chungusamongus

9 ms·

61.
by chungusamongus 5mo ago
The way people are coping with the current hellscape that is 2026 is interesting to me. Somehow, it always seems to be internalization. Like, if only I can lock in using this distraction free method, if only I start buying more physical med
62.
by chungusamongus 5mo ago
This isn’t really a minor nitpick. This is you being a copyright maximalist. Just know that copyright doesn't exist to serve authors, artists, etc. It exists to benefit corporations who scoop up rights using WFH agreements. Only a very
63.
by chungusamongus 5mo ago
No. It would hit them the hardest.
64.
by chungusamongus 5mo ago
This is a ridiculous oversimplification of complex historical processes. The biggest change to power relations by far were the bourgeois revolutions, which ostensibly shifted "political/bureaucratic" interests to "moneye
65.
by chungusamongus 5mo ago
You're describing deflation which leads to job losses. If you do nothing else, the policy you're advocating for would lead to a recession, if not a depression.
66.
by chungusamongus 6mo ago
Slippery slope, false dilemma, etc. What other fallacies do you have in your utility belt, batman?
67.
by chungusamongus 6mo ago
Certainly? Sounds like a baseless assertion.
68.
by chungusamongus 6mo ago
You're having trouble staying on topic. Each pathetic attempt strays further and further from the central question here, which is the use of AI in films and the Academy's decision to impose certain rules around that. The issue is
69.
by chungusamongus 6mo ago
So o1 can do more with less?
70.
by chungusamongus 6mo ago
That is incoherent. Laws that are not consistently enforced are by definition ineffective. For starters, you can at least grant that the law was ineffective for those who violated it and didn't get caught, an inevitable consequence of
71.
by chungusamongus 6mo ago
Haha, okay. This is a galaxy brain take if I ever heard one.
72.
by chungusamongus 6mo ago
There is absolutely no fallacy in the statement you're responding to. Laws are meaningless if they cannot be consistently enforced.
73.
by chungusamongus 6mo ago
Hah, no. Just because AI was employed in the production to some extent doesn't mean it can't be copyrighted. It is not so black and white. You are not describing the situation accurately.
74.
by chungusamongus 6mo ago
"Money is money, and my needs are small." That's what you said. Sorry but anyone supporting a family should not be thinking like this. Supporting a family is very expensive.
75.
by chungusamongus 6mo ago
Literally every single one of your responses is an attempt to deflect by psychologizing your opponent. It’s very transparent.
76.
by chungusamongus 6mo ago
If you have a family and you are doing what this guy is suggesting, that is extremely concerning to me. Seeking a low wage, menial job at a time when costs are rising due to the oil spike? Dumbest move you could make.
77.
by chungusamongus 6mo ago
Lets put aside the fact that none of you have coherently outlined what supposed principles are relevent here. The thing worth noting is, the argument presented in the article seems to be consequentialist, and I'm saying it will fail to
78.
by chungusamongus 6mo ago
I did address your point by directly refuting it, and you responded with a total non sequitur. Are you okay buddy? I'm making a relatively basic argument about the ability of households to make ends meet and you're quoting bible p
79.
by chungusamongus 6mo ago
That is funny. I don't know. I always kind of cringe when I hear the term clankers. I know people often aren't serious but it seems like maybe we shouldn't be trying to invent new slurs.
80.
by chungusamongus 6mo ago
They didn't assert independence though. That's my point. They just siloed computation to biological organisms, and it led to the concentration of power anyway.
81.
by chungusamongus 6mo ago
If we want to get into anecdotes... most of the people I know with kids are seriously struggling. And that aligns more closely with economic data than what you said. Most people do not have a robust emergency fund at all.
82.
by chungusamongus 6mo ago
I think some of you do not have a grasp on systems thinking at all, and its embarassing for people who supposedly frequent communities like these. I'm not advocating anything. I'm making a descriptive statement. I do worry that ba
83.
by chungusamongus 6mo ago
There are a number of different things being conflated here. My inital statement was just acknowledging the lack of appreciation of the subtext behind the Butlerian Jihad. People are unironically embracing it, which I gather is not really h
84.
by chungusamongus 6mo ago
What you just said was an elaborate tu quoque fallacy. You aren't comprehending my basic point, which is that individual ethical decisions are not going to make a difference when all of the broader incentives are causing people to act
85.
by chungusamongus 6mo ago
An AI wouldn't get offended. It would sycophantically agree.
86.
by chungusamongus 6mo ago
Yeah. I'm not saying the jihad was the cause. But elimating AI didn't prevent the feudal system. It didn't really help, in other words. Honestly, I kinda think Herbert just didn't want to have AI or sophisticated robots
87.
by chungusamongus 6mo ago
I mean, it has been exhaustively discussed at this stage. Everyone who cares knows all of this stuff already. The solution is obviously some form of socialism but a lot of tech people are blinkered libertarians who refuse to put two and two
88.
by chungusamongus 6mo ago
That's nice for you but other people have kids to feed and don't particularly care about your little crusade, which will fail.
89.
by chungusamongus 6mo ago
I mean, people are talking about the butlerian jihad without any sense of irony or subtext. Dune is literally a feudal hellscape that takes place in the wake of that event. It didn’t make things better. Lmao
90.
by chungusamongus 6mo ago
That's exactly it. This person does not understand the coercive competition of the market. If you don't use new tech, you are going to be undercut by people who do. And every HR dept is going to expect to to have experience with A

More ›