minnow

same way an LLM is able to produce coherent and convincing sentences by statistically determining what word is likely to follow another

To me this implies that the navigation AI is going to hallucinate parts of its model of the world, because it's basing that model on what's statically the most likely to be there as opposed to what's actually there. What could go wrong?

I really admire your optimism.

Oh, we definitely have a legal system. It's used against poor people every day.

It's a justice system that we've never had.

Why do you think his first order of business is to court martial anybody who he thinks won't do his bidding?

I give it two years, tops, before some states start ban teachers from saying that the civil war was because of slavery. And because the DoE will be dismantled there's nothing stopping them from doing just that

Fascists love the notion of a natural order, because it gives them license to hold power over people "lower in the hierarchy." They'll use anything and everything to establish whatever "natural order" serves their purpose at any given moment, and IQ works quite nicely in a lot of situations.

Wish instead of learning bullshit math, I was taught how to ~~repair stuff around my house that I use everyday~~ do things that frequently use the Pythagorean theorem

FTFY

Honestly though, you don't know what you don't know, right? So nbd. But yeah, home improvement goes a lot smoother when you know your basic geometry math. So genuinely, I wish you were taught both.

You know how long Caesar was dictator for life before he was assassinated? Less than a year.

But the damage was done, and Rome had a civil war over whether it would go back to being a Republic like it had been or if it would have an autocratic ruler. Obviously, the latter won out.

A lesson from history.

Are you upset that Trump won?

Aaaand you trust Trump to do that, without any oversight?

My point about the presence of ideology in this discussion is that it started without ideology being a factor, that I was discussing economics the same way one might discuss physics out biology. You brought ideology into it, and I answered those points as best as I could given the blatant misunderstandings that I perceived regarding the economic aspects of your ideology. As an avowed socialist myself, I won't try to claim that I don't have views impacted by ideology but that doesn't mean ideology can't be set aside when discussing sciences like economics. Indeed, seeing ideology aside is imperative to understanding the real nature of the observable world, and these observations must inform one's ideology least one start saying things like "2+2=5". Which is precisely what I feel you've been doing. You're rejecting explanations of how economies work because it doesn't fit your ideological views. That is folly.

Given that your original question has been answered repeatedly, and you've rejected those answers, I can only conclude that the questions were asked in bad faith. I don't think further conversation will be productive. The only "fight" to be "won" is one that you started, and I'm tired of playing chess with pigeons. If you feel that means you "won" the discussion, then more power to you. Feel free to hit me up again when you want to actually understand things as they are, instead of how you think they ought to be.

Ah yes, Hanlon's razor. Genuinely a great one to keep in mind at all times, along with it's corollary Clarke's law: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."

But in this particular case I think we need the much less frequently cited version by Douglas Hubbard: "Never attribute to malice or stupidity that which can be explained by moderately rational individuals following incentives in a complex system."