This entire block is baffling to me:

Users aren’t entirely blameless, either. There’s something vicious about replacing a real human being with a totally submissive lust machine.

Early studies suggest narcissism is prevalent among users of this technology. Normalising harmful sexual behaviours such as rape, sadism or paedophilia is bad news for society.

All of this made me think people using these bots were found to be narcissistic in the linked study and seems to connect this with the listed harmful sexual behaviors. Instead, the linked study found that attitudes toward digital immortality (specifically through creation of AI bots that can live on after your death) are linked to narcissistic personality traits. This seems entirely unrelated to the topic and it seems manipulative to throw it in there like this.

There were rumors that the wealthy wanted Biden out back when people started calling for him to quit. It seems like it probably all traces back to Lina Khan being head of the FTC.

It’s going to be real funny when a bunch of people that don’t care much about tech shrug this off and everyone else ends up having to deal with some massive botnet a few years down the line.

The post you responded to was responding to someone that got in trouble for using a pay phone to call home when school was canceled.

Hey, speak for yourself! Some of us take communion…

It’s too bad the websites that do this don’t have to put a label on it in the U.S. Something like “Not for consumption in the E.U.” to make people wonder what’s going on.

I have MAGA family members and it’s not just 1+1=5. It’s a word-vomit tsunami of absolute bullshit. And if you convince them that point 1/367 is not factual, they won’t accept that it disqualifies anything else (including the idea that he never tells lies), and you will have to re-prove that point 1/367 is not factual a few weeks later. It’s exhausting, and I’m fairly sure that is the point (and I’m fairly sure this is also an actual Russian propaganda technique called a “firehose of falsehoods”, regardless of whether it’s being used in that context).

I had no idea about this. I studied neural networks briefly over 10 years ago, but hadn’t heard the term until the last year or two.

What I don’t like about it is that it makes it sound more benign than it is. Which also points to who decided to use that term - AI promoters/proponents.

Edit: it’s like all of the bills/acts in congress where they name them something like “The Protect Children Online Act” and you ask, “well, what does it do?” And they say something like, “it lets local police read all of your messages so they can look for any dangers to children.”