I wonder how much of that difference can be attributed to gun violence. I’m not anti gun, but few countries have gun laws as lax as the US so there’s a larger number committed by guns which may be more difficult to solve. The sale of guns themselves are not always tracked, and gun violence is something that can be done from afar and not leave as much evidence. We’re also quite a large country with very populous cities. Berlin has 3.7 million people and is the most populous EU city. NYC has over twice that. Much easier to solve crime in a town of a few hundred people than in large cities, which the US has more of.

There is an impartial principle and it’s science. Is it perfect, no, but it’s there and there’s a large community that is able to come to a consensus.

If they had your kids read a book where someone gets a vaccine and dies due to complications or where they don’t get a vaccine and get the disease and live, would you have them not read that book? Because the fact is there is no class on being gay and there’s no class on vaccines. No book they’re reading is saying “God loves gay people”. They’re saying “gay people exist”. That is true. People also die of diseases they’re vaccinated against. That’s also true. If they’re having them read a book that says not to vaccinate, they’re pushing an ideology, not spreading awareness. That’s the distinction.

Maybe you’re unaware, but if your ideological enemies are on the right, they will wield power that they were never granted against you. Conceding the truth to them is preemptive defeat. I will continue to push for facts to be taught in schools and the fact is that gay people exist, evolution is real, and some vaccinated people die anyway. None of that is ideological, it’s factual, and if you don’t want your kids to believe the facts then you’re going to have to hope your “ideology” is as convincing as the science.

I don’t think religion and faith “are the problem.” But if I’m honest, I think they’re at least a little problematic. I think anything that encourages anti scientific beliefs or principles isn’t “good” for society. I don’t know I’d go so far to say it’s “dangerous”. I think anything that allows people to create in groups and out groups is not helpful, even if it does not overtly preach harming the out group. Any time spent bonding over religion or in religious community could be spent bonding over something more practical. I know a lot of people have found help through religion, but I can’t help but think how much better off we would be if instead of finding that sense of community within a religion we found it within our actual community. Instead of a constancy in a higher power, we found it and built it up within ourselves. Maybe there is no way to frame society so that people look within themselves and their community for strength they seek a higher power for, but I believe that as long as religion exists we will never know.

I don’t think talking about a thing that goes against any individual religion should be considered protecting religion. If my religion teaches vegetarianism, can I opt out of any books where a character eats meat or hunts? Can I be exempt from learning about early humans or the food chain because it involves learning about their diet? The answer is now yes, and I think it does a huge disservice to children. Reading a book about a gay couple is not forcing you to be gay or even support homosexual relationships. It’s just showing you that gay people exist and that’s legal and some gay people have families and are happy. You can think it’s morally wrong, but it’s happening and it’s the schools job to educate children on things that are happening. I know people who were removed when evolution was discussed. They’re no longer religious, but they have this gap in understanding they now have to fill in because their parents didn’t want them to know the science. I think that’s terrible and does not help, but I support that more than the book thing because at least you can argue testing a child about evolution forces them to say things they don’t believe in whereas just reading or hearing about gay people doesn’t make you do anything.

I don’t use these services, but out of curiosity how has that gone for you? To and from the airport where you can give a heads up of at least a few days makes sense to me, but I always figured part of the allure was flexible scheduling and the location algorithm. I can’t imagine a driver would want to give their information out and possibly get a call at like 2 am to do a pickup somewhere they aren’t close to. Do they give you their general schedule and service area? Do you have a long list or do you just pay 1 or 2 well enough that they will make the trip even if they’re not actually working at that time?

I’m glad you’ve put in the work, and I’m sorry your community of men is failing you. I think it’s probably dependent on where in the country you are, but leftist political spaces have quite a few men who have put in the work. Not all of them, but that’s the only thing I can think of that doesn’t require you to have a specific interest. You’d be surprised how many fully actualized people you’ll meet volunteering somewhere, even just once a month.

I don’t see it regardless. Are you logged in? It’s possible that if your account lists your country that they just set it to always appear? I’m unfortunately not sure, but having that notice would be a huge improvement imho.

It kind of is the governments job to do that. You might not want it to be, but the government has entire regulatory bodies to protect people. You can call them delusional if you want, but plenty of people that are not experiencing mental health problems don’t understand that LLMs can lie or make up information. Lawyers have used it and it hallucinated case law. The lawyers weren’t being delusional, they just legitimately did not know it could do that. Maybe you think they’re dumb, or uninformed, but they’re just average people. I do think a disclaimer like the SG warnings would go a long way. I also think some safeguards should be in place. It should not allow you to generate child abuse imagery for example. I don’t think this will negatively impact it being able to generate your SQL queries.

My page does not say that. It’s possible that in your country, which I’m guessing is different from my country seeing as you stated guns are illegal, they already have this legislation in place. That is not the case here.

It literally is not. ChatGpt has a blank page (a la google homepage) that says “What can I help you with?” And the input field says “Ask anything”. If it said “Use this text field to play pretend” it would be at least a little better.

Thinking everything you see online is fake is bad advice. Being skeptical is important but the internet isn’t all just fake.

There is a good place to regulate it. At the input and output level. It already is regulated there. It has guardrails already. Public data AI may be more ethical, but it is not going to solve the issue. The issue is the way people are using AI and the output it produces. It seems like you might not be wholly familiar with this subject.

Every single LLM should have a disclaimer on every page and potentially in every response that it is making things up, is not sentient, and just playing mad libs. If they had a “conversation” and every response ended with “THE CONTENTS OF THE RESPONSE ARE NOT VERIFIED AND ARE ENTIRELY MADE UP ON THE SPOT FOR ENTERTAINMENT AND HAS NO RELATION TO REALITY” or some other thing it might not get as far. Would some people ignore it? Yea, sure, but the companies are selling AI like it’s a real thinking entity with a name. It’s going to happen that the marketing works on someone.

I’m not saying that’s the specific answer, but it should be made overwhelmingly clear that AI is not real right on the page. The same with AI video and audio. Education won’t help kids who haven’t had AI safety class yet, or adults who never had it, or people who slept through the class, or people who moved here and didn’t have access to the education where they grew up. Education is important, but the fact you think regulation won’t help at all seems dismissive.

Yea, that’s my point. If someone has certain tendencies, education might not help. Your solution of more education is not going to stop this. There needs to be regulation and safeguards in place like the commenter above mentioned.

Education might help somewhat, but unfortunately education doesn’t in itself protect from delusion. If someone is susceptible to this, it could happen regardless of education. A Google engineer believes an AI (not AGI just an LLM) is sentient. You can argue the definition of sentience in a philosophical manner if you want, but if a Google engineer believes it, it’s hard to argue more education will solve this. If you think it’s equivalent to a person who has access to privileged information, and that it tells you it was tasked to do harm, I’m not sure what else you should do with that.

She’s using her position to educate, raise awareness, and validate the alarm several people are feeling. This is possibly the most impactful thing she can do at the moment. She is standing up and pointing out fascism. I guess she could stay after having done that, but then you get people going “if it’s so bad then why don’t you leave?!” And then she’s at even more risk of being disappeared. She is uprooting her family and life and in the process displaying how sincerely she believes that we’re headed down the wrong path. Is she doing it for her own benefit, yea, sure, but this article imho is more impactful than her going to a protest. I’ve sent it to some of my more normie friends already because we were just talking about this and they really don’t realize how bad things are already. They think I’m fear mongering. This article might help people realize what the reality is and take direct action that they didn’t think was necessary at this point. Is it cowardly to leave? Maybe. But she didn’t have to speak out, she could have left quietly, but she chose to make a statement. That’s more than a lot of people will end up doing, regardless of if they stay or not.

I guess this section seems to indicate otherwise: “Like everyone else, you see issues in your environment - but unlike most people, you actually try to understand them and find solutions. And for that, you get nothing but pain.”

But I will take you at your word that you were more commiserating than directly agreeing. The internet in general is leading to more tribalism, sure, but I’m not seeing it any more on Lemmy than I am elsewhere. Mostly seeing it as it relates to politics. Would you mind sharing where you’re seeing that? Have you noticed specific communities or instances or topics? I follow a variety of content and it’s mostly pretty chill people with some political vitriol sprinkled in for novelty sake.

I don’t know if you’re a guy, but honestly really amazing display of allyship right here. Regardless, congrats on explaining things so succinctly. This is exactly correct.

Where’s the “sells you the cure meme” when you need it? Whoever prescribed the meds is just as capable of helping you taper off them. Weird that they didn’t note how many people abruptly stop due to change in or loss of insurance.

But their comment objectively is less productive than the “angry posts”, because their comment was against the rules and deleted and not engaged with, whereas the “angry posts” are there for the community to engage with and offer sympathy and understanding and a place to vent. It’s a kind of weird martyr complex that nobody asked for. Oh, woe is me, I got banned for breaking the rules! Why even comment in the first place if you knew it was going to be deleted? Elsewhere someone provided context that they did not comment on a “Meta” post. It was just a post complaining about how people treat the community. It was not at all soliciting advice or external opinions. They then went out of their way to break the rules and essentially prove the post right. Essentially showing that they think they are above the rules and that their opinion deserves to be heard regardless of what the user or the mods or the community has already expressed. Saying he was somehow “starting a discussion” makes no sense considering he knew that he would get banned and his comment removed. That was neither the time nor place to start any kind of discussion, and quite frankly I don’t think somebody attempting to have a good faith discussion would have it in that manner. If a transphobe went into a trans space that explicitly did not allow transphobes, and made a comment lamenting that they can’t ask questions in that community, would you still feel similarly? They just “see a wrong” in the world and are trying to start a discussion about it. Or would you think that it is OK for some spaces to have rules that are not up for discussion, especially within that space?

He might not have known that he would be getting banned from other subs, but as a user of several subs, I fully support admins taking steps to block people who willingly break rules of other marginalized communities. I think reasonable minds can disagree on this last point, but blahaj is pretty famous for being strict with bans even if not on the community/instance in question and the users of that instance actually really like that. I don’t know if this will be escalated, or if the ban will even stay in place, but my understanding is that people like that instance specifically because the mods there are so vigilant.

I’m not trying to get into an argument here, and based on your one sentence response, it seems like you’re not either, but angry posts in general don’t mean anything. I see a lot of angry posts about healthcare or the government or the increasing descent into fascism, and if somebody commented on any of those that they didn’t like seeing it, I wouldn’t necessarily think that comment was productive. Posts are allowed to be angry because people are allowed to be angry. Especially about injustice and oppression, which I imagine a lot of the “angry posts” are actually about, considering it’s a community of marginalized people for marginalized people. Just something to think about.

Thank you so much for providing that context. It is so funny that they said that their original post is in good faith, when even this post describing the situation isn’t in good faith.