same way an LLM is able to produce coherent and convincing sentences by statistically determining what word is likely to follow another

To me this implies that the navigation AI is going to hallucinate parts of its model of the world, because it’s basing that model on what’s statically the most likely to be there as opposed to what’s actually there. What could go wrong?

I really admire your optimism.

Oh, we definitely have a legal system. It’s used against poor people every day.

It’s a justice system that we’ve never had.

Why do you think his first order of business is to court martial anybody who he thinks won’t do his bidding?

Fascists love the notion of a natural order, because it gives them license to hold power over people “lower in the hierarchy.” They’ll use anything and everything to establish whatever “natural order” serves their purpose at any given moment, and IQ works quite nicely in a lot of situations.

You know how long Caesar was dictator for life before he was assassinated? Less than a year.

But the damage was done, and Rome had a civil war over whether it would go back to being a Republic like it had been or if it would have an autocratic ruler. Obviously, the latter won out.

A lesson from history.

Are you upset that Trump won?

Ah yes, Hanlon’s razor. Genuinely a great one to keep in mind at all times, along with it’s corollary Clarke’s law: “Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.”

But in this particular case I think we need the much less frequently cited version by Douglas Hubbard: “Never attribute to malice or stupidity that which can be explained by moderately rational individuals following incentives in a complex system.”

I thought of that too, but I don’t think Trump’s ego allows him to consider that he might die some day.

I was thinking about this. How funny would it be if Trump just… Did nothing? Refused to sign legislation, made zero executive orders, just golfed for four years straight? It’s not like he needs to keep people happy so they’ll re elect him, he’s no longer eligible to run.

The problem is that winning only postponed his problems for four years, and he certainly is already worried about when that time comes. He’ll be looking for a solution, and for that he’ll need the favor of people in power. So it’s amusing to think he might just chill, but I really doubt he will :(

lol

Go on, pigeon. Shit on the chess board some more and blame other people for your own actions. I’m sure if you shit hard enough, nothing will be your fault.

The irony of this comment is profound.

I’m proud of my choices because I fought to harm as few people as possible.

You’re proud of your choice because you believe your hands are clean despite your choice harming the most number of people.

Your hands are not clean. I hope some day you realize it.

“You better stop selling weapons to Israel so that Iran can steamroll you, or we’re going to throw the largest and most powerful country to the fascists”

I wouldn’t take that insanity seriously either. And that’s why I’m getting downvoted by a bunch of insane failures of anti fascism. Which is fine, I’m only frustrated at your refusal to take responsibility for your failure, which no amount of “they made me do it” will absolve you from; you’re responsible for your actions, nobody else.

If by “defending” you mean “placing blame where it belongs” then yeah.

Like, if a serial killer has killed ten people then gets charged with killing an eleventh, but he didn’t, then I’d “defend” him too because the person who actually did the crime is still out there and should be held accountable.

You’re making it out as if I’m trying to say the serial killer didn’t murder anybody. That’s not what I’m saying.

The Democrats fucked up, big time. But it’s the electorate who let a fascist win.

They didn’t “set themselves up as the only solution.” We have First Past the Post voting, that’s just how it works.

not everyone thinks that

Yes, obviously not everyone thinks fascism is an existential threat. Which is probably one of our greatest failures as a society, in terms of education.

No? No. Democracy, functional or not, has no direct determining power on what candidates cater to. What democracy does is select the winning candidate, regardless of who the candidate caters to.

We may be a flawed democracy with candidates that cater to the elites, but we’re still a democracy and we still pick the winner.

You obviously don’t understand what fascism is. I recommend Umberto Eco’s essay "Ur-Fascism"as a good primer. Maybe read that before you make anymore ignorant comments like this one.

This may come as a surprise to you, but yes, in a democracy the people are to blame for who gets elected.

The Democrats could have run a turd as a candidate with the slogan “it’ll be a shit show” and I’d still have voted for them with no regrets, because I understand that fascism is an existential threat. If the Democrats are to blame in any way, it’s because they didn’t try to get people to understand that OH WAIT THEY DID.

Should the Democrats have run a better candidate and a better campaign? Obviously yes. Is it their fault that voters were willing to let a fascist win? Not even a little.