Is your opposition to AI in general or generative AI? Because there’s absolutely no need for generative AI here.

I won’t have an opportunity to watch a video for a while, so maybe the answer is clearer with that context, but I don’t have it right now.

If the purpose of the bot is to help you find people to interact with, I think so. In my case, I’ve already made the space, but there’s no one to interact with. I don’t know if it’s a matter of no one on Lemmy having the same interests or that they don’t know that the community exists. A bot/person to redirect people there would at least rule out the possibility of the latter.

One of the problems with Lemmy right now is that it’s hard to find people with similar interests to connect and exchange ideas with. It doesn’t need to be perfectly optimal, but an improvement would be nice.

Are there people who want to do it manually and capable of doing so? If so, that’ll be ideal, but otherwise, it’s a perfect use case for automation.

The kid actually answered the question. The teacher’s expected response is basically “no, your question is wrong and I refuse to answer it.”

If a government raises taxes for something so that working class people cannot buy it, that government becomes richer by exploiting the working class.

1. If the working class cannot buy it, then they are not getting taxed. If the government is making more money from implementing that taxation scheme, then all that money has to come from those who are wealthier than the working class.
2. You only become richer if you hold on to the money. The government’s job is to spend that money to the benefit of its constituents, not hoard money.

In the past there have been ice ages while the atmospheric CO2 level was 10 times higher than it is now.

Implying we want another ice age?

The notion that eating insects will save the world seems a little dubious.

I agree

Legally, yes. But laws get broken all the time.

When someone starts complaining about what bathroom everyone is using, you can’t just ignore it and hope it goes away. It’s your job as their superior to address these issues.

Similarly,

Their gender/identity should have absolutely zero impact on the ability to do their job.

Making this stance clear requires talking about gender identity and politics.

I’ve never gotten sick from undercooked chicken either, but that doesn’t mean I’m willing to take the risk. Gastro is no fun, and well done burgers taste great (unless maybe if you use very lean meat?) so it’s all upsides with no downsides.

Are you maybe just using very lean ground beef? In my experience, 15% ground beef is very hard to overcook.

Where glass wins big is in reusability. We need to get people to refill/reuse their glass bottles rather than recycling them.

Context will tell you that we’re talking about losing access to water. If people won’t procreate because they don’t have water, it makes no difference if it’s because we are literally all out of water or if someone else is hoarding it all. In both cases, there’s no access to water.

Remember when we had mailing lists that basically acted like forums and group chats with your various friend groups that consisted of these long email chains?

I really can’t think of a time where I have. But I also don’t see myself making factual claims about anything without having sufficient first hand experience. If I get into any kind of online “argument”, my contribution is basically only going to be logic, not facts. The other person brings the facts and we walk down the logic tree together.

They’re also highly incentivized to make you eat it when it’s freshest so you have a good experience with their food and become a repeat customer.

It would be exceedingly rare for one party to get enough votes to form a majority under PR.

The current system would encourage the formation of coalition governments. Those coalitions would probably not look too different from the big parties we currently have since parties would only group together if they have sufficiently similar goals. This does make it very likely that the majority coalition maintains a fairly stable high level agenda over time.

Barring a trump-style lunatic jacking up the executive branch

It could happen, but that’s not what I’m worried about. I don’t believe that any single law we pass would be deemed unjust in isolation, but the totality of laws can be. If everything is set up to benefit the majority, then everyone else gets left behind. It’s not a matter of malice. They’re just not considered in the calculus.

An example that comes to mind is the treatment of native Americans. They keep getting the short end of the stick, and while some concessions are made, it’s never because someone looked at the numbers and decided their situation was unfair. It happens because of some combination of public pressure and the benevolence of the people in charge. How many other such groups are there that are still getting completely ignored because the public don’t know about them?

I don’t see how the vote count contradicts that message. As of this moment, the vote count (upvotes - downvotes) is 110 on the parent comment criticizing the use of AI art and 260 on the main post. Technically a minority, but it’s a sizable minority.

I also don’t agree that it’s off-topic. The contents of the meme is the topic. The contents are AI generated, so that makes it one of the topics.

Survival takes priority over enrichment. There’s nothing elitist about survival.

That’s how it works in Canada. There’s a set amount given to the parent giving birth, then the rest can be split however you want.

For sure. I was suggesting we look at the stock market model as inspiration, not to copy it exactly. I don’t really know what the exact solution would look like. I haven’t thought through this as deeply as Pete probably would have.