AI, Love and Violation; and the power of small data
Added 2024-06-19 16:26:56 +0000 UTC
Comments
The parenting conversation was very good. You guys almost said the words but the “debate” on participation trophies is not only aimed at the wrong people, it’s not new either. Who is always the target when the subject comes up? It’s the kids! “The kids only want their participation trophies!” Well, no, it’s the parents. Are the kids going out and buying these trophies? No, it’s the parents. Kids aren’t signing up for soccer or karate or softball because they want a trophy. They are signing up for fun, for friends or because the parents want them to. There’s always exceptions but the majority of kids wouldn’t care if they didn’t even get one for first place. The same people buying them are the ones who want them in the first place. And it’s not new. I’m 46. In 1986 my Mites hockey team came in 6th place out of 7 teams. We all got trophies. And we all wondered why. We didn’t ask for them and we didn’t want them. We played to have fun not for awards. So those same people who are now complaining loudest about participation trophies were the ones who shook the ground to start the avalanche
Joe Jacobbi
2024-06-22 04:19:16 +0000 UTCLoved the discussion on parenting. Could it be the subject of the next SGU book? ;)
Edward Barbour-Lacey
2024-06-20 15:38:23 +0000 UTCI try to refer to the information as incorrect rather than saying the person is wrong*. This is to make a distinction between the person and the information. I'm trying to be less confrontational in an environment that does not convey emotion and can be misinterpreted way too easily. We all have thoughts and ideas that did not originate with us, that's why it's important to scrutinize (apply critical thinking) to what we think. I also attempt to lead with what part of the information I agree with and then what I disagree with and why. When someone obstinately remains stubborn to facts, then I will tell them they are wrong. They are making the choice at that point. * After reading Bo Bennet (Uncomfortable Ideas), I disagreed with his use of the word "normal" not being applicable to transwomen. His reasoning had to do with the fractional percentage of transwomen compared to ciswomen. Technically correct, but functionally wrong. He ignores that people don't use "normal" solely to refer to the frequency of occurrences, especially people. Telling someone "You're not normal" (Abby something, Abby Normal) has zero to do with numbers. To me this was an appeal to definition, which is ironic considering Bennet wrote a book on logical fallacies.
Asymetra
2024-06-20 08:12:04 +0000 UTCAI as a parasocial relationship was portrayed in ST often. In another episode, Riker falls for a holographic woman that was boosted by the Bynars stealing and using the Enterprise to store their cultural data. When it's purged, the hologram woman is bland and less attractive. (Other holograms never suffer being "less" engaging at any point in time. Think about what that says.) Reginald Barclay runs into similar problems using the holodeck to make all of the Enterprise crew his friend.
Asymetra
2024-06-20 07:02:34 +0000 UTC
