In my previous comment I said that thinking Russia does evil things just because it is evil for no real reason is ridiculous and he just proved my point by doubling down on it and making it seem even more silly.
In any case, I can’t help but wonder how a sane adult individual can actually believe that. This is not lord of the rings, and Russia is not Mordor.
This person(and you, presumably) says that a civilian aircraft, belonging to a nation that Russia wants to keep in it’s sphere of influence and has no reason to offend was shot down on purpose, despite the fact that any such case is a cause for suspicion and apprehension just because they are evil, basically.
That is what they meant, I’m pretty sure, that there is no point trying to understand what Russia does, it just does stuff because they are evil, so every fact should be interpreted in a way that makes them the most evil.
In any case, why shouldn’t their motives make sense to anyone else? They are not aliens, are they?
What do you mean “they don’t need a reason”? Are you insane?
It was a matter of time until the public found out about this. They couldn’t think in the long term, by not accepting a bit of backlash, exposing the scam they unknowingly participated in they only opened themselves up for more later.
They are not only evil, they are stupid too, which is worse.
I understand that idiots can misunderstand something if it is ambiguous, but that does not mean that ambiguity should be forbidden. If at the end of “American Psycho” there was a title saying “this film is a criticism of capitalist culture and its effect on people”, it would be worse as a film, a work of art and a statement than it is now. It would be ridiculous and disrespectful towards the audience.
It’s literally in the name, “american psycho”, it is almost stated explicitly, but they STILL do not get it. What is it that you want exactly? Our media and discourse to be made with only unintelligent people in mind?
Ok fine, I can accept this can be used SOMETIMES when you need to make something completely unambiguous, but more often than not you want the opposite - amd most things don’t have anything to do with nazism, and sarcasm can be picked up easily usually as well.
Is this an actual reason for why people do that, an ad hoc explanation, or a view that just a few people hold?
I partly agree with your second point, but the thing is that you have to figure out the person does not mean what they say - that’s the point. If you state the sarcasm explicitly it is not really sarcasm. And while in some contexts it can be hard to know for sure whether something is sarcasm, I do not think this is a problem, and it is more often than not, like in this case, rather obvious.
Also, for the “antifascist” thing to work you would have to take everything everyone says at face value to make sure there are no ambiguities. So if made a joke withut the “/s” or “/j” or whatever you would assume I am being serious? Honestly, making our communication more primitive just so that fascists are marginally easier to spot(I mean you can probably figure it out without the “/s” anyway) is, in my opinion, absurd.
I feel like the “/s” thing always ruins the joke. For me, it’s the ambiguity that makes it funny, if sarcasm is stated explicitly it just doesn’t work that well.
I see it a lot nowadays, so my comment is not targeted at you, do not take it personally. Just a thought I had.
The two rhetorical questions in your first paragraph assume the universe is discrete and finite, and I am not sure why. But also, that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. You think that if you show the computers and brains work the same way(they don’t), or in a similar way(maybe) I will have to accept an AI can do everything a human can, but that is not true at all.
Treating an AI like a subject capable of receiving information is inaccurate, but I will still assume it is identical to a human in that regard for the sake of argument.
It would still be nothing like a college student grappling with abstract concepts. It would be like giving you university textbooks on quantum mechanics written in chinese, and making you study them(it would be even more accurate if you didn’t know any language at all). You would be able to notice patterns in the ways the words are placed relative to each other, and also use this information(theoretically) to make a combination of characters that resembles the texts you have, but you wouldn’t be able to understand what they reference. Even if you had a dictionary you wouldn’t be, because you wouldn’t be able to understand the definitions. Words don’t magically have their meanings stored inside, they are jnterpreted in our heads, but an AI can’t do that, the word means nothing to it.
If the only thing you feed an AI is words, then how would it possibly understand what these words mean if it does not have access to the things the words are referring to?
If it does not know the meaning of words, then what can it do but find patterns in the ways they are used?
This is a shitpost.
We are special, I am in any case.
They wouldn’t be able to get it out otherwise.
Only their goal isn’t simply to destabilise everyone for the sake of it, believe it or not.
And you most certainly can understand it if you try. I don’t agree with a lot of things that were done, but I certainly can at least vaguely see the rationale. Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
Your approach is very condescending and dehumanising. You must understand, that there are both sides to every conflict, and the other side has some reasons that seem moral to them. Ignoring that is counterproductive.