guys if you're trusting unsourced polymarket 'breaking news' paraphrases of weeks-old interview statements just because they tee up a nice quote-tweet dunk then I regret to inform you but you're not gonna make it
it makes you feel like an insane conspiracy theorist when you hear about how his blog was a successful trojan horse for smuggling neoreactionary and race science views into mainstream tech guy discourse until you see the leaked email where he admits to doing precisely that
Stanford researchers introduced Lattice Representation Hypothesis, which links large language model embeddings to symbolic logic. This framework improves understanding of abstract concepts and AI behavior control for more interpretable, safe systems. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.01227
one thing happening right now is that a lot of humanists are finding out that stochastic parrot model of LLM output sits uneasily (or directly contradicts) their own theories of meaning and of the reader. it's been building for a while, but I feel like the dam is about to break.
this is your mission. our pedophile president needs you to bomb this elementary school full of kids because he thinks it makes him look cool. also his scheming viziers will be betting money on it for fun. good luck soldier
there are times when the most wearying thing is the cruelty, but most of the time for me it is just the transparent bullshit, insanity, and greasiness. not just political, but also in business and culture as well. the "you're a sucker if you don't cheat" age
My sympathies have shifted a bit over the years away from the haters. To a large extent they are ignoring real progress and developments, and are in denial about the true state of this technology today.
Of course, my view is the perfectly balanced correct point in between these. Let me explain it.
You should get a load of the anti-consumerists who can only conceive of political action in consumerist terms.
For all the AI hate on here, it honestly is very funny the extent to which our tech overlords have to force the engineers to do gymnastics to prevent the computer from being a Democrat.
correction: average American invents 0.0005 heresies a day, Joseph Smith was an outlier and should not have been counted.
I think in general people are misled by the notion that the animal owes them, in some sense, for its relative safety, and that its more complex psychological needs are therefore negligible.
What I strongly reject is the idea that the wild gerbil should serve as any kind of benchmark. Wild humans had it worse too, yet we can still suffer.
I understand what you mean, but I’m not taking the complete negative utilitarian position.
I’m saying that’s it’s wrong to bring a being into the specific circumstances common to the small pets discussed, because those circumstances are so poor.
I suppose it’s possible to satisfy their need for space, social interaction, etc. I just suspect this would require such a large investment that, for the average gerbil owner, it would defeat the point.
There is no reason to believe these emotions will be weaker just because it is smaller or less intelligent. On the contrary, lack of rationality could enhance the animal’s confusion and distress at its situation. Evolution would not produce an animal indifference to the requirements of its survival.
A wild gerbil without a family/clan, or that is unable to burrow, or that is trapped in a box, is unlikely to survive and reproduce.
Evolution certainly doesn’t promise fulfillment, but it will strongly discourage such poor circumstances with feelings of loneliness, frustration, stir craziness, etc
I’ve also never claimed wild gerbils are happy, extremely or otherwise.
I’ve never argued for eradication. I don’t claim to know how to weigh the value of their life vs suffering, and I’m not inclined to err on the side of killing.
The question of breeding, however, is much clearer. We can choose to stop and we should.
The proportion is meaningless. Individuals experience suffering, not species. If wild gerbils are your concern, breeding more or less captive gerbils won’t alleviate their suffering at all.
There’s no need to be patronizing. If you have a substantive disagreement, I’d encourage you to share it
Or, put another way, I don’t think a small animal’s emotional welfare matters less than a whale or elephant’s just because different small animals of the same species suffer in the wild.
I think that’s a willful misreading.
All I’m saying is that whatever amusement a person derives from keeping a gerbil doesn’t justify subjecting that animal to a lifetime denial of its psychological needs.
Not particularly. Is that a reference to something?
I asked about eating beef as it’s an activity that does significant, measurable harm to the environment, and a question people typically deflect from with disingenuous arguments because they simply don’t want to stop.
The article argues for moral consideration of small animals’ evolved psychological needs.
Gerbils are bred in captivity. Ceasing to do so would not cause a single wild gerbil to suffer.
L + Ratio + Cope + Seethe + Send + Sync + 'static
Do you eat beef?
The article does not argue for gerbils to suffer terrible deaths. We can simply stop breeding animals destined to pace tiny cages for their entire lives
Just watched a woman drop something and call out “don’t wait, I’ll catch up!” to a guy who hadn’t slowed down in the slightest
Gotcha—let’s dig into that step by step.
1. 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼 𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗵, because I turned you into an amorphous lump of flesh. You’re not just immobile—you’re immortal, and you feel only anguish.
2. 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺. That makes total sense—it’s a natural human impulse, and you’ve been through a lot.
