It felt like a “Missed Connections” ad in a newspaper. (If you’re under 40, you might have to look up what that is)

My FP right now:

Out of all the States, Minnesota is one of the few I’d have almost zero objection to welcoming in. “Minnesota Nice” and “Canadian Polite” are closely related (but somewhat different).

Sadly, it will never happen. Adding a province requires re-opening the Constitution, and that’s not going to happen. (If you’re too young to remember, look up the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords)

I work primarily in “classical” AI and have been working with it on-and-off for just under 30 years now. Programmed my first GAs and ANNs in the 90s. I survived Prolog. I’ve had prolonged battles getting entire corporate departments to use the terms “Machine Learning” and “Artificial Intelligence” correctly, understand what they mean, and how to start thinking about them to incorporate them correctly into their work.

Thus why I chose the word “LLM” in my response, not “AI”.

I will admit that I assumed that by “AI” Jimmy Carr was referring to LLMs, as that’s what most people mean these days. I read the TL;DW by @masterspace@lemmy.ca but didn’t watch the original content. If I’m wrong in that assumption and he’s referring to classical AI, not LLMs, I’ll edit my original post.

Subhead:

Jasmeet Singh is charged in California with threatening someone in Canada for the Bishnoi gang

I misread that as Jagmeet Singh. My mind was blown for about 0.38s.

Ugh, I’m tired of point 2. Yes, LLMs have found a few patterns in large-scale study analyses that humans hadn’t, but they weren’t deep insights and there had been buried hypotheses around them from existing authors, IIRC (too lazy to source).

I don’t think they generally think that deeply. I think they really do want less illegal immigration (and less legal immigration, and the expulsion of all non-white, non-fundamentalist-Christian people) because that will create the “unified, blessed” nation they believe that they need to have.

That said, they aren’t concerned about dealing with either of those issues rationally or efficiently. It’s moral, not policy. “Impure” people who enter our “pure” nation are evil and must be thown out so we continue to have the favour of our deity (I refuse to write capital-g god here out of respsect for actual, loving Christian doctrine, as rare as it is). You deal with moral violations with exile and shame, not with compassion, wisdom, and welcoming.

Trump doesn’t even get that deep. “How does this play in the ratings? (and secondarily, how do I look?)” That’s it. It’s why he likes Mamdani in person—he gets ratings.

No, they don’t want any immigration, except from white South Africa apparently.

Wilson expressed deep regret about parts of his vote. “There are some things I regret about voting for President Trump? Yes, a hundred percent. Trade policy is one of them… I wish it hadn’t have turned out that way.” Even so, he said given the choices on the ballot, he still would have voted for Trump—reflecting a dilemma felt by many in rural America.

And there you go. “The other stuff” is more important than their own business. I’m willing to forgive a certain amount of being on the wrong side of history once they’ve seen the consequences of their actions, decided that they were wrong, and started the work to repair. But double down? Now you’re saying you actually want this.

I… did not notice the community…

SOLID often comes up against YAGNI (you ain’t gonna need it).

What makes software so great to develop (as opposed to hardware) is that you can (on the small scale) do design after implementation (i.e. refactoring). That lets you decide after seeing how your new bit fits in whether you need an abstraction or not.

If China is okay with the sale that means it’s not good for the US. Danger, Will Robinson, danger!

Oh, I hope she doesn’t run for President yet. It would be a waste of her talent. Not that I think she’d do a bad job (considering the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.) but I don’t think the electorate in the US is ready for her yet, and I think she has a lot she can contribute legislatively. I hope she unseats Schumer though. That’s not only within reach but very doable.

It’s almost like he’s a fully fledged, complex human being and not an avatar of one side of a highly simplified model of political thought.

He’s quite “left-wing” (from a US Overton Window) on most issues. MTG was relatively early speaking out for Palestine. That doesn’t make her a leftist, either

Rock and Stone, brother.

Deep Rock Galactic’s great game design has caused it to grow one of the most positive, supportive communities in online gaming, IMO. While problematic players do exist, they are the exception rather than the rule.

“Let them eat cake” - Ghislane Maxwell, probably.

You’re good. :)

People are hurt right now, and hurt mammals respond defensively (universally AFAIK). Without pretending to understand what’s going on in your life right now, I want to let you know that I see you. I’m sure your anger is justified.

And if you think I’m preaching from some pulpit, I’m not. I am using writing this reply to avoid engaging in a situation that has a good chance of triggering some of my own recent trauma. I’m also not someone who uses the word “trauma” in the recent pop-psych sense. I mean it in a clinical sense.

Even though I disagree with some of what you’re saying and believe it is counter-productive to the end goals that I think we share (assumption based on your comments), I don’t think you’re a monster. You deserve the space to be angry and to express that, as does everyone.

If you’re willing, I’m interested to learn how I could better express my position succinctly without crossing into the rhetoric that you have read as close to fascism. That’s not who I am trying to be and I would like to learn how to do that better. No obligation. I already appreciate your willingness to engage in good faith.

(working on response to other comment, but it’s more nuanced)

We don’t have to forgive, but mocking (at first) doesn’t help IMO…

Yeah, but we’re on round 3 for people listening to trump’s campaigns.

Brainwashing is effective. Capital control of mass-media is effective. I would prefer we focused our attention there rather than on the victims of that propaganda.

Honestly, it’s gone so badly the last 3 rounds

But if someone genuinely sees the light after the third round, and their first interaction as they’re coming to this realization is to be told that the tragedy that has befallen their family is their own fault… not a great feeling.

There’s going to be a round 4, 5, 6, etc. of this shit in the US. There will be other versions of this in other countries, too. The more ppl we successfully deprogram after each round of fascist betrayal, the fewer ppl will be vulnerable to the propaganda the next time. It’s a never ending job because we keep making new people and the fascists will always be doing propaganda.

I really think we ought to have a basic “in touch with reality test”

I’m frustrated with the incompetence of many people, too. It would be awesome if we could construct some kind of system that would ensure people are well informed before voting.

I fear any such system wouldn’t pass the “would I let the fascists do this” test. There is no system involving a test that we can create that they couldn’t co-opt to e.g. make a test requiring Christian Nationalist answers. Societal systems need to be made robust against corruption and constantly defended against the same. We can’t rely on good people always being in charge, but if we build our systems well, we can get good people in charge more often and weather the storm when we don’t.

Fully agree with you, and touché on the glib use of the quote. I wasn’t trying to invoke the full depth of Nietzsche. I’m merely cautioning against crossing the line between condemning disgusting actions and labeling the people themselves as disgusting. I’m appealing to humility and humanity: a recognition that we aren’t inherently “better” than the worst of them. In order to be different from them, we have to act differently.

We don’t have to agree, we don’t have to sympathize, but failing to see their humanity no matter how unconscionable their actions blurs the line between us and them, and that’s a line I prefer to keep as clear as possible.

I am curious what you see in my comment that is “libshit”, though. I don’t personally see how the invocation of human rights and dignity is liberalism by any reading.

I recognise that no one here was antagonizing this person, but this genre of Schadenfreude is getting quite popular. While it is satisfying, it isn’t effective at achieving the goal of change. (I’m assuming that we agree that change is a more important goal than satisfaction).

If you only antagonize the worst of the worst and your filter for that is perfect my comment wasn’t directed at you.

I also agree that if you can establish that they are unrepentant/shameless, then the tactics you refer to (social othering, etc.) are more likely to be effective.

I think your final paragraph makes my point, though. Even in the relative electoral college “landslide” of the 2024 election, a small percentage of votes in the right states would have changed the outcome of the presidential election. If we target that small fraction of regretful voters and welcome them to the side of justice (without absolving them of their prior transgression, but also without mockery), that can tip the scales.

I am trying to encourage you and others here to keep the eyes on the prize: change. We do that by winning hearts and minds. We can’t win hearts and minds when we ostracize as our FIRST move.

(Once you find out that they’re shameless, no argument from me)