Merriam defines

So hate is just the extreme end of an “unfriendly feeling” which is synonymous to a negative feeling. We can go “golden middle” on this and say that moderate negative feelings are ideal, but even the moderate form seems synonymous to bias or prejudice.

  • quacky@lemmy.worldOP
    13·
    1 day ago

    Right, that was certainly Aristotle’s interpretation on the concept of magnanimity. Aristotle claimed to have said,

    "He [who is magnanimous] must be open both in love and in hate, since concealment shows timidity; and care more for the truth than for what people will think; and speak and act openly, since as he despises other men he is outspoken and frank, except when speaking with ironical self-deprecation, as he does to common people… "

    (I got this quote from Wikipedia entry of Magnaimity who got it from this link https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3Abekker+page%3D1123a#note2 ) )

    However, Aristotle was born before the Greek Stoics. Some Stoics thought that being good was transcending pain-pleasure, love-hate, into a more rational plane of existence. Here’s a quote by Stoic Marcus Aurelius,

    “… the Magnanimity is the elevation of the intelligent part above the pleasurable or painful sensations of the flesh, and above that poor thing called fame, and death, and all such things.”

    In conclusion, there are differing views of what virtue means, for Aristotle it means something close to good judgement or the wisdom of how to moderate one’s actions away from excess while for the stoics it means acting rationally despite hardship and embracing life in its entirety. For example, not letting negativity impact you, not getting carried away by passion.

      • quacky@lemmy.worldOP
        12·
        1 day ago

        Can you articulate this suspicion? Do I need to speak inauthenticly so that you don’t falsely accuse me?

        • vatlark@lemmy.worldM
          2·
          1 day ago

          This user was reported for being an LLM. I do agree that they have a very thorough writing style that is uncommon.

          • quacky@lemmy.worldOP
            11·
            1 day ago

            LLM doesnt cite primary sources, nor can it think critically. But i guess it passes the turing test for some folks. The new turing test is for humans to prove they are human, which may he a shit-flinging contest because AI dont have grostesque animal bodies like we do. I would say the reporting is ridiculous, but rhat would be negative and hateful, so I guess i just gotta accept the reality that people are going to be paranoid and anti intellectual. But hey, thats diversity. Gotta love our differences

            • vatlark@lemmy.worldM
              2·
              24 hours ago

              One that LLMs can never get right is asking them to cite a textbook.

              I’m not sure if it’s a deliberate inability due to copyright concerns.

              • quacky@lemmy.worldOP
                11·
                13 hours ago

                Yeah thats frustrating. Ai will lie to you too, so lack of citations + lies. Also, in the US, our Miranda rights read as “everything you say can and will be used against you” and chatgpt works with federal governmemt. The words “agent” and “intelligence” are also the same as used in CIA. If it lies and cant cite properly, how is it intelligent? Its bc its gathering intelligence from you. (spooky) anyways, i find the best use of AI is a search engine, but that is also extremely problematic bc it has a bias and will omit information. All around, i agree with Vaush that AI is demon-tech. Also as a PSA… use lumo or duck.ai, but also dont use them either bc ai is brain rot and also inherenrly risky