fionwe1987

Be prepared for "It will never happen". Because if it could, perhaps then the full throated defense of Israel's actions, and the supposed moral rectitude of its military we've heard about would need to be reexamined. And the cognitive dissonance of that is too much. So you'll continue to hear denials of this, which, of course, will only enable the dumbfucks who want this.

This isn't true. It really isn't "searching" for anything. While AI can and does reproduce its training text, sometimes, it isn't working by indexing and retrieving that text. Fundamentally, this iteration of AI is great at observing patterns, then recreating similar (but not identical) patterns when prompted. Its just good at predicting the next word in a growing chain of words based on the chains of words it was trained on. That's definitely nothing like the Google Search algorithm, which is actually more precise and reliable, and makes up shit a lot less.

While this iteration of AI is most definitely not sentient, it is artificial, and possesses some intelligence, so I'm fine with it being called AI. Whether we ever will, or want to, get to artificial sentience is a whole other question. Maybe we'll stumble upon it by accident... but I don't think current architectures are anywhere close to that. As others have pointed out, the biggest risks that seem real are half-baked AI implementations in opaque systems like job matching, crime fighting, etc. And also the fact that we've now made it possible for junk, polarizing content to be produced at scale at exponentially cheaper costs. I think the most useful take on AI I've seen is from Ted Chiang, who said our greatest fears about AI are actually fears about capitalism. And what this iteration of AI does, is solve optimization problems in a way eerily reflected in the short-term profit optimizing way capitalism works. Its that combo that haunts my dystopian nightmares, not AI taking over the world and nuking us all. All that said, the use of these systems in medicine is something I've been working on. Again, harnessed to blind profit seeking, this can get dystopian, but enabling precision medicine at scale in a way that allows better treatment for more people is genuinely something AI can enable... in the right hands.

Thought it would be nice to have a thread to discuss it. For me personally, AI, its issues, and fears of what its introduction can do to society dominate my thoughts quite a lot. I'm not quite a doomer, but I can see so many pathways to doom, of one kind or another. So what does everyone here think? Do you use it already? Find it overwhelming and unreliable? Do you think these systems are more hype than reality? Do you see this leading to a good future, or the dystopian nightmares science fiction has so richly imagined?

Perhaps yes, since that's about the number of times you demanded the rest of us affirm that Hamas was a piece of shit? No, you have been far from nuanced, and have insinuated antisemitism multiple times when issues with Israel's actions have been brought up. When you say "this war" what exactly are you referring to?

There seems to be an attempt at this narrative that anything unpalatable about Israel is entirely the fault of external actors and external pressures. All positive things, though, are because Israel is a lovely democratic country, an island of progress among the uncivilized Arabs. Gee, I wonder where that kind of language comes from.

And since these new cells were definitely born in the US, no more Birtherism!

No it is not. It will be scary bad if you see these numbers around August next year, when the choice is closer, and the electorate has been saturated with information. Right now, this reflects the fact that Biden is a dissatisfactory candidate. And on his own, doesn't drum up much enthusiasm. But set against Trump, for an actual election? If he gets 37% of the vote, I'll eat all my shoes.

Yeah, but wow, Ed really is coming across as a total moron. Kelly is going to correctly be incensed at what he used her son for. I wonder if

Can you tell me if they've volunteered for the current bombing campaign? Have they volunteered to be driven from their homes? Then they cannot volunteer to bargain, or leave Gaza. If Gaza is rebuilt, and these refugees are resetteled, and then this bargain is proposed, they would have a chance to volunteer for it. This is definitely not Tywin's plan, since he's proposing moving them to the West Bank in (stated) part because it would apparently be cheaper than trying to rebuild Gaza, in his calculations.

Yes, and what's your point with that? Are you saying the same needs to happen before you'll countenance Palestinians remaining in Gaza? Or is there some completely incomprehensible reason you brought it up? Is this meant to be a joke? If not, I have a dinky piece of land a short flight from your current home to offer you in exchange for your place. Take the deal, then talk. You're arguing the ethnic cleansing of Gaza is the best of bad options, right? Or have you changed your position mid-post? The medical profession thanks you for not spending any more time in it, then. Your flowchart seems to be the kind the Angel of Mercy types follow.

And they won't get it if it comes at the cost of ethnic cleansing in Gaza. No I only work with cancer patients, which is full of lovely options like cotton candy or toblerone for medication. Thus, I must clearly have no clue how to work through life defining decisions full of bad options. Look, you clearly have a need to punish Palestinians. Wrap it up in as much sugary concern as you like, the actions you propose are grotesque and immoral.

You brought it up. I did not. Ready made property far from their homes, and insufficient to the significantly larger population, and one that, once again, requires ethnic cleansing. So yes, bad. Very bad. I'd prefer Isreal not bomb indiscriminately. Have I not been clear on this point. You're saying Isreal can create these base conditions of massive destruction with impunity. Then drive out these people from their home land, take over their land and expand its borders, and somehow this is a good deal for the Palestinians? You know, you're worse than the Likud idiots who want the same things. They're at least honest about not caring about Palestinians. You want to claim concern for them, while encouraging and supporting the worst actions. Its gaslighting, plain and simple, and thankfully, I don't think most of the folks in this thread, or the rest of the world, will fall for it. So since it may not happen, because of the actions and words of people like you, they should move? What kind of logic is that? One that doesn't involve ethnic cleansing.

And? What does that have to do with the specifics of the settlements in WB? Your solutions lack virtue. So it isn't just about the siginaling, it is about the morality of the actions you're proposing. And yes, the thief values his stolen property. Bug surprise. That doesn't mean the Palestinians have to give up more to get back what was stolen. Israel will definitely have to bear a big chunk of the cost of rebuilding, but I'd expect and demand the United States, Europe and the Arab states to make major contributions as well.

So you need Israel to perpetrate a Holocaust on Gazans before you will consider letting them stay in their homes? Good to know. Explain, please. Its good to get more words from you. Congrats. I think most of the board aims to be more than slightly better than Hamas. And since you're proposing a rawer deal for Palestinians that even Hamas will accept, this very low bar is now not being cleared by you. Gosh really? They wouldn't have to pay to receive back stolen land? Such magnanimity! Since one group is legally in their homes, and is being asked to move, and the other is in illegally occupied land, how kind of you to equate making them move as the same. Do you even read the crap you type before you publish it? So the only choices are that Gazans move, or we do nothing? You can grandstand that way, but that's far from the truth. Its just a particularly stinky serving of justification for ethnic cleansing.

You've said below this was meant to be playful, but if so, it didn't land. And can we not be playful and address the actual statement? There were many "practical" reasons the creation of Israel could have been dismissed as a "fantasy" too. Will you acknowledge that? That is a lot of speculation to move a lot of people from their homes. Try again. So you're somewhat better than the perpetrators of October 7th, and this is supposed to be you defending yourself now? There is no sacrifice Israel is making at the scale of moving Palestinians out of Gaza. And if there is something you drum up at that scale, the question remains, why not have both sides not do those things, instead of asking Gazans to give up their homes? Thank you.

That Israel could be created where it was was a fantastical notion too. That it became reality is because of the money effort and political will that was poured into it. That you think that effort was worth it, but think no comparable error should be made for Gazans to maintain their homes, their current land, says it all. Folks with historic connections to the land, as far back as 2000 years, settle and make a new nation? A reality to be cherished. But Muslims who want to stay where they are? Fantasy! You've made it clear Palestinian lives mean nothing to you. And that is utterly contemptible.

Thanks for bringing this up. I missed addressing this. What the Brits did is take broadly integrated communities and divided them based on religious lines. In the subcontinent, they literally had the Constituent Assembly split into Muslim majority and Hindu majority districts, for decades, to prevent political consolidation in opposition to the Raj. Then, when the whole colonial project was deemed too expensive to continue, they brought in a civil servant who had never been to India, never been to the lands he was going to divide, and gave him 5 fucking weeks to determine the borders. Similarly clueless dumbfuck civil servants we're involved in the post-Mandate border decisions. And divide and rule policies, directed at Muslims and Jews, have been extensively documented during British rule of Palestine, as well. The seeds for the "impracticality" of a One State solution were laid under the Brits. And acknowledging those harms and tactics and seeking restitution is the only way any actual solution will end up taking.

Are you under the impression we don't? I brought this up in a previous thread, showing how the British seeded and expanded religious divisions for their own gain, then when they decided the whole colony business was too expensive, they left behind death, hatred and division. Which is why colonialism and post-colonial analysis is critical to understanding what's happening here in this conflict, as well.

Fascinating. So war means do whatever the fuck you want? No one is denying Hamas started this war. That doesn't give Israel licence to indiscrimately kill civilians. There is death here and now. That this wanton destruction won't lead to stability and peace may be speculative, but that this destruction and death is illegal and immoral is not.

Chill? No. Go on a murderous rampage that kills tens of thousands of civilians, in an action that does nothing but reinforce that threat? Definitely not. You've argued that and are arguing that now. You continue to insist it is either this or doing nothing, which is utter bullshit. Yes, and listen to them from all corners, and definitely pay attention when they actually act. No one here is saying "let Hamas be". But there's a group of posters here tucking their hands in their pockets, widening their eyes and insisting that retaliating against Hamas is only possible in this awful, indiscriminate fashion, and that the other alternative is to do nothing, or chill. Fuck that noise.

No, I really am not. October 7th was less effective action to carry out Hamas's aims than what Israel has done since. Unless we're under the impression that 16000 is less than 1700. If we're disagreeing about basic math, then please let me know.

Yes, even with Hamas saying those things, Israel is more effective in actually killing and displacing Palestinians than Hamas has been in what it wants to do to Israelis. The point we're trying to make is that the awful rhetoric of Hamas doesn't justify doing unto Palestinians what Hamas wants to do to Israelis. That makes no kind of sense. If the situation were flipped in terms of military strength, yes I expect Hamas to be extracting vengeance on Israeli lives at the same scale or worse as what Israel is doing in Gaza today. And in that hypothetical, I would spend my energies condemning Hamas, not implying the Israeli's deserved such losses because some Likud lunatic had rhetoric about settling Gaza and the West Bank and running out all the "human animals".

This is no longer true. Israel is louder, in words and in actions, and in effect, when it comes to killing or displacing Palestinians.

But this fresh round of horro and humiliation and destruction is going to trump all that. The scale and recency of these acts, and the fact that this is what half of Gazan's population which is under 18 will grow up with as the main shaping moment of their lives, means that what happens now will shape what's to come. There was nothing inevitable about this. Why?