And it will be long term. It's far easier to destroy than to build, or repair.
Rhaedas
joined 2 years ago
That's a hell of a reduction.
1 in 6000 chance for an American nickel, which has a thicker side than most. Just for others sake. I felt it was far less than just <1% and had to find out.
Individual creatures do have their own traits that make them differ from the rest. They aren't robots following the exact same instruction for every stimulus. That being said, personality implies a sense of agency or self-awareness, and I don't think they have that. Humans have a built in desire to anthropomorphize anything that begins to resemble something human-like, it's in our brain.
Why wouldn't they give an example of what they are talking about?
The twist - AI was originally trained on human input, so it's human even with 99% bots, from a certain point of view.
for what it's worth, Mbin can see and interact with both Lemmy type communities as well as the Mastodon type of broadcasts. They are still two different parts, but within a single interface. Often I see things on the sidebar from them, usually dropped into "Random" as the algorithm doesn't know what to put it in, and have the same thoughts as you. That it seems like it's shouting out into nothingness. But...I could respond to the commentary, and it would bounce back to them. It's just a different way to communicate, not as "permanent" as a discussion board format.
"Stop shooting ourselves in the feet!"
So many decisions being made are very isolationist, and that never works well for the one shutting everyone else out. But who looks at history, right?
"I've got a bad feeling about this."
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
"Get busy livin', or get busy dyin'.'"
"Now that's a real shame when folks be throwin' away a perfectly good white boy like that."
Yes. That's why I said what I said in the parentheses, different beliefs have different afterlife ideas, some may not have a hell but might have other punishments. The point was a relationship where one or both thinks the other is going to suffer later but is okay with it can't be very deep. If it's a religion where there isn't such a thing, then there isn't a conflict (at least not in that sense).
I think the biggest problem is when one partner believes that the other is condemned for eternity in some way (not just a hell, but also other forms like reincarnation to a lower state or anything else deemed bad)...and either they spend the relationship trying to change the other person and probably ruining it, or worse, they accept that fate for someone they claim to love.
As an atheist, I don't have that concern that my loved one is doomed to torment somehow, I just have the here and now to try and make their life with me as pleasant as I can. There is the issue of whether or not an atheist could live with someone whose rational is governed by beliefs that affect their judgement, either like mentioned above trying to convert them for their sake, or in other ways where religion steers them vs. having their own thoughts. But for what I think is a large majority, religious people mostly go through the motions if any just to fill some subconscious uncertainty and it's not enough to threaten a relationship with a differing viewpoint.
The human brain is very good at compartmentalizing things to help us get through the day.
"if you gave ~~Jerry Falwell~~ Jimmy Swaggart an enema you could bury him in a matchbox." - Christopher Hitchens (would have said RIP)