The subjects that you can’t even bring up without getting downvoted, banned, fired, expelled, cancelled etc.
Animal rights
Social Justice Warriors forcing their agenda and worldview into languages, movies, books, and games, and cancelling everyone who did something regrettable in the past.
Can I have any examples of such things?
Sure. What happened to Alec Holowka is a pretty blunt and cruel example.
I’m not a huge fan of cancel culture either, but I’ve not paid a cent to any artists’ work that I love in my whole life, so I feel I can justify my position by holding up my hands and saying “hey, I don’t fund their lifestyle. Never have, never will.”
Well, if you actually ever support someone, and they appear to be a bad person, you should know you paid them for their art style adding to not knowing they were a bad person, so you’re not actually guilty. Also, even that person deserves a possibility to become better and start over, and thus, they shouldn’t be cancelled. That’s what we both know, am I right?
If they’ve sincerely expressed a change of heart, then maybe
Okay.
but I’ve not paid a cent to any artists’ work that I love in my whole life
I doubt this. Have you ever consumed any form of media? Did you pay for it? Movies, games, television, music, nothing?
Yes, no, and for all of that: no.
If anything, that was just an answer to the topic question, I don’t have anything about anyone’s human rights. Ah, by the way, I forgot! Of course! What I said also includes the necessity to explicitly state your words aren’t deliberately harmful if they can be seen as such by someone. (Again, it’s just an answer to the topic, I don’t bear any harmful intentions to anyone.)
Digital piracy not being an immoral crime (or crime at all) and not making one a horrible person.
For what it’s worth, I’ve personally never found it controversial to talk about in person. And this includes in countries where it’s a prosecuted crime.
Copying is not theft, artificial scarcity in the digital world is a tragedy, and I intentionally avoid paying middle-men distributors (like streaming services and record companies) for art.
I don’t think this one should be as controversial as it is.
Well, it is controversial, unfortunately. I never understood the logic behind calling piracy a theft, because nothing actually gets stolen, only copied.
Communism & Palestine
“I’ve asked ChatGPT about xyz” , and “how to use chatGPT for xyz” in my experience gets me downvotes fast.
People are quick to presume you have no ability to fact check anything and that you will be following its advice blindly, (which mind you - you were never asking for in the first place) instead of asking a human, ever ( for example about medical conditions but not limited to that topic). People presume you are trying to eliminate the human factor out of the equation completely and are quick to remind you of your sins, god forbid you ever use a chatbot to test ideas, ask for a summary on a topic so you can expand your research later or get creative with it in any way. If you do, most people don’t like to know.
and are quick to remind you of your sins
On the other hand, it’s totally cool and good to drag around a big cross of contrarianism in a totally-not-self-righteous way because your treat printers were criticized, amirite?
ChatGPT is awful for the environment and should not be used
If you have fact-checked it, why not just say that wherever you did that is where you got the answer from? People are right to be skeptical of “ChatGPT says so”, and if you’ve used it as the start of your research rather than as your entire research then just saying “I asked ChatGPT” is no different to “I googled it”, and nobody would much like you saying that either. How you found the information is less important than where you found it.
This are precisely the kind of presumptions people make. I’m never making an argument “because ChatGPT says so”. And yes you are absolutely right - chatbot answers are on par with search engine results if not even less reliable in occasions. My point is that I’m not using any of the information as evidence, counterpoints or even advice. People take a stand as if I were.
For example, once I asked ChatGPT about a sensation I feel on my skin after heavy exercise, because googling didn’t give me satisfactory results. GPT didn’t either, but it gave me a list of close matches. The sensation itself was never a problem for me, never something I intended to change, was never something I would consider going to a doctor for and if I never knew what was causing it my life would carry on just the same. I was simply curious. And out of curiosity I asked here, and the majority of the answers were “you shouldn’t be asking to randoms online, how dare you”, “this is a question for a doctor, don’t ask for medical advice to a chatbot” - both stances baffled me. Never in my post I said anything that suggested I was in pain, discomfort, or that I wanted to change anything about it, or that I was expecting people to tell me how to make it go away- nothing. I just wanted to know what it was, period. People presume.
I think the bigger problem is that each answer it gives basically destroys a forest
Okay that’s a valid point and one so far nobody comes up with. Congrats
To be fair: “For each answer it gives”, nah. You can run a model on your home computer even. It might not be so bad if we just had an established model and asked it questions.
The “forest destroying” is really in training those models.
Of course at this point I guess it’s just semantics, because as long as it gets used, those companies are gonna be non-stop training those stupid models until they’ve created a barren wasteland and there’s nothing left…
So yeah, overall pretty destructive and it sucks…
Training a model takes more power than what? Generating a single poem? Using it to generate an entire 4th grade class’s essays? To answer all questions in Hawaii for 6th months? What is the scale? The break even point for training is far far less than total usage.
Have you ever used one locally? Depending on your hardware it’s anywhere between glacially to a morgue’s AC slow. To the average person on the average computer it is nearly unusable, relative to the instant gratification of the web interface.
That gives you a sense of the resources required to do the task at all, but it doesn’t scale linearly. 2 computers aren’t twice as fast as one. It’s logarithmic. With diminishly returns. In the end, this means one 100 word response uses the equivalent of 3 bottles of water.
How many queries are made per hour? How does that scale over time with increased usage of the same model? More than training a model. A lot more.
Yeah you make a really good point there! I was perhaps thinking too simplistically and scaling from my personal experience with playing around on my home machine.
Although realistically, it seems the situation is pretty bad because freaky-giant-mega-computers are both training models AND answering countless silly queries per second. So at scale it sucks all around.
Minus the terrible fad-device-cycle manufacturing aspect, if they’re really sticking to their guns on pushing this LLM madness, do you think this wave of onboard “Ai chips” will make any impact on lessening natural resource usage at scale?
(Also offtopic but I wonder how much a sweet juicy exploit target these “ai modules” will turn out to be.)
It’s really opaque. We won’t know the environmental impact right away. Part of the larger problem is, while folks like you and I make a sizable impact, it’s nothing compared to enterprise usage at scale. Every website, app, and operating system with an AI button makes it even easier for users to interface with AI leading to more queries. Not only that, those queries and responses are collected and used to further make queries.
Should the usage of AI stay stable, improved hardware would decrease carbon output. We should be cautious coming to that conclusion. What is more likely is that increased efficiency will lead to increased usage. Perhaps at an accelerated rate with the anticipation of even more technological breakthroughs down the line.
All that said, I’m really not a doomer. It’s important we all consider the cost of our choices. The way I see it, we are all going to die eventually. I’m old enough it will probably be from something else.
I think the bigger problem is that each answer it gives basically destroys a forest
That, and it’s filling once-useful search engines with useless and even dangerous gibberish.
Yeah, that’s a big one. Search engines had been getting worse, but the decline was turbocharged after all the LLM hype. Search engines are practically unusable now
LLMs, in their primary and most common uses, are planet-burning trash, but the important thing is the contrarian in this thread found a way to feel superior to those that don’t like when material conditions get worse.
well then its all been worth it
approaching literally any ideology from first principals
Oh good one!
I fucking hate React. It’s slow, verbose, and unpleasant to work with. It’s all the worst parts of Java brought over to JavaScript. That being said, it’s still better than Angular.
I wouldn’t mind switching to alternative libraries like Svelte or Solid but can’t imagine going back to plain Javascript for complex applications. It’s a pain in the ass, even with jQuery.
I use Svelte, and I love it. Although I’m not a huge fan of the new Runes syntax. It’ll probably grow on me though.
I think what started me down the anti-React path was realizing that there were other frameworks out there that don’t even use a virtual dom. Plus you get tired of being told that the most obvious and intuitive way to do various things in React actually goes against some best practice that they’ve established.
Angular my beloved…
What’s wrong with it if I may ask?
There’s so much boilerplate to even do the most simple tasks. And that boilerplate is something that could usually be automatically added by a compiler.
That kind of stuff often introduces footguns.
All drugs should be legal and regulated.
Is it worth it, drug warriors? All the unnecessary deaths at the hands of police/gangs/cartels and unregulated drugs of a unknown potency? Was it worth sacrificing all our civil liberties on the vain funeral pyre that is the United States of America?
When humanity is victorious in the drug war and all drugs are legalized, will drug users criminalize sobriety?
Will people high as fuck demand everyone to piss in a plastic cup to make sure they are high?
Will drug users ruin sober people’s lives with felonies and time in prison with hardened criminals?
Will drug users dissolve civil liberties and prop up a bipartisan police state that gives cops a license to kill?
NO!
Who would want to do that to someone? To a fellow human for doing what they want with their own bodies? Prohibitionists… that’s who. And we are not them
Nothing lasts forever drug warriors. Tick tock. We will be free one day, and you will wail and moan and your cries will fall on deaf ears.
Get fucked prohibitionists. Feel fortunate we want justice, not retribution.
Now playing The War on Drugs - Red Eyes
I know it’s very on the nose and has other themes in it. But the root cause is all the same. Reagan. This is the song I thought of reading the post:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lIqNjC1RKU
I don’t necessarily agree with everything said in the song, but I think we can all agree (to quote the song) “I’m glad Reagan dead”.
Is this not a relatively mainstream belief?
Very much not the case, no
But jobs
They’ve caused a lot of damage though restricting access would likely help with that. (Things like this usually get quite a few downvotes in my experience tbh so maybe it goes both ways)
My pretty spontaneous solution compromise would be to legalize more things but keep them well regulated to avoid addiction and transition to similar regulations for already legal drugs. This seems like a solution that more people would be happy with. Obviously there would need to be help for people already addicted at least for drugs with similar withdrawal symptoms as alcohol.
gun rights
Is it though? As long as one is relatively reasonable. There’s even gun communities here, even if they’re pretty dead at the moment. Time for me to come up with some memes maybe.
I guess so, it’s just that if I say I support the right to own a gun, I get downvoted in most communities
Yeah, in heavily left-wing spaces guns give people the wigglies. Even if it’s not rights, the general fact we live in a world with them is something people try to memory hole.
You and I define “heavily left-wing” quite differently then. The far-left has always supported gun rights and armed struggle. It’s the political centre and parts of the right that are blanket anti-gun.
We probably do. Far-left spaces are their own thing, and are almost always labeled as such since it’s a tiny, insular group.
Happened to me once. Nearly killed my desire to discuss firearms here on Lemmy. Not sure if this is true, but I feel that most people on Lemmy are likely anti-gun. Maybe the more liberal mindset of many people in the wider open source community has some part in it. Either way, I just want to dispel all the false claims about guns and their ownership. And some don’t want to hear it.
Eugenics, or creating better humans with the wisdom not to trash the planet and constantly risk the final nuclear war. With new, more powerful weapons being invented every century, we may not be able to survive without eugenics, because when a single sociopathic dictator can afford an Earth-ending weapon, one of them will use it.
Eugenicists are the only people who should be barred from reproduction tbh
The assignment was to state a topic. Not advocate for it.
I agree with you but only on Eugenics being automatically downvoted. Look, I did it!
The funny thing is that a lot of those problems are better attributed to society/culture/education than genetics or biology, since it’s people that vote/support other people. Unless you can somehow breed out psychopaths, and whatever makes people willing to sacrifice the collective for personal gain, from the human species, eugenics won’t do shit.
Eugenics isn’t a stupid idea on the face of it, but then you look at where our dog breeding has gone…
The good news is that humans are pretty adaptable already. The only things that really definitely could sink us are our inability to react to very abstract, gradual problems and our tribalism.
Without dog breeding, dogs would be still be wolves.
It’s pretty unclear how much of the breeding 30000BC-1500AD was deliberate, and how much was just a kind of selection as people decided to eat their naughtiest dog when famine came. I’m talking about the highly-targeted breeding that brought us the pug unable to breath and German shepherds with back legs that stick out wrong because it looks cool.
Also, wolves are pretty good at what they do, I’m not sure it’s fair to say they’re worse than dogs somehow.
Breeding unhealthy dogs could be called dysgenics. It’s like breeding better slaves instead of better humans.
Wolves are good, evolution worked. Pet dogs are extra lives producing added value to themselves and their owners.
Yeah, well what I’m saying is we’d do that to ourselves too; we’re not to be trusted with our own biology. Not yet, at least.
Eugenics is the single stupidest idea in human history. To advocate for it now is to deny biology and history.
It relies on the same misunderstanding of evolution that underpins ‘great replacement theory’.
The only place with eugenics in human history is agriculture. There were many genocides done using eugenics as an excuse with no clue of genetics, and you blame eugenics instead of the murderers.
We have gene editing now, so it’s only a matter of cost when parents start customising their babies, which is a good thing because human variability will increase, making us as a species more resistant to unknown threats.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Paedophilia as a sickness, especially non-offending paedos.
I chalk this up to not having a word to describe folks suffering from the condition as opposed to predators acting on their condition (or even predators just abusing children regardless of attraction). For a ton of people they use the word pedophile to mean someone who sexually abuses children. Because as soon as nuanced discussion about “pedophiles who don’t abuse kids” come up, people accuse you of “defending pedophiles” but they use it to mean “defending people who abuse children.”
I’d call it a cultural artifact. We used to get married very young. In some cultures the kids are introduced to sex by the grandparents. And of course in our own culture the ideal of sexy beauty is a supermodel who looks like a 13 year old boy. It’s a whirlwind wrapped in a psychosis for sure.
People of color seem to perform amazing in athletics compared to other races in America (see: American football, basketball). Makes me think that Americans hyper-evolved their slaves by selective breeding. Unfortunate and extremely unethical, but maybe possible? Idk.
That breeding programme called natural selection is what got us all here.
It’s possible it’s for other reasons, though. Black Americans are generally poorer than other Americans, and success in sports is a ticket out of poverty that is accessible to people in that position. It could also be a cultural thing; I doubt Finns are genetically predisposed to be exceptional drivers, but they are still wildly over-represented at the top level of motorsports for such a small population
I’d believe it if a good portion of black americans I’ve seen are tall and muscular, but I’d say their proportions are similar to their white american counterparts, i.e. a spectrum.
I think they just want it more, and its one of the few paths to success they have.
That actually can be explained by the slaves that used to live in the farmhouses. They were treated as an elevated status and allowed to eat more. Think like the “aunts” for the children; caretakers.
But they were exceptions, not the majority who were slaves/workers. You’d still expect a heavy selection bias for good body attributes if you sampled them at random, assuming OP’s hypothesis is true.
i think much more likely is the opposite happened. Europeans inbred themselves into infirmity and have simply yet to recover from all that nonsense fully hundreds of years later. As a pastey removed myself i can say the amount of genetic conditions i have is mind boggling. Its not that POC are especially good at sports its that white people are especially bad.
I heard that a similar breeding program happened in some African cultures back in the day. Like you could only breed if you were an alpha hunter or somesuch.
So that’s how you get a race of 7’ tall dudes
Pineapple on pizza.
Add some jalapeño as well to take it to another level
Apparently asking what people are going to do to relax after voting must be taboo, because my post got deleted without me being told why.
Did you look at the modlog? They’re open here.
The moderators have the power therefor when they do something rude it actually isn’t rude. In fact you are rude for suggesting that they are being rude, and deserve punishment.
It’s funny how power works.
Humanity deserves its face stomped by a boot forever. No easy escape with some farcical nuclear armageddon, you have to stay here and live out the horror.
I’ve seen screenshots posted of lemmy logs on other instances. Some mods seem to be quite disconnected from reality.
Tho, to be fair, we only get to see the bad stuff there. I’m sure the majority of mods is great
