism when every historical example of discrimination and dehumanization is based on identity. Identity in those instances is not imposed on oneself, but is used to define the outgroup that is being dehumanized. Identity politics is simply an honest accounting of groups that being descriminated against. When the discrimination ends, we see the group identity evaporate. We need only look at the early 20th century definitions of Caucasian, and the identity politics of Irish and Italian Americans subsequently evaporating when that definition evolved to include all Americans of European decent, to see that identity politics is a reaction to injustice and not the other way around.

It is a difficult issue for sure, but California has a sore history with individuals or small groups cutting off access to public spaces.

Personally, I think the solution lies in infrastructure and other investments that increase access while protecting the natural wonders around us. This particular location is not exactly pristine wilds; it lies among several sprawling estates in the foothills.

What I want to resist is the notion that some 'others' are the problem when a good location becomes popular. All too often when you ask someone "Who should not be allowed?" the answer is "Someone else, but not me!"

But you are not reporting the underlying probability, just the guess. There is no way, then, to distinguish a bad guess from a good guess. Let's take your example and place a fully occluded shape. Now the most probable guess could still be a full circle, but with a very low probability of being correct. Yet that guess is reported with the same confidence as your example. When you carry out this exercise for all extrapolations with full transparency of the underlying probabilities, you find yourself right back in the position the original commenter has taken. If the original data does not provide you with confidence in a particular result, the added extrapolations will not either.

Generative AI has the data, and the required data is immense. The challenge for other potential applications is that the data is not there or not available. There are no other aspects of human productivity that are as widely recorded and available as images and text. The next big thing will require an actual data collection effort; you won't get it from scraping the Internet.

I use LLMs all the time for work and hobbies, but my work and hobbies are well suited for LLM assistance.

Writing boilerplate documents. I do this for work. I hate it. LLMs are very good at it.

Writing boilerplate code. I do not like writing docstrings, making my code more maintainable, enforcing argument types, etc. I do a lot of research code and I need to spend my time testing and debuging. I can feed my spaghetti into an LLM and it will finish out all the boilerplate for me.