namarie

I can agree on the context windows, but what other output structure would you have?

Do try Kant; being "methodic and logical" in no way implies being easy to read!

I'd honestly track his statements down to the second.

Which by consequence would be extremely destructive to most forms of entertainment at least in the short and medium term.

So, just to be clear, your "good first step to solving much of society's problems" is... ending most forms of entertainment?

Honestly, he's squandering his name/reputation and his internet points.

Again, no one is claiming that people who participate are stupid for doing so. Why are you insisting on the idea that others see people in financial difficulty as stupid?

Nor did I say I'm the sole arbiter of what's demeaning. We both seem to agree at least that peeing oneself in public is demeaning, but some third person might not see it that way at all.

I think so, yes. It'd be even better if he just gave the money, no strings attached.

Are "poors" too stupid to make decisions for themselves? Everyone in that video received thousands of dollars. I'm nowhere near poor, but if I was given an opportunity, I'd probably participate.

No one's saying they're stupid for participating. If I was offered thousands of dollars for peeing in my pants in public for a video, I'd very probably take the offer and no one would think I was stupid for it; it would still be a demeaning and exploitative offer to make.

If people followed the "optimal move" all the time, assuming you mean it in a financial sense, there wouldn't be any teachers or social workers or librarians.

If everyone gets the relief of knowing they are free to pursue what they like without risk of starving, I imagine it'd be way easier to find meaning in the world than it is now.

GGGGP: The point of life is not to need jobs in order to survive, the point of life is enjoyment

GGGP: Well, for most people, if they don't have to have a job, their life becomes a sucking void of boredom. These are the only two options

GGP: Nope, plenty of jobs can be a sucking void of boredom for people. It's not like having to clean toilets in order not to starve is incredibly meaningful for the people that have to do it

GP: Well, I like helping neighbors for free sometimes. But I wouldn't want to do it every day for strangers

P (me): I don't see the connection. You literally said you enjoyed doing something for free, so you're not talking about jobs. You could still do it if you didn't need a job to survive, nor would not needing a job to survive force you to do it for fun for strangers.

In any case, it's clear we interpreted the previous messages in a very different manner. In particular, as I've said elsewhere, people seem to be confusing jobs with work. Not needing jobs is not the same as people having to stop working, usually quite the contrary - people would be free to work more on stuff that they enjoy.

So forcing people to either get a job or be poor is for their own good, then? Just because you don't agree with how people chose to spend their time in a very nerve-wracking situation? This sounds very condescending.

Becoming unemployed may not be the exact same thing as a lockdown during a pandemic? Don't you think people dying in the hundreds of thousands due to disease has more to do with rise in depression than anything else?

People volunteer to help those who naturally garner sympathy (poor, homeless, invalid, etc).

Not really? Plenty of people volunteer to help people in jail, for example.

On the other hand, those in the unproductive class won't want this kind of "help" either.

People won't want help to find meaning in their lives? I find it hard to believe. Churches and clubs, as you also said, used to (and still do) help provide people with that as well, so I'm not sure you truly believe it either.

Why do it through a corporation rather than through government?

Over a hundred countries agreed to a 15% global minimum corporate tax rate starting this year. It's not nearly enough, but it's a start, and it shows we can tax rich people and corporations.

So what you're saying is that when people have more guaranteed income uncoupled from a job they have to do, in this case in the form of a retirement, they can and do choose to do lots of meaningful, enjoyable work? Which I think is the original point in this discussion?

No one is arguing for you to either stop helping your neighbors for free nor to do it every day for strangers, so I really don't see the point in this.

Hobbies aren't necessarily only relevant to oneself, so no, they don't fit. Running a marathon can be a hobby, and lots of people compete in those together.

However, the previous argument was about boredom, not about being "on a hedonistic treadmill", which sounds pretty vague, not to mention judgmental.

There is a certain segment of the population that will find productive work to do that give their life meaning if left to their own devices. There is another segment that absolutely will become blobs or worse (engage in mischief, anti-social behavior, etc).

Even if that is true, and I very much doubt that it is, a big chunk of the "productive" segment's work will be to help the other segment. People already do that a lot by volunteering. Imagine how much more people could psychologists, social workers, and others help if they don't have to worry about their own livelihoods?

I think people are confusing having a job with work. Making things out of epoxy resin takes a lot of work and it's satisfying. If everyone had UBI people would absolutely still work a lot. It's just that they wouldn't have to have a job in order not to become destitute.

Suppose the concussed person ends up muttering what would amount to a beautiful poem in one's own native language. Why wouldn't I think of it as beautiful and even artistic even if I know perfectly well the person in question didn't intend it to be so? Of course when we're speaking about language there's a very real sense in which the person didn't intend to create a poem - nor did the ants intend to draw Winston Churchill - nor did an AI intend to make a picture of a cat. But then again, the tree on my street didn't intend to be beautiful, nor did the pink clouds at sunset - so what? I'm perfectly capable of furnishing the semantics myself, thank you.

Honestly I think that would make me more interested in the story, not less.

Why would you think it's easier? Pain/pleasure is a lot older in animals than language, which to me means it's probably been a lot more refined by evolution.

Not to mention that we'll never know for sure whether the doomsday scenario would have come true or not. So it might still have been a good response.

Aren't squirrels and frogs expected to have an axis of symmetry? I think the reason for the failures is the presence of faces; it seems to be trying to make a face visible from all angles.

first, neural nets are much more closely related to applied statistics than biology mimicry

Well, aren't biological systems really really refined statistical systems?

Sure, it's not copyright infringement

Which was precisely what the discussion was about.

But you could argue that this takes away from the hardship the original artist had to go through to perfect their style

You could argue the same things about photoshop, a lot of other digital tools, drum machines, the photograph and the phonograph.

Huh? Ebooks are still books.