You don’t even have to recognize AI faces. If it’s a mugshot with a wacky title, it’s fake.

I always considered myself centrist, which by today’s standards makes me a radical leftist. At some point the Overton Window flew past me and is now a far off speck in the distance. I’m surprised I was included to be honest. I often post things that have nuance, which always seems to piss actual radical leftists.

I’m surprised no one has said AllTrails since it’s one of the biggest. Is there something bad about that app I’m unaware of?

I always think they’re gone, but every time there’s a community pixel art thing like /r/place, there are always tons of ponys, so I guess they’re still around somewhere.

I hate saying this, I feel gross saying this, but the internet needs restrictions. I don’t know what the solution is. I hate all the ones that are being tried right now like age verification or needing an ID, because they really seem more focused on surveillance than anything else… But… God damn.

The general public should not have unfettered access to the internet. I think we have shown that this technology is too dangerous for humanity as a whole. There’s just too many idiots and bad actors. Again, I don’t know what the solution is. How do you balance privacy and personal freedom with the dangers that come with giving everyone access to everything? Unfortunately, I don’t see a solution that doesn’t come off as draconian or controlling in some way, shape, or form.

Maybe it’s something like a multi-layer internet, where the first layer anyone can access but is mostly read-only with a few exceptions. If you want to access the second layer which allows you to post, comment, upload, etc., you need a license. The barrier to entry should be small, something on the level of a HAM radio license. A simple class, an easy test, and a small one-time fee and you’re good for 10 years. You can even allow access for anyone at a library, university, or business.

It wouldn’t fix everything, and deep down I know that if anything like this were tried it would be twisted and warped by the powers that be to become just another form of control, but holy shit we need something or society is going to tear itself apart.

At that point, just have spray paint on a stick. Or better, just a long paint roller.

Ok, sure. But I want you to answer that question. At what age will you start being suspicious? I want you to have a number in your head, so that when that time comes, you don’t ignore it.

I don’t know if it’s still the case, but it was often stated that Nintendo had enough cash reserves to operate at a loss for 50 years and still be fine.

Maybe if you’re mentally ill.

The man who killed John Lennon did so because he was convinced that The Catcher in the Rye was telling him to do so. Do we blame The Catcher in the Rye? Or do we recognize that the guy had underlying mental issues and anything could have set him off?

Sure, I suppose one could come to that conclusion if they were an idiot.

Deserve? No. It seems like you are unaware that there is a difference between Darwinism and the Darwin Awards, because that’s a wild jump to conclusions otherwise.

A toddler doesn’t deserve to get burned because it sticks its hand in a campfire. But the solution isn’t to ban campfires in some misguided attempt to stop all toddlers everywhere from getting burned. It’s not the campfire’s fault that a toddler lacks the mental capacity to understand that sticking a limb in an open fire is bad.

You could force everyone to put toddler proof gates around their fires, or ban toddlers from camping trips, or force people to make smaller fires that toddlers won’t get as hurt by if they stick their hand in it… Or, you could recognize that it’s up to the parents to prevent things like that; that the vast majority of toddlers won’t stick their hand in fire.

Maybe you don’t agree. Maybe you feel banning campfires is justified to prevent mentally deficient toddlers from hurting themselves. Just know that even if you succeed, toddlers will still find ways to hurt themselves, so you’re not really preventing much of anything by banning the fires.

Sure, sure AI bad and all that, but the cold hard truth is there will always be dumbasses that kill themselves or get themselves killed because they do not have the capacity to survive in this world.

You can try to put in safeguards, you can try to make warnings, you can try to make regulations, but no matter how many improvements you make, they’ll always make a better idiot.

I mean, increased temperatures and drought certainly aren’t helping, but I think the bigger cause of the wildfire smoke would probably be burning trees, not burning oil.

If you are convinced to kill yourself by a chat bot, that says a lot more about you than it does the chat bot.

This is how it is going to go. This is the only way it could go. From the scammers at the company, to the idiots investing in them, to the doomers panicking at the repercussions; not a damn one of them has spent even 5 minutes thinking about this from a physics perspective.

I started asking this a few years ago to people as kind of a joke, but it’s less of a joke now:

At what age of Trump still being alive will you go “wait a second…” and start to suspect there is a drug or treatment that the elite have access to that extends their life that they aren’t telling the public about?

I don’t mean better access to higher quality medical care. I don’t mean a personal team of doctors. I mean a drug or treatment that can extend lifespans by decades, even for those who live unhealthy lifestyles.

People get upset with me every time I point this out, but this is just a form of Darwinism. If a chat bot can convince someone to kill themselves, then that person wasn’t exactly playing with a full deck of cards to begin with.

The president is a pedophile. Morals are made up. Do whatever you want.

In real life, his legal team would tie up the process for 5+ years before settling for a small fine.