Kalbear

It absolutely is, especially one that sidelines you for an extended period of time like he was. History doesn't mean that they're perennially injured; it means they have an injury, and that likely means that that part of them is going to be weaker and more prone to issues. That the injury required surgery is an even worse sign. I wouldn't be worried about him not starting all that much - being on Georgia means you won't get a ton of shots given the rest of the talent there. I would be worried about an offensive lineman having ankle surgery.

An injury history for an OL is not at all a good sign. It's one of the best ways to determine how successful an OL will be in the league.

Huh. I took it as exactly the opposite - IE, we don't have other cues to gauge sentience, so we must only take them at their word, and if we don't believe them then that's our fault. My point is that it is not sufficient at all and that it isn't a matter of them being convincing; it's just not a valid test whatsoever to have them 'tell us' when they're sentient.

I think I've already answered the latter - they do, often, end up talking to each other when put into an environment where they can, and they end up doing really scary things like inventing their own weird languages. In terms of curiousity and whatnot - that's another odd one to hang sentience on given a whole lot of humans will absolutely be taught to not show that. Thanks, @fionwe1987, this is more of what I was getting at. You cannot measure sentience by the language outputs themselves. You need to observe the other state changes simultaneously. Expressing curiosity or anger or sadness is not enough.

I don't think this is accurate. It is a manifest of learned patterns of self worth/awareness. It can be trained just as any other thing can be. You can ask ChatGPT to behave like an aggrieved spouse or act insulted and it'll do so, convincingly. For a couple months it famously had some problems where it was both more inaccurate and more snarky than usual as well. Emotionally-laced dialogues and communication is not at all hard to simulate given enough pattern matching, which we absolutely have in spades thanks to social media.

Why? Or rather, why is getting angry a sign of sentience? In that case it's certainly true Chat GPT has already shown that, and Grok absolutely does because it's a super douchey chatbot. They're not, true, but my point is that none of them are particularly demonstrable by use of language any more. Or if they are, ChatGPT and their like already have mastered them.

Ukraine is pulling the Abrams out of front line duty because their niche is not sustainable while there are so many good drones out there. https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-war-abrams-tanks-19d71475d427875653a2130063a8fb7a

Are those how you gauge sentience? Interesting. My point is that the ability to argue or Eben produce language at all has been shown to be incredibly not the proof of sentience we thought it was. If you ask chatgpt to act like it needs to convince you of sentience it will do a decent job of it, right now! As it turns out LLMs are so good at acting like humans because it's likely that's how we use language too. It isn't thought out carefully or artfully decided, it's just words coming after the next word towards some goal. Them telling us - or us believing them - is not sufficient as a Turing test.

Yeah, it's gonna be remarkable how amazingly those guys will play on another team in 3 years time

This, by the way, is inaccurate. It's true if you only look at one specific program (to a point) but if you model systems as competing and cooperating sets of algorithms you end up being just fine. Basically both are true if you are assuming computers must provide a solution that is 100% true and accurate. Programs don't have to do this.

Why should we believe them?

We almost certainly won't unless we develop significantly better testing methodologies. Because right now doing things like LLM have shown our speech and communication isn't actually that sophisticated.

That would have hit harder if you had actually read what I said instead of ignoring it or if you had read what I said instead of what Ran interpreted it as. But keep on assuming I'm saying those specific people are fooled but I'm not, or even that I had a single thing to say about being misled. It is as you say significantly easier to dismiss a point when you ignore it and substitute your own point that you can rebut instead.

Shit you're on to me

Because I have friends who are trans. Probably not a lot more than that, honestly. Didn't say I wasn't! To be clear I'm not saying that you can't have rational viewpoints on something, only that you care more about something because of those marketing hooks. This isn't the same as following something blindly because other people are telling you to, exactly; it's that you are more engaged about certain things because of these manipulations. And that, in turn, makes it more likely for you to make less rational decisions because they are triggering your moral responses. But no, I don't claim to be an island of rationality in a vacuum. I only claim that there are specific reasons why such an incredibly minor issue - of trans people in professional sports, of which there is maybe 1 if you look kinda sideways at it - causes such an emotional reaction in people to restrict those specific people's ability to participate, and that's because it plays into some of liberal's natural biases. Again, there is a difference between taking the spoon-fed narratives that sides are giving you (which is what I think you think I'm talking about) and having a visceral and emotional response to specific arguments because of your moral leanings. Ultimately it's something I'm constantly thinking about, and I'm sure I get it wrong some times. Something I do regularly is that if I see myself reacting strongly to something - especially something really positive - I deliberately step back from it and pause significantly before responding or engaging. I don't know everyone does that, and more importantly I don't know a whole lot of people are conscious of how specific things may engage them more than others.

I didn't say that, but thanks! No, it's important to understand why this issue in particular might be especially important to you. And one of the reasons is that it triggers your moral outrage around fairness. This is the same principles behind things like sharing false stories or getting engagement on social media or any number of things. I absolutely believe that you feel fairness is an important issue, possibly one of the most important things you personally can consider. The trick is that other people know that too. And they will absolutely use that to get you engaged. And it isn't a vast conspiracy; it's just marketing. Marketing people understand these viewpoints either directly or effectively via testing of messages. They do revisions of the messaging all the time along with opinion tests, and then they hit on things that affect more people the way they want to. Do you think they don't? Do you think that every Republican out there harping on the fairness of athletics for women vs trans women happened in a vacuum, and they all just magically came to that conclusion? How do you think that Republicans get their talking points?

Yet it's crucial to make this a major issue? Oh, I don't think that people like you are thinking about it that cynically, but I'm far more confident that the folks who are framing these attacks at the higher levels are doing this. They might not be studying Haidt et al, but they'll be doing it this way because their focus groups and studies indicate that this messaging is more effective at getting more people involved than doing other things. That's just the nature of these kinds of attacks. They aren't coming organically from the world; the trans attacks are part of a coordinated, well-funded effort. ETA: the other aspect of it that we were talking about before - the puberty blockers - is another good one that tends to trigger liberals real well, the notion of causing harm. Another masterful technique to get more people on board.

My favorite part of the above is that anyone who actually carries out that order or facilitates that order can (by the defense counsel's viewpoint) be tried and convicted without any other requirements, including officials who can be impeached. But the president cannot. Very weird, that.

I think the problem is that there are several people who are questioning this topic in many ways who are acting precisely like a transphobe. As an example, recommending segregation when there are a crazy amount of ways to allow for people to participate is clearly not questioning this topic in 'any' way; it's clearly siding with the notion that you simply don't want that person to be part of the group. And maybe that's not transphobic directly, but it is exactly what transphobes are proposing. Also, I don't really think that the actual problem is that people who question this are labeled as transphobic. I think that the problem is that a whole lot of trans people are getting the message that they are not welcome in basic parts of society, and a whole lot of those people are looking at allies who are also throwing them out because of concerns of 'fairness'. The labeling is not nearly the actual problem. I'll also note the cleverness of framing this in terms of fairness. For most conservatives simply being able to block folks because they're trans is more than enough from a purity/ingroup perspective, but liberals famously favor fairness. Doing this argument this way means many liberals will then be real concerned about restricting people's access in terms of being fair.

Okay, but that is literally what the other proposals have been about. And the Olympics/world championships for all the sports out there already have ways to deal with this if they need to, and in fact have already done so in one case (and even that was shitty). So what is the problem?

Sure, but those dictations were to add inclusion, not to add exclusion. Note that when the government has stepped in and said things need to change it was to give athletes either more rights (like the NCAA with NIL) or more access (like Title IX). I'm fine if the government wants to make things more expansive, but there are a very, very scant few cases where the government stepped in to regulate a sport, and none that I can find that restricted athlete access.

Eh. I don't think you need that. I don't think you need the rules governing FIFA to apply to rec league soccer. I don't think you need Olympic rules to govern high school diving. I think that at MOST you can take what @karaddin said as the base point and then rule on case by case basis as you go, because the actual amount of people affected is so small that individual judgments can be reasonable. You absolutely do not need to make a blanket condemnation of it or a blanket restriction based on hypotheticals, especially across all sports. And you really, really don't need to create a separate league or set of leagues for sports as a response. And yeah, you might get results that aren't fair to some people. Which is true all the time. Especially in sports. You'll also get some results that are MORE fair to some people.

What can I say, I'm fuckin awesome

Trump apparently also said as much, that he's somewhat worried about RFK.

I think you can do that, and until you really are having an issue you absolutely should. There is nothing that stops these sport bodies from making very fast rules. In fact they've already done so in other cases that don't involve trans athletes. This isn't constitutional law, it's fucking high school sports and in a few cases small niche sporting events. More importantly I don't think that as a rule sports needs legislation about fairness whatsoever. That's entirely up to those sports leagues. If you need the government to step in and set rules about sporting it should be for either the commercial aspects or literal cases of breaking the law (like Larry Nassar). Why should the government get involved? What is so critical that any government needs to dictate how a sports league of any size runs their system?