I think you’re confusing social media and late stage capitalism. Social media hasn’t done anything to anyone, capitalism has used social media to further its own ends.

“S’iomadh Rid” (“The Dhith Om / Clamor A Ni Mi”) sung by Rhiannon Giddens

I think a lot of it is that he spends much more strategically and with lots of strings attached. He also does a lot of work to basically indoctrinate folks who aren’t big players and fund them until they are - JD Vance being a prime example. He’s basically developed into a cult leader for rich wannabes and ends up owning their asses.

Like all of his fanboys, you first attempted to minimize his history by saying it was all about him saying the “N” word. When I said it was actually more than that and provided info about the most egregious example, you said “oh, that was so long ago!”. I provide info on another incident from 3 years ago, and you’re complaining about how I’m trying to castrate the guy.

If you don’t like factual statements about his history of behavior and the obvious patterns, maybe don’t idolize an asshole? But don’t come into public spaces and try and sell it as “Oh, he just said a naughty word once. Isn’t weird how upset people were about that? He was young/it was a long time ago/he’s changed now.”

Yeah, because there hasn’t been anything since then, right?

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/youtube-star-apologizes-controversial-video-220742348.html

Or does the counter automatically get reset every time there’s another apology video? There have been so many, after all.

The lengths some of you all go to in order to defend a racist, Nazi-cosplaying edgelord who makes fun of people with disabilities is a little insane.

“Kjellberg tacitly compares himself to Hitler, gives a Nazi salute, and shows a series of clips of Nazi imagery, including a crowd of Nazis saluting, Nazi soldiers marching, and footage of Hitler Youth.”

Yeah, if you don’t see “nazi” after that, that’s on you I think.

More so for being/cosplaying (same thing) as a fucking nazi https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/2/17/14613234/pewdiepie-nazi-satire-alt-right

Archive

Black gospel music has often been the only Christian-oriented music that really did it for me. A lot of blues, soul, etc was created by folks who got their start in black gospel music, and used what they learned there in secular genres. Hugely influential in so many different types of music.

Would’ve been 100% funnier if they were talking about Henry Winkler.

My ideal trifecta - fresh tomatoes, green olives, pepperoni

Something like this? https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2022/10/31/former-head-of-tesla-ai-explains-why-theyve-removed-sensors-others-differ/

“He’s actually a pretty cool guy.”

Parasocial relationship much?

Yeah, these are popping up all over the place - all from different users with newly created accounts and no other post/comment history. Most definitively sus.

In addition to the point about Western mythologies dominating because of cultural exports, I think there is also the undercurrent of England’s original mythologies having been “lost” and so the English were always fascinated by the mythologies of the Norse (due to being invaded) and by the Greeks and Romans (as previous “great” civilizations they aspired to be).

Combine that with America’s obvious English influences and the influence of England as a colonizer around the world, and those mythologies gained a huge outsized influence.

I probably didn’t explain well enough. Consuming media (books, TV, film, online content, and video games) is predominantly a passive experience. Obviously video games less so, but all in all, they only “adapt” within the guardrails of gameplay. These AI chatbots however are different in their very formlessness - they’re only programmed to maintain engagement and rely on the LLM training to maintain an illusion of “realness”. And because they were trained on all sorts of human interactions, they’re very good at that.

Humans are unique in how we continually anthropomorphize tons of not only inert, lifeless things (think of someone alternating between swearing at and pleading to a car that won’t start) but abstract ideals (even scientists often speak of evolution “choosing” specific traits). Given all of that, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be worried about a teen with a still developing prefrontal cortex and who is in the midst of working on understanding social dynamics and peer relationships to embue an AI chatbot with far more “humanity” than is warranted. Humans seem to have an anthropomorphic bias in how we relate to the world - we are the primary yardstick we use to measure and relate everything around us, and things like AI chatbots exploit that to maximum effect. Hell, the whole reason the site mentioned in the article exists is that this approach is extraordinarily effective.

So while I understand that on a cursory look, someone objecting to it comes across as a sad example of yet another moral panic, I truly believe this is different. For one, we’ve never had access to such a lively psychological mirror before and it’s untested waters; and two, this isn’t some objection on some imagined slight against a “moral authority” but based in the scientific understanding of specifically teen brains and their demonstrated fragility in certain areas while still under development.

Same! And if anyone disagrees, feel free to get in the comments! 😉

I understand what you mean about the comparison between AI chatbots and video games (or whatever the moral panic du jour is), but I think they’re very much not the same. To a young teen, no matter how “immersive” the game is, it’s still just a game. They may rage against other players, they may become obsessed with playing, but as I said they’re still going to see it as a game.

An AI chatbot who is a troubled teen’s “best friend” is different and no matter how many warnings are slapped on the interface, it’s going to feel much more “real” to that kid than any game. They’re going to unload every ounce of angst into that thing, and by defaulting to “keep them engaged”, that chatbot is either going to ignore stuff it shouldn’t or encourage them in ways that it shouldn’t. It’s obvious there’s no real guardrails in this instance, as if he was talking about being suicidal, some red flags should’ve popped up.

Yes the parents shouldn’t have allowed him such unfettered access, yes they shouldn’t have had a loaded gun that he had access to, but a simple “This is all for funsies” warning on the interface isn’t enough to stop this from happening again. Some really troubled adults are using these things as defacto therapists and that’s bad too. But I’d be happier if lawmakers were much more worried about kids having access to this stuff than accessing “adult sites”.

No idea on the song, may have better luck identifying the singer, and working backwards from there? Maybe something by Fine Young Cannibals? Certainly the most notable falsetto that comes to mind for that era for me.

That’s certainly where the term originated, but usage has expanded. I’m actually fine with it, as the original idea was about the pattern recognition we use when looking at faces, and I think there’s similar mechanisms for matching other “known” patterns we see. Probably with some sliding scale of emotional response on how well known the pattern is.