The same thing every billionaire did: He took it from other people.

Right. And that problem compounds itself, as well. The more AI generated information that exists and inevitably is fed back into the algorithm, the worse the outcomes will get because algorithms will essentially inbreed themselves off the data they generate.

But these companies are desperate to hook other companies on AI. If they can generate income off of AI by renting other companies AI workers, they’ve made you a perpetual customer. The boss is asking workers to use these AI to feed more specific data into the algorithm to better mimic the workers because the more workers that use these, the more “good” data they can feed into them, to ultimately replicate your job functions.

It’s just… Bad from pretty much every angle.

Well defended. Truly, brevity.

What a dumb take.

People don’t use AI for a lot of reasons, but it’s not because their company said they couldn’t. Every programmer I know is being asked to use AI, and most of them find AI to be significantly shitty to use on top of how horrible it is to use it from an environmental, occupational, moral, and psychological view.

Like, skip past the parts where AI has killed people. Skip past the insane water usage. Skip past the emissions. Skip past the cognitive reduction in reasoning.

This thing was trained on whatever data they could get a hold of: the internet, discredited information, and biased data notwithstanding. When you’re lucky, it is basically a coin flip on whether it works or not. So, if you have no foundation about the question you ask it, you have no clue if that is a hallucination or a bad data point or a correct answer. And if you do, you have to double check the answer anyway.

AI, as it is now, is a glorified search engine doubling as a sycophant. The main purpose of the businesses that own and run AI is to keep you using it, forever. Whether it is good or bad at anything else is unintentional.

Whoa, man, that’s ridiculous. They’re just a furry.

It sounds like you didn’t even try!

Definitionally, if you say a part of being a woman is having breasts, and a woman doesn’t have breasts, you are saying they are either less of a woman or not a woman at all.

Either that, or your initial argument is wrong, and having breasts has nothing to do with being a woman, so there is nothing wrong with going topless as a woman.

I will say it feels like you definitely believe not having breasts makes you less of a woman because you said “technically makes you a woman” here, which is a weird thing to say if you were arguing that women shouldn’t be allowed to go topless for some sex-related reason.

Part of, you also have your vagina?

Part of

you also have your vagina?

You say disgusting things and try to backtrack when called out on them. You are such a coward to say horrible things and then pretend you didn’t.

No woman is defined by her breasts, vagina, or even chromosomes, and losing any part of her is not being less of a woman. Any woman with breast cancer is just as much of a woman before as after. Fuck you.

Oh, my bad. I’m glad you told her she is only less of a woman because she has no breasts.

People like you are sick in the head.

Women aren’t less women because they lose their breasts. They’re not less women for not having a vagina, whatever the fuck that means. Like, if your labia or clitoris are removed, are you less of a woman? If your uterus is removed, are you less of a woman? What a disgusting thing to tell women, that their womanhood is their genitals.

People like you make breast cancer so much harder than it already is.

Your thought process is weird and culturally sheltered.

Holy shit, that is a fucked up thing to say.

Like imagine telling a woman with cancer, “luckily, your vagina is the only thing keeping you a woman”. As if their genitalia is what defines them as a woman.

What a disgusting thing to say. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Removed by mod

So, any woman with a double mastectomy is no longer a woman? Damn, cancer keeps getting harder and harder.

It’s the same fucking guy who was abusing their mod powers before doing it again. They were banning people for “brigading” last week when called out for mod abuse.

So, I guess “brogading” will be a bannable offense now.

I think people hate right-wingers because they commit so much more violence on average. Like, by a factor of like 700%.

Why do you side with such violent people?

Don’t take this the wrong way, but go fuck yourself. If elections, laws, voting didn’t matter, people wouldn’t be trying to convince you they don’t.

God only said to honor thy father-san and thy mother-san, didn’t really have clear instructions on himself.

If I had a dollar for every child sex trafficker that Donald Trump was friends with, I would probably have more than just two dollars.

But, I think you don’t want sports segregated by sex assigned at birth, either. If you did, you would have trans men competing against women. And again, trans men still compete and win at sports while competing against other men just like any other masc athlete, and if your argument is that men, as a category, are better than women at sports, then you won’t accept trans men competing against women, either.

The thing is, there’s not much point debating you. It feels like you would probably be okay with excluding trans people from sports, and that feels more and more like the point with these types of debates. And if you are okay with trans men competing against men, then is it not kinda bigoted to not also be okay with trans women competing against women? Why exclude them for doing everything they can to make it fair? Even the Olympics had a plan for trans athletes that was statistically shown to be fair for competitors based on medical experts.

Like, in a perfect world, there would be better sports categorization, but until that point, we see trans women perform like women and trans men perform like men, so that is where we should allow them to compete. And if there is some sort of issue where someone (male or female, trans or cis) dramatically over performs, that would be a better time to deal with that particular one-off.

Anyway, feel free to look into long- and ultra-distance running for instances of women getting closer to men’s times, but, heck, women are closing the gap in shorter running competitions as well, even if at a slower rate. As for the 7% to -13% advantage, trans athletes were compared against cis athletes in a variety of activities, testing things from jump height to grip strength to wingspan, and the advantages in most categories ranged from a 7% advantage to a 13% disadvantage for the trans athlete on average. The biggest issue is that there just aren’t enough trans athletes to know how much of an advantage or disadvantage being trans gives you, but, on average, it is likely to be pretty minimal if there even is one.

Your argument is that these are unfair, but I pointed out the exact scenario you are saying is unfair. You can argue that any biological difference a trans woman has compared to a cis woman is unfair, but does that mean a cis woman who has all of those things is also unfair? And if the answer is no, then… Why is there even a problem?

These aren’t inherently unfair. They are perceived to be unfair because of how we segregate these sports and because we automatically just assume trans women are stronger, better, faster, etc than cis women, which isn’t true. Again, the statistics we have show that cis and trans athletes have a statistical advantage in a wide variety of sports and activities between 7% to -13%.

Like, we see similar outcomes for trans men, and these concerned people do not give a shit about those athletes. You would think trans men would absolutely fail compared to men, given how poor these people think female athletes compare, but they don’t. They do just as well compared to their cis counterparts.

Hell, several sports are starting to have women with results similar to men. Sure, a lot of weight and strength-based sports still see substantial differences, but many stamina- and speed-based sports are becoming quite competitive. This is why cultural differences also matter. A lot of our sports and health science is geared towards male athletes, and we treat female sports and competitors as lesser, from how we fund them to how we train them.